Outagamie Judge McGinnis issued contempt penalty far beyond what the law allows - Part III10/26/2018 By Gretchen Schuldt Outagamie County Circuit Judge Mark McGinnis went far beyond his legal authority when he sentenced a defendant last year to six months in jail for contempt of court, according to the State Court of Appeals. The law provides for a maximum of 30 days in jail for the type of contempt invoked by McGinnis against Brian Mitchell, District III Appeals Judge Mark A. Seidl wrote in summarily dismissing the contempt finding. McGinnis offered to purge the contempt finding if Mitchell, facing a human trafficking charge that later was dismissed, apologized orally and in writing, and paid a $5,000 fine. But the law allows only a $500 fine, Seidl said. McGinnis found Mitchell in contempt of court for rolling his eyes and moving papers around. He also later accused Mitchell of giving him a "fuck-you look." Mitchell, then 27 and poor enough to have public defender representation, eventually served 42 days on the contempt charge. McGinnis lifted the $5,000 fine after Carrie L. Plant, an attorney, obtained an order to appoint an attorney on the civil contempt charge if McGinnis refused to purge the fine, according to court records. Mitchell appealed the entire contempt finding. The state did not put forward a response brief and instead filed a letter "in which it concedes the circuit court's contempt sanction constituted an unauthorized penalty," Seidl wrote. Mitchell's appeal lawyer, Joseph N. Ehmann, in a court filing described his client as "an African-American man incarcerated far from home pre-trial because he could not post cash bond." Before the contempt finding, Ehmann wrote, Mitchell tried to explain that his top priority was a speedy trial. "Judge McGinnis responded telling Mitchell he 'must not' understand his rights, was 'obviously very confused,' was making 'comments that don’t make sense.'" The judge also told Mitchell he better hope that he doesn't come before McGinnis for sentencing, Ehmann wrote in his brief. "Mr. Mitchell reacted with body language expressing frustration or exasperation, and according to Judge McGinnis, 'rolling his eyes,'” Ehmann said. McGinnis did not make a clear record of what Mitchell did that constituted contempt, Ehmann said. The judge also failed to give McGinnis a chance to speak before imposing sanctions, as required by law, Ehmann wrote. Seidl, in dismissing the contempt finding, said the unauthorized penalty meted out by McGinnis was enough to do so. The state did not respond to Mitchell's argument that the excessive penalty demanded dismissal, nor did it argue that the excessive sanction could be reduced to something allowed by law, Seidl said. "We interpret the State's silence on this point as a concession of reversible error, and we have no obligation to develop arguments to the contrary," he wrote.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|