Background
John A. Burmeister, proceeding pro se, sought postconviction relief from his 2007 convictions on multiple counts of sexual assault of a child. He argued that the judge who presided over his trial should have recused because the judge had previously presided over the trial of Burmeister’s sister, who had been accused and acquitted of sexually assaulting one of the same victims. During that prior trial, the judge heard extensive evidence concerning allegations against Burmeister.
Burmeister also challenged the denial of county funding for psychiatrist Dr. Terrance Campbell, whose fee exceeded the State Public Defender’s rate. He wanted Campbell to assess whether the victims had been influenced to make allegations and whether one victim had a propensity to fabricate. The circuit court concluded that a government-funded alternative expert was available. Psychologist Dr. Robert Barahal later reviewed available materials but could not render an opinion or testify.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed. The judge’s prior involvement in Burmeister’s sister’s case did not establish actual bias or an objectively reasonable appearance of bias. The appellate court found no prejudgment or antagonism in the trial record and concluded that the judge made individualized, reasonable rulings despite factual overlap between the two cases.
The court also held that Burmeister failed to show that Campbell’s testimony was necessary, material, and favorable to his defense. He supplied no affidavit describing Campbell’s proposed testimony, leaving no evidentiary basis to assess its value or how it would differ from Barahal’s potential testimony. Burmeister likewise did not identify additional materials that would have aided Barahal or supported his defense theory.
Key Takeaways
- A judge’s prior exposure to related allegations in another proceeding does not itself establish judicial bias.
- An indigent defendant seeking a publicly funded expert must make a particularized showing that the testimony is necessary and favorable to the defense.
- Without evidence identifying proposed expert testimony or additional helpful materials, a defendant cannot establish a violation of the right to present a defense.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the demanding proof required for postconviction claims premised on judicial bias and the denial of expert assistance. Related-case familiarity alone is insufficient absent a record showing actual unfairness, prejudgment, or circumstances creating an objective appearance that fair judgment was impossible.
It also confirms that requests for publicly funded experts require more than a preferred expert or a general theory of usefulness. Defendants must identify concrete, material, and favorable evidence the expert would provide.