Boyle admonished for 'deficient performance'

When you hire Gerald Boyle, Milwaukee's best-known lawyer, you know what you're getting for your money:

A pricey, affable courtroom mouthpiece known for his ability to attract big-name clients hoping to beat the rap or - if they're guilty as sin - to cut the best deal possible.

What you don't expect is representation so sloppy that an appellate court concludes you were denied your right to a "meaningful appeal" because of "counsel's deficient performance."

But that's exactly what Corey Martin got when he retained the veteran lawyer.

Now, a three-judge appellate panel has turned the clock back for Martin, giving him the right to start the appeal process over again. He was convicted in 1992 and is serving a life sentence for being a party to a north side drug murder.

 The court didn't deal with Martin's guilt or innocence, but it did say a properly written appeal would likely have been successful, thus opening the door for a new trial.

"In this instance, we have no difficulty in determining that appellate counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness," the court wrote late last month.

"Some guys who hit .375 strike out once in a while, too," said Boyle, who's never before been rapped by a court for providing ineffective counsel.

Over the years, Boyle's robust practice has attracted a long list of clients, including serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer and ex-Green Bay Packer Mark Chmura. He also won $24.7 million for a fired Miller Brewing Co. executive - as well as loads of favorable press for himself. That verdict in the so-called Seinfeld case was recently flipped on appeal and is pending before the state Supreme Court.

Boyle was hired to represent Martin in appealing his conviction for being the partner in a 1990 murder. Boyle had just successfully represented Greg Hayes in beating charges of being the gunman in the incident.

The Court of Appeals said Boyle erred by failing to provide the appeals court with anything to support his argument that a Milwaukee County trial judge goofed by not automatically kicking three admittedly biased people off Martin's jury.

"Martin's argument, however, was limited to one brief paragraph with no citations to the record or to supporting authority," the appellate court wrote about Boyle's brief.

In fact, not long after Boyle's poor showing, the appeals court agreed with a similar argument put forth in a better researched brief, the judges said. The state Supreme Court upheld that decision in what is known as the Ramos case.

"It would've been the Martin case, instead of Ramos," said Lew Wasserman, Martin's new lawyer.

Boyle said there is no way of knowing how the court would have treated his appeal had he provided judges with a little more to chew on.

"The court said I should have backed it up by citing a case," Boyle said. "Technically, that's correct, I should have done that. I didn't at the time. I thought it was self-evident."

The strongly worded appeals court decision will likely fuel arguments by Boyle's detractors, who long have said the skilled courtroom orator often comes up short when hitting the books and writing briefs.

Boyle bristled at the suggestion, saying he didn't even know it was being whispered in legal circles until he saw it in a Milwaukee Magazine article that named him one of the city's top lawyers. But the wealthy defense attorney said he thinks he knows what's driving the criticism.

"Us lawyers have a tendency to have a little bit of green eyes," Boyle said.

Appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Aug. 8, 2000.

Cary Spivak and Dan Bice can be contacted by phone at (414) 223-5468 or e-mail at sb@onwis.com.