State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Respondent v. James E. Erickson, Defendant-Respondent-Cross-Appellant

Summary

The court held that Erickson's failure to object to the denial of additional peremptory challenges required review under ineffective-assistance standards rather than automatic reversal. Because prejudice was not presumed when both sides received equal numbers of strikes and Erickson showed only speculation rather than a reasonable probability of a different result, his claim failed. The court also held that the trial court properly declined to strike Juror L for cause and remanded for reinstatement of the conviction.