MONROE - Two Milwaukee lawyers who specialize in appeals, Ellen and Robert R. Henak, failed Thursday to present enough evidence or reasoning to convince Green County Circuit Court Judge Thomas Vale to allow a retrial or resentencing of James M. Norquay, 50, Juda.
Norquay, a former state trooper, was sentenced last year to 20 years in prison for sexually assaulting a teen girl, whom he and his wife fostered and later adopted.
Norquay's appeal contended his former defense counsel, Eric Schulenburg, failed to provide the jury with the full context of testimony and evidence to back up his pleas of not guilty.
Norquay appeared in court, in prison garb, handcuffs and shackled, for the evidentiary hearing on the appeal. The court proceedings were attended by at least 20 people, including Norquay's wife, Lori and a daughter, Lisa.
Lori and Lisa Norquay were called for questioning during the evidentiary hearing, as were a friend of the adopted daughter and Norquay's original defense lawyer, Eric Schulenburg. The hearing lasted more than six hours, with Schulenburg on the stand for nearly two and a half hours.
Ellen Henak's line of questioning attempted to show Schulenburg made "three errors" during the original trail. Schulenburg, she said, was made not privy to and failed to investigate certain evidence; failed to call to the stand certain witnesses; and failed to follow some lines of questioning with other witnesses, which all contributed to a defense performance that fell below standard.
Henak said Schulenburg failed to follow-up with the teen's friend to ensure she took the witness stand to collaborate his theory about the teen's large measure of lying about having a baby, about Norquay's sexual advances toward her and their sexual activities.
She questioned Lori Norquay as to why she did not inform Schulenburg of the teen's allegations of a rape by another individual. She also questioned Lisa Norquay about a visit to her parent's home, a statement by the teen about exposing information that could hurt the family, and a scrapbook the teen made to pass off Lisa's infant son as her own.
During cross examination, Winn Collins, prosecuting attorney with the State Attorney General office, proceeded to uncover Schulenburg's defense strategy, which Schulenburg explained was to show the teen's character as a repeat liar and not to expose his client, Norquay, to the prosecution's ability to damage Norquay's character through cross examinations of witnesses.
Judge Vale, who presided over the original trial, found Schulenburg's performance was not deficient, or "below an objective standard of reasonableness." Schulenburg presented a clear defense strategy and theory of defense, Vale said.
"A sound defense was set forth by the defense council," he added.
Evidence was not left out, Vale said.
In one instance, the teen's threat-like statement to Lisa Norquay was "sterilized" in written form, he said, but admitted into evidence by defense and prosecution's agreement, without exposing statements by Lisa's husband, Jeremy. Vale said Jeremy's damaging statement about the Norquay and the teen's relationships was a "little bomb waiting to happen," which Schulenburg was right in not exposing at trial.
Other evidence admitted at trial was sufficient to convince the jury of the teen's character, Vale concluded, and Schulenburg's decision not to present other evidence was not in error, unreasonable or unsound. He denied the motion to find the defense was ineffective and to reverse the sentencing on the same reasons.
In their motions, the Henaks were also seeking a resentencing on the grounds that Judge Vale misused his discretion by giving too much weight to deterrence and "sending a message." They contended Vale violated equal protection laws in his sentencing.
Robert Henak asked about the court's statements made just prior to passing a great sentence than normal on Norquay in January, and asked the court to "look into itself and ask if these statements were made to enhance the sentence."
Collins stated that the reasons for the harshness of the sentence fell beyond that one reason of general deterrence. The primary cause was the seriousness of the offenses and the number of offenses, "six, not one count," he said.
"I am in the interesting position of interpreting myself," Judge Vale said about the explaining his sentence for Norquay.
Deterrence was balanced with other considerations, he said.
"The intent was not to say it was a general deterrence, but to talk to the people in the court(room) about sentencing and how the system works," Vale said.
Other considerations, such as "the lack of remorse," "effect of the crime on the victim" and "the gravity of the charges," were mentioned during the sentencing, Vale said. Norquay was someone "in a position of power, who could have stopped but didn't," he added.
For the six major felony convictions, the sentence was "not unduly harsh," he concluded, and denied resentencing.
Norquay had pleaded not guilty to all six felony charges of sexual assault and incest, but a jury found him guilty at a trial in November 2011 based on testimony and court documents that indicate Norquay and the girl had numerous sexual encounters in 2008 and 2009, when she was then 15 and 16 years old.
Vale sentenced Norquay last January to 20 years in prison plus 15 years of extended supervision. If Vale had sentenced to the maximum allowed by law, Norquay could have faced 40 years imprisonment on each of the six counts against him.
- Katjusa Cisar contributed to this article.
Norquay, a former state trooper, was sentenced last year to 20 years in prison for sexually assaulting a teen girl, whom he and his wife fostered and later adopted.
Norquay's appeal contended his former defense counsel, Eric Schulenburg, failed to provide the jury with the full context of testimony and evidence to back up his pleas of not guilty.
Norquay appeared in court, in prison garb, handcuffs and shackled, for the evidentiary hearing on the appeal. The court proceedings were attended by at least 20 people, including Norquay's wife, Lori and a daughter, Lisa.
Lori and Lisa Norquay were called for questioning during the evidentiary hearing, as were a friend of the adopted daughter and Norquay's original defense lawyer, Eric Schulenburg. The hearing lasted more than six hours, with Schulenburg on the stand for nearly two and a half hours.
Ellen Henak's line of questioning attempted to show Schulenburg made "three errors" during the original trail. Schulenburg, she said, was made not privy to and failed to investigate certain evidence; failed to call to the stand certain witnesses; and failed to follow some lines of questioning with other witnesses, which all contributed to a defense performance that fell below standard.
Henak said Schulenburg failed to follow-up with the teen's friend to ensure she took the witness stand to collaborate his theory about the teen's large measure of lying about having a baby, about Norquay's sexual advances toward her and their sexual activities.
She questioned Lori Norquay as to why she did not inform Schulenburg of the teen's allegations of a rape by another individual. She also questioned Lisa Norquay about a visit to her parent's home, a statement by the teen about exposing information that could hurt the family, and a scrapbook the teen made to pass off Lisa's infant son as her own.
During cross examination, Winn Collins, prosecuting attorney with the State Attorney General office, proceeded to uncover Schulenburg's defense strategy, which Schulenburg explained was to show the teen's character as a repeat liar and not to expose his client, Norquay, to the prosecution's ability to damage Norquay's character through cross examinations of witnesses.
Judge Vale, who presided over the original trial, found Schulenburg's performance was not deficient, or "below an objective standard of reasonableness." Schulenburg presented a clear defense strategy and theory of defense, Vale said.
"A sound defense was set forth by the defense council," he added.
Evidence was not left out, Vale said.
In one instance, the teen's threat-like statement to Lisa Norquay was "sterilized" in written form, he said, but admitted into evidence by defense and prosecution's agreement, without exposing statements by Lisa's husband, Jeremy. Vale said Jeremy's damaging statement about the Norquay and the teen's relationships was a "little bomb waiting to happen," which Schulenburg was right in not exposing at trial.
Other evidence admitted at trial was sufficient to convince the jury of the teen's character, Vale concluded, and Schulenburg's decision not to present other evidence was not in error, unreasonable or unsound. He denied the motion to find the defense was ineffective and to reverse the sentencing on the same reasons.
In their motions, the Henaks were also seeking a resentencing on the grounds that Judge Vale misused his discretion by giving too much weight to deterrence and "sending a message." They contended Vale violated equal protection laws in his sentencing.
Robert Henak asked about the court's statements made just prior to passing a great sentence than normal on Norquay in January, and asked the court to "look into itself and ask if these statements were made to enhance the sentence."
Collins stated that the reasons for the harshness of the sentence fell beyond that one reason of general deterrence. The primary cause was the seriousness of the offenses and the number of offenses, "six, not one count," he said.
"I am in the interesting position of interpreting myself," Judge Vale said about the explaining his sentence for Norquay.
Deterrence was balanced with other considerations, he said.
"The intent was not to say it was a general deterrence, but to talk to the people in the court(room) about sentencing and how the system works," Vale said.
Other considerations, such as "the lack of remorse," "effect of the crime on the victim" and "the gravity of the charges," were mentioned during the sentencing, Vale said. Norquay was someone "in a position of power, who could have stopped but didn't," he added.
For the six major felony convictions, the sentence was "not unduly harsh," he concluded, and denied resentencing.
Norquay had pleaded not guilty to all six felony charges of sexual assault and incest, but a jury found him guilty at a trial in November 2011 based on testimony and court documents that indicate Norquay and the girl had numerous sexual encounters in 2008 and 2009, when she was then 15 and 16 years old.
Vale sentenced Norquay last January to 20 years in prison plus 15 years of extended supervision. If Vale had sentenced to the maximum allowed by law, Norquay could have faced 40 years imprisonment on each of the six counts against him.
- Katjusa Cisar contributed to this article.