Whether a writ of habeas corpus should issue when a bailiff ex parte reinstructed the jury in a criminal trial, depriving the defendant of counsel at a critical stage in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments

1. Should a writ of habeas corpus issue when a bailiff reinstructed the jury in a criminal trial by directing it to continue deliberating until it reached a verdict, and the instruction occurred ex parte outside the presence of the defendant and his lawyer and, therefore, deprived him of counsel at a critical stage of the trial in clear violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, because (1) this Court has repeatedly held that the deprivation of counsel at a critical stage of a trial is presumptively prejudicial, and (2) in Remmer v. United States , this Court concluded that ex parte communication with a jury is presumptively prejudicial and deserves an evidentiary hearing? 2. Should a writ of habeas corpus issue because the Wisconsin Court of Appeals failed to follow Anders v. California and concluded that petitioner did not deserve appointed counsel for his appeal, solely because his appeal “lacked arguable merit,” when Anders and later cases required the Court of Appeals to conclude that the appeal not only had “no merit” but also would be wholly frivolous? Stated another way, though the Wisconsin Court of Appeals never explained its conclusion and, in fact, articulated its conclusion in terms Anders forbid, the Seventh Circuit found this nevertheless met Anders and constitutional standards. 3 -RELATED CASES 1. United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Docket Number 23-1266, Carter v. Tegels , decided April 24, 2025; rehearing en banc denied May 7, 2025. (App. 1-24). 2. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket Number 17-CV-1497, decided January 9, 2023. (App. 25-58). 3. Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Docket Number 2011 CF 3689, decided November 5, 2015. (App. 59-66). 4. Wisconsin Supreme Court, Docket Number 2014AP1459, review denied May 5, 2016. (App. 67).