Opinion ID: 213787
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reviewability of Claims

Text: The state appellate court determined that Mr. Sussman was not prejudiced by his counsel's failure because, based on its balancing of the DeSantis factors, [18] it would have sustained the denial of a timely motion to introduce the prior false allegations of sexual assault. Mr. Sussman maintains that the state court both misunderstood the nature of the prior false accusations as well as underestimated their probative value. DeSantis makes it clear that Wisconsin's rape shield law is an effort by the Wisconsin legislature to balance the need to protect complainants' dignity with the defendant's constitutional rights to a fair opportunity to defend and to a jury trial. 456 N.W.2d at 607. Indeed, considerations critical to a Wisconsin state court's determination of admissibility under Wisconsin Statutes sections 972.11(2)(b)3 and 971.31(11) are also important to a federal court's Confrontation Clause analysis. See infra pp. 352-55. To the extent that the state court weighed the factors embodied in the state statute, it engaged in a purely state-based process mandated by its legislature. [I]t is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions. In conducting habeas review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991). Consequently, we cannot engage in the reweighing of the DeSantis factors urged by Mr. Sussman. However, as Mr. Sussman argues and as DeSantis requires, the state court also must take into consideration the principles animating the federal Confrontation Clause in its final determination whether to admit evidence. [19] According to Mr. Sussman, the state court's ruling independently violated his rights to confront witnesses against him. When placed within the overarching context of his ineffective assistance claim, therefore, Mr. Sussman maintains that he did suffer prejudice as a result of his counsel's failures because, although not meritorious on state evidentiary grounds, the motion ultimately would have been granted because of the importance of the federal rights involved. As we shall explain in greater detail in the paragraphs that follow, this inquiry is a proper subject for habeas review.