Preparation of petitions for writ of certiorari seeking United States Supreme Court review of state and federal criminal cases.
Practice
Representation in direct appeals from criminal convictions in Wisconsin state courts, addressing trial errors, evidentiary issues, and constitutional violations.
Preparation and argument of petitions to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, seeking review of Court of Appeals decisions in criminal cases.
Challenges to a conviction filed after an unsuccessful direct appeal or after the timeline for a direct appeal has expired.
Motions seeking reduction or modification of criminal sentences based on new factors or changed circumstances.
Petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals challenging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in criminal cases.
Representation in direct appeals from federal criminal convictions and sentences in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging federal convictions and sentences based on constitutional violations, including ineffective assistance of counsel.
Federal habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging Wisconsin state convictions on federal constitutional grounds.
Preparation of petitions for writ of certiorari seeking United States Supreme Court review of state and federal criminal cases.
Defense of Wisconsin and federal child pornography charges, including CyberTipline investigations, digital forensics, and Fourth Amendment litigation.
National defense representation, consulting, and training in child pornography cases arising from the anonymous peer-to-peer network Freenet/Hyphanet.
Guidance on Wisconsin expungement eligibility and the steps required to seal court records after successful completion of a sentence.
Representation of victims of domestic abuse, stalking, and harassment in Wisconsin injunction proceedings on a case-by-case basis.
The United States Supreme Court is the court of last resort for both state and federal criminal cases, but its review is almost entirely discretionary. A party seeking review files a petition for writ of certiorari — a request that the Court take the case — and the Court grants only a small fraction of them. Of the thousands of petitions filed each term, roughly one percent are granted.
The deadline is 90 days. In a federal case, the clock runs from the entry of judgment by the court of appeals or the denial of rehearing. In a Wisconsin case, it runs from the Wisconsin Supreme Court's denial of a petition for review or its decision on the merits. Only federal questions — issues of federal constitutional or statutory law that were properly preserved below — can be presented.
Because review is discretionary, a certiorari petition is a fundamentally different document from an appellate brief. The Court's own rules explain that certiorari is rarely granted simply because a lower court got the case wrong. What the Court looks for are conflicts among the federal courts of appeals or state courts of last resort on an important legal question, decisions that conflict with the Supreme Court's own precedent, and unresolved questions of federal law whose importance extends well beyond the parties. An effective petition identifies and documents such a conflict, frames a clean question presented, and shows why the particular case is a good vehicle for resolving it.
Even where a grant of full review is unlikely, a petition can serve a strategic purpose. When the Supreme Court decides a new case that bears on a pending petition, the Court may grant the petition, vacate the lower court's decision, and remand for reconsideration in light of the new decision — a meaningful form of relief in its own right. And in cases headed toward federal habeas corpus review, the certiorari stage can affect the timing and posture of later filings, which makes it important to plan the entire postconviction sequence together.
Brad Novreske is admitted to the bar of the United States Supreme Court and prepares certiorari petitions arising from both Wisconsin state cases and federal cases nationwide, including cases at the intersection of the Fourth Amendment and technology, where the law remains unsettled and conflicts among the lower courts continue to develop.
To discuss your case confidentially, contact Novreske Law Office.