Background
Daniel J. Coughlin was charged with sexually assaulting two children between 1989 and 1992, based on allegations reported approximately 20 years later. The first two trials ended in mistrials, and a third trial in 2015 produced guilty verdicts on five counts. Counts 1 through 4 involved the older victim, while Count 5 involved the younger victim and an alleged incident in a calf pen.
After an unsuccessful direct appeal, Coughlin sought postconviction relief under Wisconsin Statutes section 974.06, alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance. In an earlier appeal, the court of appeals ordered a hearing under State v. Machner. Following that hearing, the circuit court again denied relief, and Coughlin appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The court of appeals held that trial counsel performed deficiently in multiple respects. As to Counts 1 through 4, counsel failed to adequately address jury instructions that did not clearly require unanimity about the mode and specific act of sexual assault. Counsel also failed to properly limit highly prejudicial evidence and argument concerning Coughlin’s brother—who had been convicted of sexually assaulting the same victims—and failed to use significant inconsistencies in the older victim’s accounts for impeachment.
As to Count 5, the jury instruction erroneously omitted the requirement that the alleged sexual contact involve intentional touching of the complainant’s or defendant’s intimate parts, and counsel had no strategic reason for permitting that omission. Considering counsel’s deficiencies in combination and the trial record as a whole, the court found a reasonable likelihood of a different result on every count. It reversed the postconviction order and directed the circuit court to vacate all five convictions.
Key Takeaways
- Counsel’s broad strategy of asserting that the alleged assaults never happened did not justify failing to address defective jury instructions or neglecting significant impeachment evidence.
- Ineffective-assistance prejudice may arise from the combined effect of multiple deficiencies even when a particular error would not independently require relief.
- Because the prosecution depended heavily on the victims’ recollections, unresolved unanimity problems, prejudicial references to another offender, and unused inconsistencies created a substantial likelihood of different verdicts.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that a general credibility defense does not excuse counsel from addressing legal and evidentiary issues that bear directly on whether the State proved each charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Courts must assess counsel’s errors cumulatively and in the context of the strength of the prosecution’s case.
The opinion also underscores the importance of clear unanimity instructions when testimony describes multiple acts or alternative forms of sexual assault. The decision is unpublished and, under Wisconsin law, may not be cited as precedent or authority except for limited permitted purposes.