​​"Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications.
 
Italics indicate direct quotes from the application.​ Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.

​To study bail jumping in Wisconsin, WJI and the Mastantuono Coffee & Thomas law firm are looking county by county at 2021 bail-jumping charges. Which counties are charging bail jumping the most? Who are some of the defendants? What happens to those cases? We'll report the statistics from individual counties and tell you the stories from randomly chosen cases.

Misdemeanor bail jumping occurs when a person out on bond on a misdemeanor charge violates the conditions of that bond. Felony bail jumping occurs when a person out on bond on a felony charge violates the conditions of that bond. 

A bail-jumping offense may not itself be a crime. Missing a court date, violating a local ordinance, having a drink, or using an illegal drug could all be bail-jumping offenses if bond conditions prohibit the activity.

Largest number of bail-jumping charges issued in a single case: 12
Number of felony bail-jumping charges issued: 338
Number of misdemeanor bail-jumping charges issued: 263

*Felony cases can include felony or misdemeanor bail-jumping charges or both; misdemeanor cases can include only misdemeanor bail-jumping charges. Case counts reported as of January 2022. Criminal traffic cases are not included in this analysis.

​Case File

Two Menomonie police officers responded the evening of October 29, 2021, to a report of a domestic incident at an apartment. A man reported hearing a woman yell “get off of me” and then some scuffling. 

Derick Lazell had just exited the apartment when police arrived. When police said they needed to speak to him, Lazell opened the door to the apartment and called the woman out to talk. She appeared at the door with smudged mascara as if she had been crying.

The officers separated Lazell and the woman to talk. Lazell admitted he had been arguing loudly with his girlfriend after confronting her about cheating on him. He complained that she never did anything for him, never cooked, and would not have sex with him.

The officer noticed small scratches on Lazell’s face. Lazell said they were self-inflicted when he put his hands to his face in frustration with his girlfriend. Lazell denied any physical altercation had occurred.

The girlfriend told the second officer that she and Lazell had argued on and off all day after he accused her of cheating, but nothing physical had happened. She said that when she yelled “get off of me” he was yelling close to her face and she pushed him away.

The officers switched, and the first officer asked the girlfriend about the scratches on Lazell’s face. The girlfriend said Lazell had abused her physically in the past, but not that day. She said she had been sitting on the couch while Lazell stood in front of her with his hands on her shoulders, yelling. She said she leaned back to create distance and Lazell fell on top of her, and the scratches may have occurred then. The officer examined the girlfriend’s hands but did not see skin on her nails.

When the first officer returned to Lazell and asked whether Lazell had argued with his girlfriend at the couch Lazell denied leaning over her or falling on her. He said he had been sitting beside her. He said his girlfriend was trying to set him up but would not give further details.

The officers arrested Lazell for domestic disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor punishable by 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. The complaint filed on November 1 charged Lazell as a repeater due to three prior misdemeanors for possession of amphetamine and drug paraphernalia and bail jumping. The repeater enhancement raised the possible jail term to two years.

On November 1, Dunn County Circuit Judge Christina Mayer set a $500 signature bond. Lazell signed the bond and was released the same day. The bond conditions included that Lazell not commit any new crimes.

On December 11, 2021, Menomonie police were dispatched to the same apartment for a welfare check. A man called to say he had received a photo of bruises on his daughter’s arm from his daughter’s friend. His daughter was Lazell’s girlfriend. The friend indicated that Lazell had caused the bruises.

While enroute to the apartment, police contacted the girlfriend by phone and asked if she was okay. She said she was fine for the time being and confirmed that Lazell had caused bruises on her arms when he grabbed her earlier in the day. The girlfriend indicated that she was alone in the apartment. Lazell had left by foot, and the girlfriend gave officers a description of Lazell’s clothing.

The girlfriend explained on the phone that she and Lazell had broken up a week earlier and she was staying with her new boyfriend. She had returned to Lazell’s apartment to retrieve some of her property. Lazell was emotional and begged her not to leave him but then became angry, grabbed her arms and pushed her against a doorway and then into the bedroom. He then would not let her leave until the officer called.

Based on prior information from contacts with Lazell, police looked for him in the laundry room of the apartment building but did not find him.

An officer then responded to the apartment and questioned the girlfriend. She confirmed the events she discussed on the phone and showed the officer bruises on her right arm. The officer saw three bruise marks in a pattern suggesting they were caused by fingers or a hand.

She also gave police two other apartments where Lazell sometimes could be located, but police did not find him at either place.

An officer contacted the girlfriend again. She said that Lazell had been texting her to see if he could come back. She and the officer agreed that she should say yes. Officers waited for Lazell and intercepted him when he appeared.

Lazell seemed confused about why police were questioning him. He said his girlfriend had been staying with him and was lying about him harming her. One officer indicated that that statement conflicted with information from a police call at the apartment just a few days earlier, at which time the girlfriend was staying with her new boyfriend.

When asked about why the girlfriend had bruises on her arms, Lazell seemed to panic and said he wanted the officers to look at his text messages. He said the girlfriend’s new boyfriend had bruised her when she did not want to have sex with him.

The text messages Lazell showed the officers included normal conversations as well as arguments. To the officers they confirmed that Lazell, the girlfriend, and her new boyfriend seemed to have a toxic love-triangle relationship.

Lazell was arrested and charged with misdemeanor domestic abuse battery as a repeater, disorderly conduct as a repeater, and misdemeanor bail jumping based on violating the November 1 release conditions.

Mayer set a $250 cash bond with the condition the Lazell have no contact with the girlfriend.

Lazell remained in custody until mid-April 2022 due to revocation in a Barron County case. He was released on April 18 after Mayer modified the cash bond to a signature bond.

On October 10, 2022, Lazell pleaded guilty to domestic abuse disorderly conduct as a repeater in both cases. The battery and bail jumping charges were dismissed. Mayer sentenced Lazell to costs and surcharges of $553 in each case.

​Our methodology: WJI and Mastantuono Coffee & Thomas determined the number of felony and misdemeanor bail-jumping cases and charges in each county through court data. The total number of felony and misdemeanor cases filed in a county was obtained through the state's online court system. Cases selected for the "case file" section are chosen randomly through a random number-generator web site. Facts set forth in the case file section are allegations from criminal complaints.

The intent of the project is to show a variety of bail-jumping cases and the frequency with which such charges are made.

Attorney Jessie Long joined WJI on December 15 to discuss Legal Action of Wisconsin's Center for Driver's License Recovery and Employability (CDLRE). The CDLRE helps low-income people reinstate or get their driver’s licenses so they can get to and from work. Long is one of two Legal Action attorneys who staff the CDLRE, which is located at the Milwaukee Area Technical College's downtown campus.

Lack of a valid driver's license can impact the one's job opportunities and the ability to get to work on time. Driving without a valid license may result in additional tickets that can create debt that low-income people cannot afford. Attorneys at the CDLRE help clients navigate the administrative and judicial requirements to get their licenses back.

Long discussed the high percentage of license suspensions caused by a person's failure to pay prior municipal forfeitures and how a suspension for failure to pay often does not relate to one's driving ability. Suspensions for failure to pay last longer than revocations for first-offense operating while intoxicated offenses and most suspensions due to points. Also, municipalities that suspend licenses for failure to pay don't necessarily collect more revenue than municipalities that do not. Several states have moved away from license suspensions as a means of enforcing payments for tickets, but Wisconsin statutes still allow it.

Hear more about the impact of license suspensions on the poor and what the CDLRE does to help people get licensed again.

Note: We are crunching Supreme Court of Wisconsin decisions down to size. The rule for this is that no justice gets more than 10 paragraphs as written in the actual decision. The "upshot" and "background" sections do not count as part of the 10 paragraphs because of their summary and very necessary nature. We've also removed citations from the opinion for ease of reading, but have linked to important cases cited or information about them. ​Italics indicate WJI insertions except for case names, which also are italicized.
​
The case: State of Wisconsin v. Charles W. Richey
 
Majority: Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet (13 pages), joined by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Grassl Bradley, and Jill J. Karofsky
 
Dissent: Justice Patience Drake Roggensack (6 pages), joined by Chief Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler and Justice Brian K. Hagedorn

The upshot
 
The Fourth Amendment requires a police officer to have particularized reasonable suspicion that a crime or non-criminal traffic violation took place before performing a traffic stop.  Here, a stop based on the generic description of a Harley-Davidson motorcycle recently seen driving erratically in the area fell short of that threshold. . . .

                                                                                                   * * *

We therefore reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand to the circuit court with instructions to vacate the judgment of conviction and to grant Richey's motion to suppress.
 ​
Background
 
Officer Alexis Meier was on patrol in the Village of Weston at 10:59 PM on a Saturday night in late April. Over the radio, she heard a report that a sheriff's deputy was investigating a disabled motorcycle at a nearby intersection. After just fifteen seconds, the deputy cleared that stop without explanation. Five minutes later, at 11:04 PM, that same sheriff's deputy told nearby officers to be on the lookout for a Harley-Davidson motorcycle driving erratically and speeding north on Alderson Street (near the intersection with Jelenik Avenue)—approximately a mile away from the location he had given for the disabled motorcycle. The sheriff's deputy did not give any additional details about either the motorcycle or its driver. Officer Meier later said that she believed that the motorcycle the deputy saw on Alderson Street was fleeing police.

Five minutes after the deputy's report, at 11:09 PM, Officer Meier spotted a motorcycle driving east on Schofield Avenue a little more than a block west of the intersection with Alderson Street—about a half-mile from the reported location of the speeding Harley. Traffic was light at that time of night. Additionally, Officer Meier had seen relatively few motorcycles out that early in the year and none around the time of the deputy's report. Meier looked up the registration, which showed that it was a Harley-Davidson registered to Richey. She followed the Harley-Davidson for several blocks, but did not see any erratic driving, speeding, or other traffic violations. Meier nevertheless performed a traffic stop, suspecting that this Harley-Davidson was the one seen driving erratically on Alderson Street five minutes earlier.

The court included a map to aid the reader:

The guts

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures." Investigative stops, including traffic stops, are seizures and must therefore comply with the Fourth Amendment. 

To conduct an investigative stop, the police must have "reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot." Reasonable suspicion must be founded on concrete, particularized facts warranting suspicion of a specific individual, not "'inchoate and unparticularized suspicion[s] or hunch[es].'" We assess reasonable suspicion in light of the totality of the circumstances.  Thus, we look at the "whole picture" to determine whether the officer had reasonable suspicion, not each fact in isolation. 

The whole picture here includes the following information known to Officer Meier before she stopped Richey's motorcycle:

• A Harley-Davidson was driving erratically and speeding north on Alderson Street towards Schofield Avenue five minutes earlier.
• Meier  first  saw  Richey's  motorcycle  driving  east  on Schofield Avenue a little more than a block west of the intersection with Alderson Street——about a half-mile from the reported location of the speeding Harley.
• Richey's motorcycle was a Harley-Davidson and was the only motorcycle she saw around the time of the deputy's report.
• Meier followed Richey for several blocks but did not observe any speeding, erratic driving, or other traffic violations.
• Traffic was light that night, and Meier had seen relatively few motorcycles out that early in the year.

It is undisputed that the only reason Officer Meier pulled Richey over is she suspected he was the erratic driver the deputy saw five minutes earlier. The question is whether that suspicion was reasonable.

Although we acknowledge that it is a close question, we hold that the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion. To clear the reasonable-suspicion threshold, Officer Meier's suspicions had to be particularized; she needed concrete reasons for believing that Richey's Harley-Davidson and the one seen five minutes earlier speeding north on Alderson Street were one and the same. But the sheriff's deputy's generic description of a Harley-Davidson gave her very little to work with. Except for the manufacturer, she knew nothing specific about the Harley the deputy saw—not the model, type, size, or color, let alone a license plate number. Nor did she know anything about the driver, what he or she was wearing, whether he or she wore a helmet, or even whether the driver appeared to be a man or a woman. And although she followed Richey for several blocks before initiating the stop, there is no indication that she radioed the deputy during that time to ask for more details.

The State nevertheless argues that Officer Meier's suspicions were particularized because Richey's motorcycle "fit a highly specific and particular description." Namely, it was a Harley driving in the same general area as the deputy's report late in the evening and at a time of year when relatively few motorcycles were on the roads. These facts are part of the totality of the circumstances, but they are not enough to transform Officer Meier's hunch into particularized reasonable suspicion. For starters, the "highly specific" description of a Harley-Davidson could apply to a large number of vehicles. After all, Wisconsin is the home of Harley-Davidson, and it is one of, if not the most popular manufacturers of motorcycles in Wisconsin. Although reasonable suspicion is a low bar, it is not so low that it allows the State to stop so many otherwise law-abiding citizens based on such a generic description. Additionally, although the circuit court found that it was "the beginning, very beginning, of [motorcycle] season," it also acknowledged that "[c]ertainly, people drive their bikes in April."

That Richey's Harley was spotted close to the location of the deputy's call just five minutes later does not add much to the particularity of Officer Meier's suspicions either. Although proximity in time and place to a report of criminal activity can, under some circumstances, provide some of the particularity that is otherwise lacking in a report of criminal activity, Richey's exact location and direction of travel raise more questions than they answer. Returning to the map above, the letter "D" marks where the deputy saw the erratic driver, and the arrow shows the direction of travel. Although Richey was seen in that general area five minutes later, at the spot marked with the letter "A," we note that Richey was headed east on Schofield Avenue towards the intersection with Alderson Street at that time.  In other words, Richey was driving towards the reported location of the erratic and speeding driver when Officer Meier first saw him. Given that Officer Meier thought the erratic driver was fleeing police that would be a strange choice. Additionally, counsel for both parties acknowledged at oral argument that the speed limits in the area were likely the 25 or 30 mile-per-hour limits applicable to most city streets. Even at normal speed, it would take only about a minute to travel from the location of the deputy's report to where the officer saw Richey, and a driver fleeing police at high speed could have gone much farther in the same amount of time. Thus, in order for Richey to have been the subject of the deputy's report, he would have had to have driven north on Alderson Street at high speed, ridden around the general area for several minutes, and eventually looped back in the direction he came from while now driving normally. This unlikely sequence of events, when coupled with the deputy's generic description of a Harley- Davidson headed north on Alderson Street, demonstrates that Officer Meier's suspicions were not sufficiently particular to Richey. 

                                                                                                  * * *

. . . . Here, the sheriff's deputy reported a Harley-Davidson driving erratically north on Alderson Street at high speed and then lost sight of it. And Officer Meier had to use a combination of logic and guesswork to locate that motorcycle. The problem is that . . . the deputy gave Officer Meier little on which to ground her logic. She did not know anything about the motorcycle other than that it was a Harley-Davidson and she knew nothing about its driver. And the timing and location at which Officer Meier first saw Richey did not fill those gaps, since these facts support only a tenuous inference that Richey was the motorcyclist Officer Meier was looking for. Accordingly, we hold that, in light of the totality of the circumstances, Officer Meier lacked reasonable suspicion to perform the stop. . . .

The dissent

Reasonable suspicion is a common-sense test based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time of the seizure. Stated otherwise, "was the action of law enforcement officers reasonable under all the facts and circumstances present[.]" Reasonable suspicion includes all factual circumstances and the reasonable inferences arising from those facts. I conclude that the record before us fully supports reasonable suspicion to stop Charles W. Richey; and therefore, evidence of Richey's eighth Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) violation was admissible. There is nothing in the record that allows us to conclude Officer Meier's inference that Richey was the motorcyclist her colleague warned of was unreasonable. Because the majority opinion refuses to accept reasonable inferences from undisputed facts, it enables Richey to achieve suppression of evidence of drunk driving that was apparent after he was stopped. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

                                                                                                 * * *

The question here is at what point does societal interest in investigating a reported law violation rise to the level of reasonably supporting an investigative stop. LaFave has identified six factors that we have concluded should be considered in assessing whether the facts and the reasonable inferences from those facts support reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop:

(1) [T]he particularity of the description of the offender or the vehicle in which he fled; (2) the size of the area in which the offender might be found, as indicated by such facts as the elapsed time since the crime occurred; (3) the number of persons about in that area; (4) the known or probable direction of the offender's flight; (5) observed activity by the particular person stopped; and (6) knowledge or suspicion that the person or vehicle stopped has been involved in other criminality of the type presently under investigation.
 
Here, Officer Meier clearly articulated that only five minutes before she saw Richey, she was asked to be on the lookout for a Harley-Davidson motorcycle that another officer had observed speeding and driving in a reckless manner. When she saw Richey, she called in the license plate on his cycle and confirmed that his bike was a Harley-Davidson. Her sighting was within the geographic area in which the speeding motorcyclist was seen. In addition, she had seen no other motorcycles in that area and it was late at night when she stopped Richey.

Furthermore, it was reasonable to infer that Richey was the driver of the Harley-Davidson another officer had reported as speeding and committing other traffic violations. Richey was present in the same area as the reported traffic violator; his presence was within five minutes of (the sheriff deputy's) report and request that other officers be on the lookout for a Harley-Davidson motorcyclist. It was late at night and Officer Meier had seen no other motorcycles. April 28, the date of the stop, also was too early in the season for many motorcyclists to be out. It was possible that if Officer Meier did not act "immediately the opportunity for further investigation would be lost[.]" "A minimal amount of facts may, under these circumstances, be given greater weight than if the opportunity to act in the future is not foreclosed."

It also is important to our analysis to note that there is nothing in the record that causes the inference that Richey was the driver of the Harley-Davidson motorcycle that (the sheriff's deputy) had seen speeding five minutes earlier to be an unreasonable inference. The majority opinion does not address why the brief period of time after the lookout was called and the defined location of the traffic violation that are part of the reasonable suspicion analysis, as LaFave and we required in (a prior case), do not support reasonable suspicion.

The facts are not in dispute and reasonable inferences from those facts support reasonable suspicion that it was Richey who was speeding and driving his motorcycle in a reckless fashion. Based on the officer's articulable facts, it was not unreasonable to stop Richey on that night. Accordingly, I would affirm the court of appeals and I dissent from the majority opinion.

​Name: Patricia A. Baker
 
Appointed to: Portage County Circuit Court
 
Appointment date: Dec. 7, 2020 (elected to a six-year term in April 2022)
 
Education:
Law School – University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
Undergraduate – University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota
High School – ​La Crosse Central High, La Crosse, Wisconsin
 
Recent legal employment:
March 2017-present – Private practice attorney, Kessler & Greer Law Office/ALR LLC, Stevens Point, Wisconsin
November 2011-March 2017 – Clerk of Circuit Court, Portage County, Wisconsin
December 2009-November 2011 – Assistant city attorney (part-time), Wausau, Wisconsin
October 2007-November 2011 – Assistant district attorney (part-time), Waushara County, Wisconsin
November 2005-December 2009 – Solo practioner, Stevens Point, Wisconsin
March 2000-November 2005 – Assistant district attorney, Marathon County, Wisconsin
 
Bar and Administrative Memberships:
State Bar of Wisconsin
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
 
General character of practice:
Approximately 30 percent is CPS (child protective services) and APS (adult protective services) Chips and guardianship matters - both as adverse counsel (parents and ward) and guardian ad litem work including Protective Placement reviews and initial petition matters. Another 30 percent is representation of parties in divorces and post-judgment work. I also work as a guardian ad litem in family cases. Approximately 30 percent is representation in criminal matters: felony, misdemeanor and probation revocation.
 
I work in four counties: Portage; Wood; Marathon and Waupaca. I have several civil matters and administrative review matters with WI. Dept of Families. I am also a Portage County Family Court mediator and conduct one to two mediations each month, as well as mediations for other types of matters.
 
Describe typical clients:
I am court-appointed in many cases however have many private clients in all of the above categories, as well. With regards to my criminal cases, I have slightly more female clients than male which is my choice. I believe that women frequently have different needs and goals in criminal court which are frequently not met by male attorneys. I also have multiple Legal Aid Society appointments where I represent indigent women in family cases.
 
Number of cases tried to verdict: Approximately 40-50 criminal and CPS jury trials
 
List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years:
1) K. S. was a Marathon County criminal case involving a young woman who was a child sexual assault survivor and a sexual exploitation victim. Many survivors have a tumultuous experience with law enforcement, and she was no different. When I met K.S. she was in jail having been arrested for residing with a drug dealer and having distribution quantity drugs and weapons located in her home. She was held in custody on a $10,000 cash bond. Our initial meeting was 2½ hours. It was clear she had made many poor choices based on an elementary need for companionship. She and I identified a strong support network for her - however they were all located in Milwaukee. I needed to get her out of the jail and to a place where she could receive the support and accountability that would set her up for success. My client had a significant criminal record. The District Attorney was seeking a lengthy prison sentence. He was opposed to her release on bond citing potential for escape, for non-appearance, potential for new crimes etc. I also needed to convince the judge, the former District Attorney, to reverse her decision to impose a $10,000 cash bond - something wholly unobtainable for my client.
 
We held a contested evidentiary motion hearing to modify her bond in 2019. I had multiple witnesses including the Executive Director from Lotus Legal Clinic in Milwaukee and a former Milwaukee County Family Court Commissioner testify as to the "plan" we created to support K.S, house her, and hold her accountable to the court.
 
At the conclusion of the hearing the Judge stated that she had never reversed an order for such a large cash bond, but felt that we had put together a plan for K.S. that could be successful. The judge released K.S. on a $10,000 signature bond and she never missed another court appearance. The longer that K.S. was in the community on bond, her chances to avoid prison improved. We went back to court for her sentencing approximately ten months later. By then, she established a solid track record that supported probation with possible early termination. This was a successful outcome for me; for K.S.; but also for the criminal justice system. K.S. is actively working with other exploitation survivors now. She is not taking a bed in Taycheedah and she is contributing to her community as a citizen now. I could not be prouder of K.S. and her accomplishments since my first meeting with her in the Marathon County Jail.
 
2) K.F. is a woman with a four-year-old daughter who was a product of an unprovable sexual assault. K.F. is indigent and did not have an attorney to defend against the challenge the biological father mounted against K.F.'s "good cause finding" to not reveal the identity of the father in the child support agency.
 
Once he found out through various small-town contacts that K.F. had given birth to his child he began using the legal system to harass her. He filed motion after motion badgering her into agreeing to a minimal placement order with the child. He continued with threats to take the child away from K.F. completely and permanently. The Guardian ad litem in the matter contacted me and asked if l would consider representing K.F. through the Portage County Legal Aid Society. I agreed to do so.
 
In the first hearing (November 2017) we were able to minimize the father's contact with the child until a variety of requirements were met, e.g. psychological evaluations and counseling. Since that time, we have held thirteen evidentiary hearings that have involved every family court challenge imaginable. We have involved Child Protective Services, restraining orders, multiple levels of law enforcement, multiple psychological professionals, and multiple medical professionals throughout these contested hearings. The father was ultimately diagnosed with significant psychological disorders that explain the ferocity of his legal demands in these proceedings. We also learned through a lengthy background investigation that the man left a trail of criminal convictions and unseemly activity in the state in which he had previously resided.
 
We do not yet have a final order in the matter but we have achieved sole legal custody for K.F. as well as primary physical placement and a variety of rules that protect the child and mother. The case is set for the fourteenth evidentiary hearing in the near future.
 
This case has been significant for me as this woman could have lost all rights to her only child but for my actions stepping in to give her a voice against a violent and abusive perpetrator. This case continues today, and I look forward to continuing to ensure that K.F. retains custody and primary placement of this child.
 
3) I recently represented a severely autistic 37 year old man who is the object of a guardianship and protective placement.
 
During my annual review of his case his guardian told me that he would like to have his right to vote reinstated. The man has been institutionalized his entire life. I met with him and conducted my own evaluation of his ability to comprehend the election process. After seeing his ability to communicate using a physical aid it was clear he was well-informed and capable of making an informed decision in the ballot box, with the use of an aid. I filed a petition on his behalf; we participated in a contested hearing as to his abilities and the court agreed that he was certainly intelligent, informed, and was worthy of regaining this constitutional right that had been removed 20 years earlier. The man and his family were elated that I was able to see past his disability and use the law to regain a cherished constitutional right.
 
Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies:
I represented E. B. in multiple felony forgery and fraud charges. She was an accomplished Nursing Assistant and had begun taking classes to become an R.N. With the felony charges, she had her name added to the "Caregiver Misconduct" registry. We appealed the decision and I negotiated a settlement with the WI Dept. of Families whereby her name would be removed after one year. I also contested a second "caregiver misconduct" registry case for a daycare owner. We went to a contested hearing and won. Her day care is now open and providing care to children today.
 
Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation).
I have participated in ADR [Alternative Dispute Resolution] training through Marquette University (1997 through 1999) and have also recently taken the University of Wisconsin Divorce and Family Mediation Training. I mediate approximately 1 to 2 family law matters every month for the Portage County Family Court Commissioner. The statutes limit us to mediating only custody and placement issues for the county. I have also been retained privately to mediate guardianships and other family matters.
 
Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization:
Treasurer, Veronica Isherwood for Portage County District Attorney (when she ran as a Democrat, unsuccessful)
 
Previous appointments and runs for public office:
Portage County Circuit Court, 2016 (lost in general election)
Village of Park Ridge trustee and president, 2012-2018 (appointed and then elected)
Stevens Point Area Public School District, 2014-2020 (won elections)
Portage County clerk of circuit court, 2011-2017 (appointed and then elected)
 
All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years:
Susan Happ, Wisconsin attorney general, 2014
Joanne Kloppenburg, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2011
Rebecca Dallet, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2018
Jill Karofsky, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2020
Katrina Shankland, Wisconsin Assembly, various
Julie Lassa, Wisconsin State Senate, various
Paul Piotrowski, Wisconsin State Senate, currently
 
Professional or civic and charitable organizations:
Portage County Bar Association, 1998-present; officer 2013-2016, including as president
Rotary of Greater Portage County, 2012-present, including as president
Community Foundation of Central Wisconsin, 2014-2020, including as president
Mid-State Independent Living Choices Inc., 2012-present, including as director and president
Wisconsin State Bar, Bar Relations committee, 2017-present
Wisconsin Judicare, Inc., director, 2017-present
Friends of Emerson Park, member, 2019-2020
 
Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service:
As listed … above, I have represented K.F. as a Portage County Legal Aid case since November 2017. I have logged nearly 200 hours of pro bono representation in her matter. (I have also paid for countless documents; certifications and subpoenas in her case, as I know she is unable to pay for these things).
 
Recently, a social worker called me and asked me to represent another young woman with an autistic child in a domestic abuse restraining order hearing to protect her and the child. I asked that the woman see if she qualified for Portage County Legal Aid Society representation and if yes, would handle the restraining order matter. She qualified. There was also an on-going CPS matter and the family court order needed to be modified. We held multiple evidentiary hearings to ensure that she and the child were protected from her abusive former boyfriend. I represented her in a day-long trial in her post-judgment family court matter, as well as the restraining order. We successfully changed custody and placement in the family matter and obtained an injunction which provided the protection my client and her vulnerable child needed.
 
I volunteered at a State Bar of Wisconsin "Wills for Heros" clinic for the Wausau Police Department in 2018. I saw what a terrific program it is and decided to organize a clinic in Portage County with the Bar Association. We held it in 2019 serving 40 police officers. I have attempted to organize a second clinic, however have been unable due to the pandemic.
 
Quotes:
 
Why I want to be a judge -- My greatest passion as a lawyer has been to represent those who might not have a voice in our justice system: the vulnerable child, an intimidated victim, or a senior who can no longer speak. It has been fulfilling to me to represent the State in criminal cases where justice was achieved for a victim; rehabilitation obtained for an addict, or expungement for a deserving teen. In every case, I advocate for the best result possible using the many tools that the justice system offers.
 
I have had a unique and varied legal path. Law was a second career for me, attending Madison while pregnant with my first and second children. In addition to being a lawyer, I have been a stay-at-home mom, a co-parent in a divorce, served as Clerk of Circuit Court and been a long-time school board member. I have been so much more than just a lawyer. Every position: prosecutor, defense attorney, guardian ad litem, Asst. City Attorney, and Clerk of Court has given me a unique perspective and a broader understanding of our complex justice system. It has also given me an opportunity to learn how the systems work and the tools that each area offers.
 
Attending law school was a privilege for me. I was the first person in our family to attend college. I can see the rungs on the ladder that were extended for me. My goal has always been to improve the lives of all I touch and to repay the opportunities that were given to me.
 
In every position I have held, I have worked to uphold our legal institutions by treating all people with respect and dignity. It is vital to understand that the litigants that enter the system might be dealing with one of their worst moments of their life; a divorce, an eviction, or addressing a crime.
 
The integrity of our legal system depends squarely on the integrity and empathy of the judges running those courts. It also relies on the judge appreciating that this case might be the most important moment in this litigant's life. This requires listening, humility, and empathy; qualities that I have always strived to demonstrate.
 
We must also acknowledge that our courts are at a crossroads: we have never had so many pro se litigants; our systems are being scrutinized for its treatment of people of color, and how it interfaces with law enforcement; we are using electronic technology in court hearings that lowers the decorum and perception of the courts. These issues must be addressed. My varied background gives me unique tools to understand and work towards resolution. I embrace the challenges these issues present.
 
My career path has been unique and varied; I have always tried to see the glass half-full, and I have embraced opportunities for improvement. Should I be appointed, I would bring all these life experiences to the bench.
 
Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin.
As a three-term member of the Stevens Point Board of Education, for me the case that has demonstrated a significant impact to residents of Wisconsin is Davis v Grover 166 Wis. 2nd 501, 480 N.W. 2d 460 (1992).
 
In the late 1980's then Governor Tommy Thompson advocated for a parental choice program to allow the State of Wisconsin to send taxpayer money to private schools to educate children. The first program was the Milwaukee Public Choice Program (MPCP) and was authorized as part of the budget bill in 1989. Actions by Superintendent of Public Instruction, Herbert J. Grover, caused a school parent Lanzetta Davis, and her daughter to challenge. The issues presented to the court were regarding the constitutionality of how the bill was enacted; the uniform district school clause and whether the classification of the bill, applying only to residents of a "first class city" was a violation of the Wisconsin Constitution, Sect. IV, Art. 18.
 
The Supreme Court, by a five to four majority ruled that the process by which the bill was created was constitutional and that the "first class city" classification was likewise constitutional. This despite only being available to "Milwaukee" residents.
 
The Supreme Court found that how the legislation was enacted - as part of the budget bill, to be constitutional. While they discussed the substantive issues of poverty in the City of Milwaukee that brought about the need for reform, the reality is those comments were nothing more than window­dressing for their analysis of whether the bill was a violation of the constitution.
 
Additionally, while they stated a controversial bill should be vigorously debated in both houses of the legislature, only the dissent points out the lack of such a debate in the full senate. The Supreme Court provided a defense of the goals of the program stating reform was necessary due to the "monumentally oppressive poverty problems as found in first class cities...". However, this was nothing more than dicta, as the real issue before them was the process by which the bill was passed - as part of the budget.
 
Once this method of passing school legislation (via the budget) was deemed constitutional, it created a gateway for subsequent legislation which allowed religious schools to receive funding via the choice program in 1994. It also set the stage for the dramatic statewide expansion of school choice throughout Wisconsin in 2011. Today the State spends over $145 million on private school vouchers annually and every dollar is taken from the local public school district.
 
The majority created a precedent which justified this process of enacting controversial legislation. The precedent has affected local school districts across the state since its decision. The result of this decision by the Supreme Court has impacted the delivery of education to generations of Wisconsin schoolchildren.
 
Two or three judges whom I admire and why:
While I have worked with many wonderful judges these three stand out in my personal experience:
 
Hon. Jill Falstad, Circuit Court Branch 1, Marathon County
I worked with Judge Jill Falstad when she was District Attorney for Marathon County. I can state unequivocally that she was my mentor and the person that instilled in me my work ethic. When people state that I am thorough and well-prepared, the credit all goes to Judge Falstad. We co-counseled multiple jury trials in which I learned the benefit of preparation.
 
Additionally, she has always pursued justice with a passion and done "the right thing" even when that meant doing the most difficult thing. We once disagreed on a disposition in a domestic abuse homicide. While we disagreed, she displayed a remarkable sense of compassion and never swayed from seeking justice in the case.
 
When District Attorney Falstad ascended to the bench in Marathon County, I knew she would take that work ethic, her dogged pursuit of justice, and deep compassion with her. While she turned out to be a tough sentencing judge, my clients who appeared in her court were always treated with respect, dignity, and listened to thoughtfully. If I am appointed to the bench I will aspire to be as thorough, as thoughtful, and as compassionate as her.
 
Hon. Gregory Grau: Circuit Court Branch 4, Marathon County
I had the good fortune of trying multiple jury trials in front of Judge Grau when I worked as an Assistant District Attorney in Marathon County. I have chosen Judge Grau because he pushed me to "find the authority" for every decision. I recall my law professors telling us to always look to the statutes. I received the same admonition from Judge Grau asking "what is your authority for that?" countless times. A good judge listens but also demands preparation and a solid footing upon which decisions are to be made. Judge Grau was that judge - demanding the best from those appearing in front of him. He pushed me to reach farther, work harder, and always know the authority for which I made my requests. He was an outstanding role model.
 
Hon. Frederic Fleishauer: Circuit Court Branch 1, Portage County
I appeared before Judge Fleishauer more times than I can count. He was always thoroughly versed in the statutes and case law and an excellent jurist. However, I am listing him here because of my admiration for his leadership in our community. Judge Fleishauer advocated tirelessly for thoughtful problem-solving in the justice system. He was the catalyst for the creation of the Portage County Justice Coalition more than twenty years ago; our pre-trial supervision program for OWI offenders; and a private organization (Justiceworks Ltd.) to provide mentors and other alternative programs in the criminal justice system. He was deeply involved in our community, a true advocate for justice, and embodied the role of leader of the Portage County Justice system.
 
The proper role of a judge:
A Circuit Court Judge is a leader in the county justice system, a role model and moral compass for a community. In the courtroom the judge needs to exhibit decorum but also listen carefully to all parties. Respect for all people in the courtroom is essential.
 
Most people will enter a courtroom only once or twice in their lifetimes. It may be one of the most difficult moments in that person's life. A judge must remember that while day-to-day hearings might become rote and routine, for the person seated in front of them, this might be the most critical moment of their life. A judge must give that interaction the great weight such an encounter deserves.
 
The court must base its rulings on the proper authority, be it statutes or case law. A judge must be prepared and well-versed in the applicable statutes and case law. A Circuit Court judge does not make law, but rather applies existing law to the situation before it, even when the judge may not agree with the applicable law. When a judge rules, they should clearly explain the basis upon which they are relying. A recitation of the relevant facts is essential to understand why the judge ruled the way they did.
 
A Circuit Court judge respects the role of the jury as the finder-of-fact and equally respects the constitutional role of jurors in the justice process.
 
It is important for the judge to be perceived by all as fair and impartial in all matters. When there is a perception that it might not be possible to appear to be fair and impartial, the judge must be prepared to recuse him or herself and allow another court to handle the matter.
 
A judge realizes the power of their words - they can encourage a defendant to improve themselves, speak to divorcing parents about the value of co-parenting and mutual respect, or motivate a litigant toward rehabilitation.
 
The role of the judge in treatment or alternative rehabilitation programs is monumental. The judge can empathize with a defendant, inspire, motivate, or buoy up a relapsed defendant. As a team member for treatment courts, the judge bears the ultimate responsibility when a defendant fails and needs consequences or to be expelled from the program.
 
Outside of the courtroom the judge is a community leader and the face of the county justice system. The judge must be able to turn a blind eye to criticisms for unpopular rulings.
 
The judge's personal life is on display, as well. Actions by the judge and his or her family in the community must be beyond reproach. A judge should consider themselves a role model for good citizenship.
 
Lastly, the role of the judge is to be an ambassador for the justice system. A judge listens, and cares deeply for the integrity of the justice system. A good judge imbues respect in all ways for our constitutional form of government.

Case File

​During ten days in spring 2021, Kelsey Alexandra Grams landed herself in criminal legal trouble twice. Her second criminal case included a charge of misdemeanor bail jumping.

From April 30 to May 1, 2021, Grams called 9-1-1 more than 170 times from her residence in Superior. Sometimes she hung up and sometimes she laughed or screamed or told jokes. Other times she provided information including, among other things, that there were two dead bodies in her basement, someone was shot in her backyard, someone stole her child’s toys from her yard, she was running a sex trafficking ring, someone was peeping in her windows, and there was an overdose death next door.

Squads were dispatched to Grams’ residence multiple times. One officer in particular responded to the residence at least four times and spent more than two hours there. Grams sometimes talked with him or yelled at him, and other times she did not. 

Officers investigated the residence next door and found it was empty.

After Grams failed to stop calling 9-1-1, officers obtained a warrant and arrested her inside her residence. They found no bodies on the property.

Grams was charged on May 3, 2021, with three counts of false-emergency (9-1-1) phone use. Each misdemeanor count exposed Grams to a fine of between $100 and $600 and 90 days in jail.

Court Commissioner Rebecca Lovejoy released Grams on a $1000 signature bond. By law, release conditions included that Grams not commit any crimes.

Just four days later, on May 7, police responded to a call from a social worker for the Douglas County Department of Health and Human Services. The social worker reported that she was working on a child custody case involving Grams.

The social worker had just found voicemail messages from Grams from the evening of May 6 and morning of May 7. In one message, Grams said she knew where her child was and that if the child was not returned to her “’it wouldn’t be pretty.’” In another, Grams said that if the social worker did not return Grams’ child the social worker would be “’lucky to survive.’” 

The social worker said she feared for her safety and that of the foster family caring for Grams’ child because Grams knew their address.

Officers found Grams and arrested her. 

On May 10, 2021, Grams was charged with felony stalking and misdemeanor bail jumping because of the release condition in the prior case that she not commit any crimes. The felony carried a potential three and a half years in prison and $10,000 fine. The misdemeanor bail jumping carried a potential nine months in custody and $10,000 fine.

Lovejoy set $500 cash bail and conditions that Grams not contact the social worker or foster parents.

Grams did not pay the cash bail amount and remained in custody. The court denied a request by Grams’ attorney to replace the cash bond with a signature bond.

On July 12, 2021, Grams pleaded no contest to one count of false-emergency phone use in the first case and an amended misdemeanor charge of unlawful use of a phone in the second case. The other false-emergency counts and the bail-jumping count were dismissed as part of a plea agreement.

Douglas County Circuit Judge Kelly J. Thimm sentenced Grams on the false-emergency count to 89 days in jail, with 67 days of credit for time served, and a $100 fine plus court costs. On the unlawful-phone-use count Thimm imposed 60 days in jail (with no sentence credit) but stayed that custody and imposed two years of probation, and a $25 fine plus court costs. 
​
Thimm also ordered Grams to have no contact with the social worker.

Our methodology: WJI and Mastantuono Coffee & Thomas determined the number of felony and misdemeanor bail-jumping cases and charges in each county through court data. The total number of felony and misdemeanor cases filed in a county was obtained through the state's online court system. Cases selected for the "case file" section are chosen randomly through a random number-generator web site. Facts set forth in the case file section are allegations from criminal complaints.

The intent of the project is to show a variety of bail-jumping cases and the frequency with which such charges are made.

​"Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications.
 
Italics indicate direct quotes from the application.​ Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.

Name: LaKeisha D. Haase
 
Appointed to: Winnebago County Circuit Court
 
Appointment date: Dec. 7, 2020 (defeated in April 2022 election)
 
Education:
Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, Oshkosh
High School – Franklin High, Franklin, Wisconsin

​Recent legal employment:
February 2019-present – Associate attorney, paralegal supervisor, Hogan Eickhoff, S.C., Appleton, Wisconsin
September 2011-January 2019 – Assistant state public defender, Office of State Public Defender, Appleton, Wisconsin
 
Bar and Administrative Memberships:
State Bar of Wisconsin
U.S. District Court
 
General character of practice:
The general character of my current practice consists of Family Law - pre and post-disposition; criminal defense to include minor traffic offenses through Class A felonies, revocation proceedings before Administrative Law Judges; CHIPs proceedings where I represent both parents and children; Termination of Parental Rights proceedings representing both children and parents; Civil Litigation limited to Injunction Proceedings; Chapter 51 Commitments; and Chapter 54 and 55 proceedings.
 
Number of cases tried to verdict: 4
 
List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years:
Injunction proceeding in Manitowoc County before Court Commissioner Charles Wingrove - the petitioner - wife alleged that my client, the respondent - spouse, sexually assaulted her throughout the court of the relationship and petitioned the court for an injunction. My client had a prior sexual assault conviction and was a registered sex offender. I obtained text messages between the parties. I was able to illicit testimony at the proceeding proving that the petitioner created the allegations due to infidelity and my client choosing to leave the marriage. My client was afraid that the injunction would jeopardize his placement with his children in the subsequent divorce proceedings. My client was fearful of testifying due to his past convictions. I spent a significant amount of time preparing my client for testimony. The petition for injunction was denied. Following the hearing, the clerk ran after me to not only congratulate me but inform me that throughout the proceeding she was messaging other clerks about the hearing because she was impressed with my preparation and professionalism. She also informed me that the court commissioner is rarely impressed by any counsel and responded positively to my representation of counsel, my professionalism, and preparedness. She then urged me to take more cases in Manitowoc County.
 
2nd degree and 3rd degree sexual assault in Brown County before the Honorable Donald Zuidmuilder …. The state alleged that my client sexually assaulted his family friend after a night out of drinking at a concert. The state moved to admit other acts. Specifically, the state wanted to admit evidence of the client grabbing another individual's breast years earlier in Michigan. As co-counsel for the client, a police officer, I drafted the objection for other acts. My primary role as co-counsel was to cross-examine the alleged victim at trial. My objection to the state's motion for other acts was successful and the court denied the state's motion. In preparation for trial, I reviewed the text message exchanges between the alleged victim and her husband which led to defense preparing to present additional motions to include the exchanges at trial. The state eventually dismissed the case, I believe, in part on the strong defense presented during pretrial hearings and telephone conferences with the state. Unfortunately, the state did refile the case later.
 
I am co-counsel to a client on a 1st Degree Intentional Homicide charge in Outagamie County before the Honorable Gregory B. Gill, Jr. … I am the eighth attorney that has been appointed and the only attorney that has not been fired by the client. This case has been scheduled for trial on three separate occasions and the adjournments have not been due to defense counsel. My involvement in this case is significant because of my commitment to representing people of color, specifically, black men that are incarcerated in smaller counties in Wisconsin on higher level offenses. I am aware of the lack of legal representation from attorney's of color in the State of Wisconsin and I am all to familiar with the desire of clients to trust the judicial system even if it is a small fraction by way of their counsel. This client has expressed his appreciation of having an attorney of color represent him, an attorney that understands the cultural differences and dynamics that are important for him. My representation of this client has been nothing short of zealous advocacy but I also developed a relationship with him that is built on likeness and understanding that prior counsel could never provide.
 
Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies:
While employed with the Office of the State Public Defender I represented defendant's in revocation proceedings. As an Assistant State Public Defender, I represented countless clients in revocation proceedings.
 
In private practice, I continue to represent clients at revocation proceedings, I have represented four clients in revocation proceedings while in private practice; three of which I was successful in avoiding revocation and one was a waiver of right to a revocation hearing.
 
Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation).
Outagamie County Drug and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Court (DATC) - As defense counsel team member, I was an integral part of the Drug Court team, I participated in pre-court staffings, hearings, team communication and decision making, information sharing, and team training.
 
Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: N/A
 
Previous runs for public office: N/A
 
All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: N/A
 
Professional or civic and charitable organizations:
Women in Management, 2020 to present
Wisconsin Association of African American Lawyers, 2011 to present
Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, 2019 to present
National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, 2020 to present
Winnebago County Bar Association, 2019 to present
 
Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service:
As an Assistant State Public Defender I was restricted from practicing or volunteering in any legal capacity outside of the agency.
 
As an Assistant State Public Defender, I was a member of the Affirmative Action Equal Employment Opportunity Advisory Committee, the Outagamie County Coordinating Counsel Committee, the Outagamie County Racial Disparity Committee, and the Outagamie County Evidence Based Decision Making Committee.
 
As a student at Marquette University Law School, I volunteered at the Family Law Clinic, Small Claims Clinic, and the Pro Bono Legal Clinic.
 
Prior to law school and while an employee at the Winnebago County Courthouse, I volunteered at the Legal Self Help Clinic and the Drunk Driving Victim Impact Panel.
 
Quotes:
Why I want to be a judge:
I want to serve the people of Wisconsin as a Judge because I believe in the need to have a fair and impartial judiciary. I believe that a fair and impartial judiciary must be made up of individuals who are educated, compassionate, and diverse.
I have practiced in the State of Wisconsin for over 9 years. I have approached every case and client with professionalism and respect. I have used my voice and position as an attorney as both learning and teachable moments. I have spent countless hours in the courtroom. I have practiced before Judges in over 12 different counties. I know that every person, is deserving of respect.
I want to serve the people of Wisconsin, as Circuit Court Judge, for the same reasons that I chose to become an attorney, and that is to have a lasting impact on people, regardless of the case, the litigant, or the party.
 
Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin.
Although, there are many cases that have had an impact, whether negative, on positive, on Wisconsin citizens, Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee greatly impacted the citizens of Wisconsin. The 5-4 decision by the United States Supreme Court, has allowed for a minute fraction of residents to have an overwhelming, bull-horn, influence in elections while essentially muting the microphone of Wisconsin citizens as it relates to local politics and issues specific to Wisconsin residents.
 
Two or three judges whom I admire and why:
One Judge that I admire is Retired Judge Thomas Gritton, Winnebago County. I had the pleasure to work for Judge Gritton as his court assistant. As a former prosecutor, Judge Gritton was committed to educating himself on all areas of the law to make an informed and impartial decision in every case before him.
 
I was able to witness firsthand the respect he gave every person, regardless of the case, that entered his courtroom. I had a front row seat to the decisions he had to make and the thought that he put into each case whether it was a civil matter, criminal, family, or a minor traffic offense. The cases and tough decisions were at times difficult for him, yet he never treated, even the simplest of cases, as though the parties were not impacted by the justice system and ultimately impacted by him.
 
Judge Gritton’s time on the bench was never about just getting cases through the system. I vividly recall walking through the doors of the Winnebago County Courthouse with Judge Gritton one afternoon when a woman walked up to him, calling out his name. She reminded him of her criminal case and sentence; it was a prison sentence and the first and only time she was sentenced to prison. To my surprise, she thanked him. She thanked him for the words at her hearing and thanked him for sending her to prison. She expressed that admittedly when he sentenced her, she was angry and upset. She went on to tell him that over time she thought about what he told her and was determined to turn her life.
 
In addition to Judge Gritton, there are many other Judges and Justices that I admire, but a true standout is Justice Sonia Sotomayor. As a Justice, even when she is not a part of the majority, she speaks up. Her dissents as it relates to race, gender, criminal justice reform and discrimination are powerful, moving, and educational. Her reputation of extending kindness and respect to parties is well known.
 
The proper role of a judge:
The proper role of a Judge is to be a courtroom administrator. A judge is to interpret the law while apply the laws to the facts of a case while remaining impartial. A judge must be fully prepared to rule on matters, listen intently, and do the necessary work to lead to an informed, educated, and impartial decision. A judge has a duty to every person that enters the courtroom to treat them with respect, show dignity, and rule according to the law.
 
A Judge must bring respect and dignity to the bench. A judge must learn and teach. I previously spoke of teachable moments, but it is clear that a judge has a duty to the community to teach and inform of those areas of the law that impacts the community.

Largest number of bail-jumping charges issued in a single case: 10
Number of felony bail-jumping charges issued: 155
​Number of misdemeanor bail-jumping charges issued: 60
​
*Felony cases can include felony or misdemeanor bail-jumping charges or both; misdemeanor cases can include only misdemeanor bail-jumping charges. Case counts reported as of January 2022. Criminal traffic cases are not included in this analysis.

Case File

Domestic disputes, anger, and threats of self-harm landed Keyan Watts with disorderly conduct and property damage charges plus three misdemeanor bail-jumping charges.

Watts had been acting strangely at work at the Brick Lot Bar and Grill the evening of January 20, 2021. A co-worker thought Watts was under the influence of something other than alcohol.

The friend accompanied Watts home around 12:40 a.m. Watt’s girlfriend thought Watts was drunk and belligerent, and she went to the garage to smoke a cigarette.  She was trying to avoid an argument because their children were sleeping. The two had been arguing off and on for several days.

Watts followed her to the garage and swore at her. When the girlfriend shut the door to the garage, Watts punched through a window in the door.

Watts and his friend left the house for the emergency room, where Watts received stitches and a splint for his hand. The friend wanted Watts to stay with him but Watts refused. The two returned to Watts’ house but Watts’ girlfriend had locked the doors.

Sturgeon Bay police responded after Watts called them to report being locked out. The officers thought Watts was intoxicated, as he slurred his speech and swayed.

After talking with the girlfriend, the officers tried to persuade Watts to go his friend’s house, but Watts started yelling at the officers to arrest him. After Watts walked away down the street yelling and swearing, the officers indeed arrested him.

Watts was charged later that day with domestic-abuse disorderly conduct and criminal damage to property, both as a repeater due to his prior drug-possession felony. Both charges were misdemeanors but the repeater allegation increased potential custody on each count to two years, with potential fines of $1,000 and $10,000.

Door County Circuit Judge David Weber set cash bail at $250 with several conditions. He ordered Watts to maintain absolute sobriety, not possess or consume alcohol, not possess controlled substances without a prescription, have no violent contact with his girlfriend, and not go to bars or taverns except for work.

Watts’ mother posted bail for him.

On March 27, 2021, Watts’ mother called Sturgeon Bay police to report that Watts was having a meltdown and threatening suicide over a dispute with his girlfriend about whether she was having an affair.

When officers arrived at the girlfriend’s house around 4 a.m., they could see and hear Watts and his girlfriend arguing in the garage.

Watts cooperated with the officers but was upset and crying. He smelled of intoxicants and slurred his speech.

While an officer talked with Watts, dispatch indicated that Watts had an open misdemeanor case with an absolute sobriety release condition.

Watts admitted to drinking alcohol and submitted to a preliminary breath test that registered 0.178%.

He was charged on April 21 with one count of misdemeanor bail jumping for violating the sobriety condition.

On April 27, 2021, Sturgeon Bay police were dispatched to Watts’ girlfriend’s house on a report from a woman on FaceTime with Watts’ girlfriend that Watts had a knife to his throat. The friend said there were children in the house and she thought both Watts and his girlfriend were intoxicated.

Officers responded with lights and sirens. When they arrived at the house they saw Watts through a bathroom window. Watts held a large knife in his hand but then dropped it in the sink and left the room.

Police announced their presence and entered through the side door. They passed the girlfriend and began clearing the house with guns drawn while making sure the children were safe.

They found Watts in bed in an upper-level room. They handcuffed him because they had seen him with a knife. Watts had bloodshot eyes, was slurring his speech, and smelled of intoxicants. He did not cooperate with the officers.

Watts’ girlfriend told officers that Watts had been caring for their children while she was at work. When she arrived home around 2:15 a.m. they began discussing their relationship. They each consumed shots of liquor while they talked.

Watts became angry and started yelling. His girlfriend recorded their encounter.

She played the recordings for one of the officers, who heard an argument become so loud that a child began screaming for it to stop. The girlfriend remained calm through most of the exchange.

The girlfriend told officers that a loud pounding noise in the recordings was Watts hitting the wall.

Officers heard Watts in the recordings say that his girlfriend needed to find a new father for the kids because he was going to be in a coffin. He several times mentioned being dead.

The girlfriend reported that Watts had walked to the children’s rooms and kissed them, telling them goodbye. He then picked up a kitchen knife and placed it against his neck. At that point the girlfriend contacted her friend by FaceTime so the friend could witness what was happening.

During questioning, Watts consented to a breath test, which registered 0.225%. He told officers that he would “’test dirty for marijuana’” as well.

Watts was transported to the Door County Medical Center for a crisis evaluation.

On April 28, 2021, Watts was charged with domestic-abuse disorderly conduct with use of a dangerous weapon as a repeater, exposing him to a fine of $1,000 and up to 30 months in custody. The complaint included two counts of misdemeanor bail jumping as a repeater, each with possible penalties of $10,000 and nine months in jail.

Door County Circuit Judge D. Todd Ehlers set cash bond at $250 in each case, with conditions of absolute sobriety, no possession or consumption of alcohol, no possession of drug paraphernalia or controlled substances without a prescription, no bars or taverns except for work, and no contact with the girlfriend except regarding placement of their children.

On December 9, 2021, Watts resolved all three cases by pleading no contest to domestic-abuse disorderly conduct in the first case and domestic-abuse disorderly conduct and a count of misdemeanor bail jumping in the third case. The state dropped the dangerous-weapon enhancement.

All other charges were dismissed but “read in.” Read-in charges are dismissed as part of a plea agreement, but the defendant agrees that the court can consider the charges at sentencing.

Weber sentenced Watts to 30 days on each of the three counts of conviction, consecutive, with work-release privileges.

Our methodology: WJI and Mastantuono Coffee & Thomas determined the number of felony and misdemeanor bail-jumping cases and charges in each county through court data. The total number of felony and misdemeanor cases filed in a county was obtained through the state's online court system. Cases selected for the "case file" section are chosen randomly through a random number-generator web site. Facts set forth in the case file section are allegations from criminal complaints.

The intent of the project is to show a variety of bail-jumping cases and the frequency with which such charges are made.
​

​Nationwide, 95% of incumbent district attorneys win reelection, and few even face an opponent. The bigger the district, the more money is generally spent on elections, and reform candidates bring in more money, including from out of state, says a researcher.

But according to some district attorneys, political party affiliation plays little to no role in performance of their jobs.

A national researcher and three current or former district attorneys spoke on a panel at the Marquette University Law School on Tuesday about how politics and prosecutors intersect. Marquette Law professor Michael O’Hear moderated.

Professor Carissa Byrne Hessick began the event describing research she and others are doing in the Prosecutors and Politics Project at the University of North Carolina School of Law. The project’s members gather data, analyze trends, and publish findings — and even op-eds — regarding prosecutors. Hessick is the project’s director.

After Hessick presented some of the project’s findings, Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, Marathon County District Attorney Theresa Wetzsteon, and former Winnebago County District Attorney Christian Gossett responded with their reactions and a discussion of issues facing prosecutors in Wisconsin.

Hessick indicated that more than 2300 district attorneys are elected across the country, with 45 states electing their local prosecutors for terms of between two and eight years. Within the election states, only five have nonpartisan district attorney offices, she said.  

Hessick and her fellow researches studied data on all 2016 prosecutor races across the country. The project has not yet analyzed 2020 election data.

The researchers found that 95% of all incumbent elected prosecutors won their 2016 reelection campaigns. That percentage confirmed the finding of another researcher’s smaller study a decade earlier, she said.

Both nationally and in Wisconsin, only 30% of prosecutors faced an opponent in either the primary or general election. The larger the district, the more likely an election was contested, the project found.

Even most open seats are uncontested, she said.

The project found that size of a district also corresponds to the amount of money spent on campaigns. With one aberration regarding Jefferson County District Attorney Susan Happ, the general rule applied in Wisconsin, with the most expensive races in Milwaukee, Dane, and Racine counties in that order, Hessick said. (The district attorneys on the panel suggested that Happ’s campaign numbers may have included money from her previous race for attorney general.)

Hessick noted that the project looked only at money raised by candidates themselves, not at “dark money” coming into the race from outside sources. Information on outside funding is too difficult to acquire, she said.

Hessick relayed the project’s additional research on prosecutors lobbying for legislation. The project looked at every criminal justice bill across the country from 2015 to 2017 to see who was lobbying for or against it.

The researchers found that prosecutors generally are more likely to see success in getting bills they support passed than in blocking bills they oppose, she said. Prosecutors were also found more successful in arguing for criminal justice reforms rather than for harsher legislation, she said.

Regarding legislation in Wisconsin, the project saw more written testimony or lobbying from the state attorney general’s office than from the district attorneys’ association.

The Wisconsin District Attorneys Association is a voluntary association of criminal prosecutors from across the state.

Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm explained that the prosecutors’ association primarily advocates for more staff and funding rather than for criminal law changes.

Compensation for district attorneys and their staff was a significant topic for the DAs on the panel.

Gossett and Chisholm noted how rules regarding DA pay have restricted compensation such that many city attorneys now make $30,000 more than their county's DA.

Even staff below the DAs can earn more. Gossett said he resigned his DA position and took the Deputy DA spot, thereby getting an immediate raise of $17,000. He indicated that 40 of 71 DAs would get a pay raise by stepping down, and nine have done so this year.

The pay rate and, for small counties, a lack of attorneys interested in the job could explain the dearth of contested elections. Wetzsteon described how in recent elections too few people showed interest in running for Marathon County judge; candidates had to be recruited.

Gossett and Wetzsteon pointed out how DA positions differ between large and smaller counties. Gossett noted that out of 71 DA offices across the state only four have more than 20 prosecutors.

In smaller counties, like Marathon and even Winnebago, the DA is a “working” DA still prosecuting cases in court, Wetzsteon and Gossett said.

In those counties, partisanship gets blown out of proportion and the DAs are just trying to run their offices to get the job done and keep the community safe, Gossett said. He indicated that he was a Republican DA, and Tony Evers appointed his replacement, but the office runs the same.

Regarding Hessick’s research on prosecutors influencing legislation, Wetzsteon indicated that records regarding lobbying on bills would not reflect times when legislators contacts DAs for advice about how certain proposed legislation would work. The DAs can be approached as experts and influence legislation that way, even if they do not seek out bills to weigh in on, she suggested.

When O’Hear asked what qualifications a prosecutor should have, Wetzsteon replied that for smaller counties, the DA must be able to actually try cases in court. Political parties looking for candidates may not take that into account, she had indicated earlier.

She added that prosecutors need to be able to make good decisions quickly and “need to know [their] stuff” when called in the middle of the night about a search warrant.

Chisholm had earlier referred to a managerial aspect of the DA job, indicating that during 16 years as DA he has hired 225 prosecutors. Gossett later echoed how the DA position is one of constant training.  

When hiring prosecutors, Chisholm looks for good people who “want to do justice.” Gossett said he looks for humility, as the job is to help solve problems and be a part of the community.

Chisholm added that DAs have to both protect the people who work for them and be transparent when “something goes sideways.” He noted the tremendous pressure on DAs “to do the right thing” rather than be political at those times.