Supreme Court to hear arguments in March in Green Bay homicide case
MADISON, Wis. (WBAY) - The Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in March in the case of a man convicted in a deadly shooting in Green Bay.
Court records show an oral argument on March 10 in the Richard Arrington appeal.
Arrington is appealing his conviction based on claims his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when a confidential informant recorded conversations with him at the Brown County Jail. He also claimed ineffective counsel. Last April, the District III Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Arrington and ordered a new trial.
The state objected and asked the high court to review the appeals court’s opinion. The high court agreed to review.
In 2017, a jury found Arrington, 25, guilty of 1st Degree Intentional Homicide in Brown County. Arrington stood trial for the shooting death of Ricardo Gomez.
Gomez was shot and killed outside a home in the 1100 block of Day Street. On April 2, 2016, Arrington and two others drove to a home to buy marijuana. At the Day Street address, Arrington ran into a man with whom he was feuding. They had words, and Arrington fired three shots from his vehicle toward the Day Street home. One of the bullets struck Ricardo Gomez in the chest, killing him.
In 2018, Judge Timothy Hinkfuss sentenced Arrington to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 35 years.
On Sept. 29, 2021, the Wisconsin Supreme Court announced it would review the appeal’s court opinion based on these issues:
1. Did Arrington prove that his counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the CI’s recordings and testimony on Sixth Amendment grounds?
2. Did Arrington prove that the State violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel?
Arrington’s defense says his rights were clearly violated.
“The government’s conduct was a clear violation of the Sixth Amendment’s guarantees enunciated by the Supreme Court. The court of appeals correctly held that ‘[w]hat occurred here was the intentional, surreptitious creation of an opportunity to confront Arrington without counsel present,’” reads the defense objection to review.
The state says Arrington fails to prove that defense counsel’s failure to move to suppress or object on Sixth Amendment grounds was plain error, and any plain error would have been harmless.
The state asked the high court to reverse the appeals court reversal of conviction.
Copyright 2022 WBAY. All rights reserved.