MONROE - A former state trooper sentenced last January to 20 years in prison for sexually assaulting a teen foster daughter he and his wife later adopted is seeking a retrial, or failing that, a resentencing.
James M. Norquay, 50, Juda, is scheduled to appear in court Feb. 7 for an evidentiary hearing on the appeal. He is represented by two Milwaukee lawyers who specialize in appeals, Ellen and Robert R. Henak.
The hearing is expected to last a half day and involve three to four witnesses. The Henaks also filed a motion Dec. 26 to extend by 80 days the time during which the Green County Circuit Court has to decide on Norquay's appeal. The deadline would be March 25.
Norquay 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.
She was a troubled teenager, prosecutor Dennis Krueger told the jury, and Norquay took advantage of her need for attention by seeking opportunities to be alone with her for his sexual gratification.
But Norquay's appeal contends 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.
Schulenburg's strategy was that the girl was "a liar who was capable of engineering a big, life-changing lie about sexual matters," the Henaks wrote. "Nevertheless, he failed to provide readily available information to the jury that would have demonstrated and explained the pattern."
The appeal, filed in November, focuses on her history of lies - an issue both the defense and prosecutor agreed on at the trial.
The Henaks paint her as someone who early in life learned to assert control over situations by being manipulative. They trace the behaviors to previous sexual abuse she experienced.
Children like her who have been sexually abused "may have no boundaries" and use manipulation to control a situation, the Henaks wrote, and "a wrongful accusation of sexual assault would not be impossible."
They are also seeking to call as a witness Norquay's wife and adult daughter to testify about the family's dynamics and their interactions with the foster daughter. Testimony is also sought from one of the foster daughter's friends.
Should the court deny Norquay's request for a retrial, his attorneys are seeking a resentencing on the grounds that Judge Thomas Vale misused his discretion by giving too much weight to deterrence and "sending a message."
Most research shows marginal deterrent effect from longer sentences, the Henaks argue. They also contend Vale violated equal protection laws in his sentencing.
"Using a particular defendant as a means to 'send a message' to others by imposing a sentence longer than otherwise justified by the facts and circumstances of his case also violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Wisconsin constitutions," they wrote.
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.
James M. Norquay, 50, Juda, is scheduled to appear in court Feb. 7 for an evidentiary hearing on the appeal. He is represented by two Milwaukee lawyers who specialize in appeals, Ellen and Robert R. Henak.
The hearing is expected to last a half day and involve three to four witnesses. The Henaks also filed a motion Dec. 26 to extend by 80 days the time during which the Green County Circuit Court has to decide on Norquay's appeal. The deadline would be March 25.
Norquay 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.
She was a troubled teenager, prosecutor Dennis Krueger told the jury, and Norquay took advantage of her need for attention by seeking opportunities to be alone with her for his sexual gratification.
But Norquay's appeal contends 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.
Schulenburg's strategy was that the girl was "a liar who was capable of engineering a big, life-changing lie about sexual matters," the Henaks wrote. "Nevertheless, he failed to provide readily available information to the jury that would have demonstrated and explained the pattern."
The appeal, filed in November, focuses on her history of lies - an issue both the defense and prosecutor agreed on at the trial.
The Henaks paint her as someone who early in life learned to assert control over situations by being manipulative. They trace the behaviors to previous sexual abuse she experienced.
Children like her who have been sexually abused "may have no boundaries" and use manipulation to control a situation, the Henaks wrote, and "a wrongful accusation of sexual assault would not be impossible."
They are also seeking to call as a witness Norquay's wife and adult daughter to testify about the family's dynamics and their interactions with the foster daughter. Testimony is also sought from one of the foster daughter's friends.
Should the court deny Norquay's request for a retrial, his attorneys are seeking a resentencing on the grounds that Judge Thomas Vale misused his discretion by giving too much weight to deterrence and "sending a message."
Most research shows marginal deterrent effect from longer sentences, the Henaks argue. They also contend Vale violated equal protection laws in his sentencing.
"Using a particular defendant as a means to 'send a message' to others by imposing a sentence longer than otherwise justified by the facts and circumstances of his case also violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Wisconsin constitutions," they wrote.
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.