|
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.  Columbia County
Total number of cases with bail-jumping charges: 473* Total number of misdemeanor and felony cases: 1,370 Percent of misdemeanor and felony cases that include bail-jumping charges: 35% Total number of felony cases with bail-jumping charges: 296** Total number of all felony cases: 740 Percent of felony cases that include bail-jumping charges: 40% Total number of misdemeanor cases with bail-jumping charges: 177 Total number of all misdemeanor cases: 630 Percent of misdemeanor cases that include bail-jumping charges: 28% Largest number of bail-jumping charges issued in a single case: 14 Number of felony bail-jumping charges issued: 549 Number of misdemeanor bail-jumping charges issued: 469 *Excludes criminal traffic misdemeanor cases that include bail-jumping charges. Criminal traffic charges are not included in this analysis. **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. Case file Two witnesses reported seeing Natalie punch and hit a man in the head and face. An off-duty Portage police officer, on his way into a fitness facility, also “heard a man and a woman screaming at each other and causing a disturbance,” according to a criminal complaint. The officer recognized both. The man told police that he and Natalie had lived together for about a year and that she was upset that they broke up. Natalie came up to the man from behind, he said, and started hitting him in the head. Natalie told police she and the man had spent the night together in a hotel. Natalie, then 19, was charged with disorderly conduct / domestic abuse, which carries a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail, a $1,000 fine, and a $100 domestic-abuse assessment. Columbia County Circuit Judge W. Andrew Voigt set a $500 signature bond on July 8, 2021. Natalie was ordered not to have contact with the victim. She did not listen, according to a criminal complaint. Exactly one week later, on July 15, Natalie was charged with misdemeanor bail jumping, a charge that carries a maximum penalty of nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine. After spending about half an hour with the same man, who had just been released from jail, in a friend’s bathroom, a frantic Natalie emerged “yelling for help,” according to the complaint. The man had overdosed. Natalie told her friend “not to call 9-1-1 because she did not want (her boyfriend) to go back to jail,” the complaint said. The friend called anyway. The man survived. Natalie was released on a $250 signature bond. Misdemeanor bail jumping occurs when a person out on bond on a misdemeanor charge violates the conditions of that bond. A bail-jumping offense may not by itself be a crime. Missing a court date, violating a local ordinance, or having a drink could all be bail-jumping offenses if bond conditions prohibit those things. Misdemeanor bail jumping carries a maximum penalty of nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine; felony bail jumping carries a maximum penalty of six years in prison and a $10,000 fine. It took more than three weeks this time before Natalie faced more charges – two counts involving credit cards and two more counts of misdemeanor bail jumping. Natalie and the boyfriend sometimes stayed with a woman and took an opportunity to relieve the woman of her wallet and debit card. The debit card was used in $300 worth of transactions. The boyfriend said Natalie took the wallet for drug money, according to the complaint. Natalie said the boyfriend took the wallet and then ditched her. Voigt set a $1,000 signature bond and ordered Natalie not to have contact with the victim or the boyfriend. The four charges each carried a maximum penalty of nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine. In October, Natalie screamed at a woman loud enough to be heard by others and for someone to call the police. She was charged with disorderly conduct and three counts of misdemeanor bail jumping. She faced another 2½ years in prison and $31,000 in fines. Circuit Judge Todd Hepler set a $500 signature bond. All together, Natalie faced 6½ years behind bars and $82,100 in fines. Of that, 4½ years and $60,000 was attributable to misdemeanor bail-jumping charges. Natalie eventually pleaded no contest to the disorderly conduct / domestic abuse complaint and to two counts of misdemeanor bail jumping in a plea deal that covered all four cases. Judge James Evenson sentenced her to two years’ probation. Evenson assessed costs and ordered Natalie, with her boyfriend, to pay $300 in restitution. The judge agreed to make her record eligible for expunction if she kept out of trouble. But in May of this year, Natalie was charged in Dane County Circuit Court with felony identity theft and felony credit card fraud. In June she was charged in Columbia County with felony possession of narcotics, misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance, and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia. Those charges are pending. 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 data was reported as of Jan. 31. 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. The intent of the project is to show a variety of bail-jumping cases.
0 Comments
By Gretchen Schuldt A woman had a reasonable belief that she was not free to leave a parking lot after police officers parked in a way that made it difficult for her to drive away, shined a “take down” spotlight into her car, and knocked on her car window and announced themselves as law enforcement, the State Court of Appeals ruled last week.  Blanchard District IV Appellate Judge Brian W. Blanchard, in upholding a decision by Jefferson County Circuit Judge William V. Gruber to suppress evidence, found that the state did not “show that the court clearly erred in finding that a reasonable person in (Annika) Christensen’s position would have had, in the words of the court, an ‘actual or perceived inability to’ drive away from the police.”
Blanchard remanded the case back to Circuit Court, where Gruber had already dismissed the four misdemeanor counts filed against Christensen. Christensen, then 21, was arrested in November 2019 as she and a passenger sat in her car in a parking lot about 6:49 p.m. The lot, owned by the Department of Natural Resources, had a single entrance/exit, and trees blocked Christensen from driving forward or to the right, according to the decision. Town of Lake Mills Police Sgt. Ryan Walters, who was with Officer Vincent Pagliaro, drove a police truck into the lot and parked behind Christensen’s car and another car parked next to it, Blanchard wrote. The officers activated their take-down lights. Pagliaro testified in Circuit Court that Christensen’s car drew his attention because “it was parked while there was snow falling, it was running, its windows were fogged, and it was sitting in the dark,” according to a defense brief filed by attorneys Teuta Jonuzi and Tracey A. Wood. They added: “Pagliaro acknowledged that it would not be uncommon for fogging of windows to occur when it is cold outside and the heat is turned on in the vehicle.” Walters, though, said “he did not note the window fogging until he approached Christensen’s vehicle, and it was not part of his decision-making process in electing to make contact with Christensen’s vehicle,” Jonuzi and Wood wrote. “Similarly, he did not note any signs of drug activity with the vehicle before he made contact with Christensen. Per Walters, had Christensen attempted to drive her vehicle away, she would not have been free to do so.” Walters testified in Circuit Court, they wrote, that neighbors had complained about drug activity in the lot and that he had previously arrested people for drug offenses there. A subsequent open records request to the Lake Mills Police Department revealed, however, that there had been only one previous drug arrest in the parking lot. Walters later testified that he had arrested three juveniles in the lot five years earlier and that those were the only arrests he had made. There had been no drug-related contacts in the lot since then, Wood and Jonuzi wrote. The officers differed in how far they said they parked behind Christensen’s car. Pagliaro said about 30 feet, while Walters said about 10 feet, Blanchard wrote in his decision. Both said Christensen had room to leave, “although Sgt. Walters testified that ‘[i]t would have been tight,’ ” Blanchard wrote. Walters said he did not know whether Christensen would have been able to leave in “one maneuver” or whether she would have to “back up and pull forward to go around the back side of my vehicle.” Gruber found Walters’ testimony more convincing and accepted it. Blanchard said video of the truck’s position was not included in the appellate record and so he accepted the Circuit Court’s finding. After Walters activated the spotlight, Blanchard wrote, Pagliaro got out of the police truck and approached Christensen’s car on the passenger side. He announced he was a police officer and knocked on the front passenger-side window. The passenger rolled down the window and the smell of burned marijuana wafted out of the car. Christensen was charged with possession of marijuana, possession of paraphernalia, and two counts of possession of narcotics, all misdemeanors. The state, on appeal, argued that the officers’ initial contact with Christensen was a “consensual encounter” and that Fourth Amendment protections did not kick in. Gruber, Jefferson County District Attorney Monica Hall wrote in prosecution briefs, “did not find that Ms. Christensen could not have driven away, just that it would have been difficult for her to do so.” That, she said, is similar to cases in which the state Supreme Court ruled that stopped individuals were not “seized” for Fourth Amendment purposes. Hall argued that Walters’ testimony that Christensen would not be free to leave was irrelevant. “Rather, the analysis is whether, under a totality of the circumstances, an innocent reasonable person in Ms. Christensen's position would feel free to leave under the circumstances,” she wrote. The state maintains that a reasonable person in Christensen’s position would have felt free to do so, she said. Blanchard disagreed. While not the determining factor, he said, “the presence of uniformed officers arriving on the scene in a marked truck, with at least one of the officers getting out and approaching the car on foot, weighs in favor of a seizure. I reject the State’s thinly developed argument to the contrary.” Associated Press: U.S. Supreme Court lifts hold on order directing Yeshiva University to recognize LGBTQ+ student group.
The disagreement among the justices appears to be mostly about procedure, with the majority writing in a brief unsigned order that Yeshiva should return to state court to seek quick review and temporary relief while the case continues. Courthouse News Service: Third Circuit hears appeal in malicious prosecution and civil rights case of physics professor falsely accused of being a spy. A superconducting technology expert, (Xiaoxing) Xi’s life was turned upside down seven years ago by now-withdrawn espionage charges that accused him of relaying sensitive “pocket heater” technology belonging to the company Superconductor Technologies to Chinese researchers. Reuters: Senate confirms sixth public defender to federal appeals courts. The Atlantic: In hindsight, the peak for women in American Law was March 2, 2016. At that moment, the country appeared inches away from leveraging the law to serve women’s dignity and equality interests on a massive scale. Back in that spring of 2016, we really thought we could see gender equality from our back porches. And then it was gone. WPR: California sues Amazon for alleged anticompetitive behavior. Reuters: Bankruptcy judge reports harassment related to Johnson & Johnson talc case. Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Michael Kaplan in Trenton, New Jersey said at a hearing that he and his staff have been getting angry and menacing messages through phone calls, voicemails, emails and social media posts since his February decision not to dismiss the bankruptcy case of LTL Management LLC. J&J created the subsidiary in October, assigned its talc liabilities to it and put it in bankruptcy a few days later, in an attempt to resolve approximately 38,000 lawsuits alleging that its Baby Powder and other talc products caused mesothelioma and ovarian cancer. The Regulatory Review: The myriad administrative obstacles to decarceration. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Milwaukee Common Council committee recommends hiring private law firm to defend federal lawsuit.
Slate: Dahlia Lithwick on recent discussions of the Supreme Court by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan. Roberts knows better than to suggest that the court’s problem this past term was simply a matter of “people disagreeing with a decision.” The court was handed to wealthy secret donors because of his own jurisprudence. And the court’s problem is now that it happened in plain sight. With all due respect, it is not that the public didn’t like the final score at the end of the term when the lights went out in June. The problem wasn’t just the losses; the problem was that his team moved the game to another field, then stole the ball and replaced it with a time bomb, then changed the rules, then lied about it, and then set the entire field ablaze. Now he wants everyone to shake hands and go home. The public is not so inclined. He is far too smart to believe we are all this stupid, which suggests to me that he knows we are right. Bloomberg Law: Third Circuit nominee loses confirmation vote in Senate; reconsideration possible. (Arianna) Freeman, aiming to become the first Black woman and first woman of color to serve on the Pennsylvania-based federal appellate court, received only 47 favorable votes to 50 against. It appeared the failure to confirm Freeman was more about absent Democratic senators than opposition to her nomination. Reuters: School that prohibits girls from wearing pants wants SCOTUS review of Fourth Circuit decision finding that dress code unconstitutional. Health Affairs: Urgent action needed to protect those in custody from monkeypox. Several cases of monkeypox have already been reported in jails nationwide. Yet, as we will detail in this article, there is no centralized tracking of the number of monkeypox cases in carceral facilities nor is there any guidance for prisons and jails from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or state health departments. Reason: Appellate court says confrontation clause rights outweighed health concerns in case involving COVID exposure. M.W.'s possible exposure to COVID-19 without any symptoms of illness that prevents her from providing live, in-person testimony, does not satisfy any of the recognized circumstances rendering a witness unavailable. Therefore, she was available to provide live, in-person testimony. M.W. was willing to testify, she was physically and mentally able to testify, she was within the jurisdiction, and she remained in contact with the prosecutor. APG Wisconsin: Attorney General Josh Kaul will refile abortion-law challenge if necessary.
Wisconsin Law Journal: Waukesha judge denies stay of decision blocking election clerks from filling in missing information on absentee ballots. Politico: The provocative decisions of Trump's judges. Vox: The case between Yeshiva University and an LGBTQ student group at the Supreme Court. If the Pride Alliance merely sought access to meeting rooms or other Yeshiva University facilities, then they would have a stronger case under existing law. But the campus Pride Alliance seeks more. They seek the Orthodox Jewish university’s imprimatur as the “Yeshiva University Pride Alliance.” And that is probably more than the student group can demand from a religious institution. Yeshiva University raises a strong argument that requiring it to lend its name to an LGBTQ student group, even though a state court determined that New York anti-discrimination law requires it to do so, infringes on its right to make “internal management decisions” regarding its own interpretation of the Jewish faith. One open question is whether the Court will confine its ruling to similar disputes between religious universities and campus groups, or whether it will hand down a more expansive victory for religious conservatives. In other words, will this Court take this case, in which a conservative religious organization raises a fairly strong legal claim, and use it to make deeper-than-necessary cuts against anti-discrimination efforts on campus? ACLU: Criminal justice reform advances notwithstanding backlash. But the national headlines don’t tell the full story: On the contrary, criminal legal reform continues to win in many parts of the country. The number of people incarcerated is down 22.4 percent (or 1,588,400 fewer persons) since 2010, much of it due to the hundreds of laws passed to reform the criminal legal system and the election of policymakers committed to smart reforms. On the local and state levels, voters and lawmakers have kept up this trend. Center for Biological Diversity: Organization sues Environmental Protection Agency to force smog-reduction plans in five states. U.S. News & World Report: Recent filings in the Mar-a-Lago search case. "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: Judge Michael Zell
Appointed to: Portage County Circuit Court Appointment date: June 24, 2022 Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin Graduate School – University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee High School – Slinger High School, Slinger, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: April 2021-present – Assistant state public defender, Wisconsin December 2018-April 2021 and April 2017-April 2018 – Assistant district attorney, Portage County April 2018-December 2018 – Assistant district attorney, Marathon County January 2015-April 2017 – Assistant district attorney, Wood County 2002-2015 – Owner, Zell Law Office LLC Bar and Administrative Memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin General character of practice: I began my career as an assistant public defender in Racine WI. I left that position after three years and worked for an OWI firm in Milwaukee for a little more than one year. I then ran Zell Law Office LLC for 13 years. I represented individuals in a variety of matters. Due to the rising costs of health insurance, in 2015 my spouse and I decided that I would seek employment with the State of Wisconsin. I worked as an assistant district attorney for approximately six years. I worked in several different offices due to family reasons and greater opportunities. After six years of that work I decided that I wanted to work with clients, and joined the public defender's office. Describe typical clients: As a public defender, my current clients are indigent criminal defendants. When I was running Zell Law Office, much of my practice was family law and guardian ad litem work, as well as child welfare (CHIPS and TPR), and criminal appeals. When I perceived a need in bankruptcy in the Stevens Point area I began accepting clients for this purpose and filed quite a few bankruptcy petitions, mostly chapter 7. My solo practice also included some small estate planning and other civil litigation. Number of cases tried to verdict: Dozens. I have not kept count. 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:
Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have worked on a significant number of probation revocation hearings, including by filing administrative appeals of revocation decisions. I also have filed a significant number of bankruptcy cases, which are not technically administrative, but proceed in a similar fashion. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). I have some experience with mediation. While operating Zell Law Office, a significant portion of my practice was divorce and family law. Many of those cases used mediators to resolve issues about child custody and placement. I also worked on cases as guardian ad litem for children. Though not characterized as mediation, the guardian ad litem in a divorce often attempts to broker a resolution between the parents and their attorneys. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: None Previous runs for public office: None All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Steven Sawyer, Portage County judge, 2022 Rick Cveykus, Marathon County judge, 2022 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Portage County Bar Association, 2009 to present Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service:
Quotes: Why I want to be a judge -- I have always loved the practice of law. As a young attorney the thrill of litigation was enough to propel me through the days in court, and the nights and weekends at the Marquette Law Library. I spent a lot of time in my first few years with Wayne LaFave’s Search and Seizure Treatise and Blinka’s Wisconsin Practice Series evidence manual. I was fascinated by all of it and spent a lot of time learning how it all worked. I was driven to be the smartest attorney in the courthouse, and tried cases and filed creative motions with this as my goal. I struck out on my own in 2003 because I was motivated to be the kind of lawyer that everyone wanted to hire, the smartest and best. But after twenty-four years of successes and failures, I realize that the most important part of my career has been the relationships with other people. At the core of practicing law, and everything else, is the beauty of humanity. We are a great mass of fragile and flawed beings who have an intense need to connect with each other in meaningful ways. I thrive on these connections. I am glad that other lawyers perceive me as smart and capable. But I am much prouder to be approachable and likable, and to have clients tell me I have helped them. In the past year I’ve had several public defender clients tell me that I’m the best lawyer they’ve ever had. This is not because of my intellect or sharp wit. I recognize the spark of life in everyone, and I use my bedside manner along with competence and diligence to make the best arguments I can for them. When a Portage County judge suggested I run for election in 2011, I laughed it off. But since that time, this seed has grown. I have carefully observed the local judges in Portage, Wood and Marathon Counties. Ultimately I came to realize that they are all very different people who have the job for different reasons. Their motivations for doing the work are all different. But the most noticeable difference is between those judges who respect the humanity of the people in their courtroom, and those who do not. I want to serve as a circuit court judge because I am the best candidate to meet the needs of the people of Portage County. I have the broadest and deepest experience, and the intelligence to process any legal issue. But more importantly, I will treat the people in my courtroom with the dignity and respect they deserve, even if they have done something wrong. I will study not just the problem, but the people, in order to reach a fair and just result. 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. It is tempting to identify Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) as the most important US Supreme Court case in the past 25 years due to my own personal and family implications. This decision recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry. This is an important landmark in our society. Despite the decision there are still significant challenges to people who are LBGTQ. This is a good start at recognizing an important freedom. That being said, the most tangible problem in the United States in 2022 is our division into partisan tribes. Hyper-partisanship has brought government to a standstill, as positioning has become more important than solutions. When I was a teenager and young adult, politicians from both sides would negotiate and compromise to solve the big problems. That social cohesion has deteriorated, and we now seem more like two countries than one. I read widely about this phenomenon and study history to try to understand how we got to this point. There are no easy answers. But certain things stand out as factors in the development of this problem. One is the change in the media system from one that was at least ostensibly neutral to one which openly stokes partisanship. Another is the development of social media, which allows for the easy spread of misinformation. Third is the unlimited spending by corporations and special interest groups on elections. Some call this the dark-money problem. The problem was created by the Citizens United decision in 2010, and I’d select this as the most significant supreme court case in recent history. The Supreme Court agreed with a conservative non-profit and determined that corporations and other outside groups can spend unlimited money on elections. The Court reasoned that limiting independent political spending by these groups violates first amendment rights to free speech. This overturned election spending restrictions which dated back more than 100 years, and which were intended to prevent corruption in our electoral system. This ruling has changed our electoral system dramatically by allowing those with money to control the messaging. Super PACs and dark money now empower the wealthiest members of our society to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections, meaning more and more partisan messaging. Though we made it through the last presidential election without democracy failing completely, there continues to be an effort to limit the rights of citizens to vote. In combination with unimagined or unintended consequences of Citizens United, our expectations about the good life are in peril. Democracy itself appears to be in danger, and hyper-partisan bickering has prevented us from addressing the most important problems of our lifetime, such as climate change. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: The judge who has inspired me most has been Thomas Flugaur. I’ve appeared before many judges, and have developed friendly relationships with some. What I’ve learned is that judges are people, not deities or superhuman. All people are unique. I’ve seen judges screaming at lawyers or parties in the case. This lack of decorum really bothered me when I was a new lawyer. I’ve learned that the most important quality of a judge is temperament. This seems to be grounded in an appreciation for the humanity of every person. Judge Flugaur is one of the smartest judges I’ve met. I’ve gone to his courtroom many times thinking I had the right answer, only to be surprised Judge Flugaur found something I did not. But Judge Flugaur is not known for his intelligence or his legal skills, though they are great. He is known for the way he engages with the lawyers and the parties in his courtroom. For example, I loved to watch Judge Flugaur conduct indigency hearings in his courtroom. These are short hearings for a potentially indigent defendant to obtain a county-appointed lawyer when the public defender finds the person ineligible. Judge Flugaur called each defendant to the stand and talked about their life and financial circumstances. It was clear he thoroughly enjoyed these conversations, and generally the feeling was mutual. This is just one example of the kindness and empathy he showed people in his courtroom. I also have learned a great deal from former Justice Shirley Abrahamson. Justice Abrahamson was a truly remarkable person. Reading her biographical page on the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s former justices page is humbling. She achieved so much in her lifetime. She was appointed in 1976 as the first female justice, and served until 2019, which is over forty years on the Court. Her achievements and awards during that time are too many to list. Justice Abrahamson had a significant impact on me as a lawyer. As a young criminal-defense lawyer living in Milwaukee, I spent a lot of time in the Marquette Law Library reading appellate decisions. I learned more about many issues by reading her prolific dissents than by reading the majority opinions. It is reported that Justice Abrahamson and Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg were close friends. During a ceremony honoring Justice Abrahamson in Madison in 2020, a video tribute from Justice Ginsburg was broadcast. Justice Ginsburg described Justice Abrahamson as the most “courageous and sage, the least self-regarding” of justices. She also pointed out that Justice Abrahamson inspired many young women to enter the profession. Most importantly, Justice Abrahamson never forgot Dr. Seuss’ “gentle maxim: ‘a person’s a person no matter how small.’” The proper role of a judge: The most basic role of a circuit court judge is to make decisions about disputed matters. The “proper” way to do this is in accordance with established principles of judicial conduct. The preamble in SCR 60 explains the importance of the role of a judge: "Our legal system is based on the principle that an independent, fair and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that govern us. The role of the judiciary is central to American concepts of justice and the rule of law. Intrinsic to all provisions of this Code are the precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system. The judge is an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes and a highly visible symbol of government under the rule of law." The principles necessary to meet this goal are extensively outlined in SCR 60, the Code of Judicial Conduct. That being said, there are a few simple concepts which form the bedrock of these rules. Judges must be diligent and competent, studying the cases and the law to reach the right result. Judges must have integrity in their personal and professional lives, showing the community that they strive to live a good life, honoring the law and others. Judges must show impartiality in their reasoning and decisions, and should not allow their words or conduct to imply that their decisions are based in favor or bias. Judges cannot allow partisanship, nor the appearance of partisanship, to guide their decisions. Particularly in the United States in 2022, Judges must show that the judicial branch is independent of the other branches of government. The law is an objective tool to govern a society, and judges must show that they are able to apply the law free from the bias of partisanship. Judges must ensure that the courtroom is orderly and decorum is maintained. The courtroom is a place where all participants must have an opportunity to address the court in an orderly and controlled manner. Judges must ensure that the participants have the opportunity to address the court. Though not stated in SCR 60, Judges must strive to be patient, dignified and courteous in performing their duties and managing the participants in the courtroom. When making decisions, judges must be firm but respectful. Participants are more likely to accept a judge’s decisions when they are delivered in a respectful manner. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission sees almost complete turnover in two years.
Reuters: For new term, U.S. Supreme Court will open in-person arguments to public once again. The Hill: Questioned sentence Justice Samuel Alito wrote eight years ago was just used to deny insurance coverage for HIV drugs. I’ve focused at length on what Alito wrote in Hobby Lobby because O’Connor’s decision shows that it was a time bomb, one now in the process of exploding. It is available in any case where any obligation could imaginably be fulfilled by the government. U.S. Department of Justice: DOJ files discrimination lawsuit against Milwaukee landlord and property manager. Forbes: U.S. Bureau of Prisons interprets First Step Act narrowly, denying possible credits. The effect will be that those prisoners with short sentences will get no reduction in their sentence, something that clearly goes against the BOP’s own experts on FSA. Inquest: Will juries acquit in abortion prosecutions notwithstanding the facts? Yet in prosecutions brought under this harsh new crop of abortion laws, we think nullification may have a larger role to play. Consider first that nullification only requires one juror to hold out. Criminal convictions must be unanimous, as the Supreme Court recently held in Ramos v. Louisiana. Thus, if even a single juror refuses to convict because they believe the law — as applied in the case before them — is unjust, nullification has occurred. CBS: Federal judge dismisses Donald Trump's lawsuit against Hillary Clinton. Judge Donald Middlebrooks wrote in his ruling Thursday the court was "not the appropriate forum" for Trump's complaints about his rivals and others. The lawsuit accused Democrats and others of a "conspiracy" to link Trump to Russia during and after the 2016 presidential campaign. "At its core, the problem with [Trump's] complaint is that [Trump] is not attempting to seek redress for any legal harm," wrote Middlebrooks, who serves the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Lowering the Bar: Judge dismisses case against Nirvana brought by man who was the baby on an album cover. Research on brain development of young adults could have been presented in 1997, appeals court says9/9/2022 By Gretchen Schuldt A judge erred when he used new research into the brain development of young adults to grant Jan. 1, 2023, parole eligibility to a man previously sentenced to life without parole, the state Court of Appeals has ruled.  Gill Existing case law prohibited Outagamie County Circuit Judge John DesJardins, now retired, from using the research as a “new factor” in Jonathan Liebzeit’s case “because the research and its conclusions were well known at the time of Liebzeit’s sentencing in 1997,” Appellate Judge Gregory B. Gill wrote for the three-judge District III Court of Appeals panel. He was joined in the opinion by Appellate Judges Lisa K. Stark and Thomas M. Hruz.
DesJardins sentenced Liebzeit in 1997 to life without parole for his role in the 1996 murder of Alex Schaffer. Liebzeit, who had just turned 19, and two other men, Daniel Mischler and James Thompson, lured Schaffer into sewer tunnels where Liebzeit hit him repeatedly with a baseball bat, including in the head. The other two men held Schaffer in a pool of water until he stopped moving. The medical examiner determined that Schaffer died by a combination of drowning and blunt force trauma. The state Department of Corrections, in a pre-sentence report, noted Liebzeit’s long history of drug abuse, particularly with inhalants; his participation in a drug and alcohol treatment program; and his failed effort to get admitted to Winnebago Mental Health Institute due to suicidal tendencies. In 2019, 22 years after sentencing Liebzeit, DesJardins attended a judicial education seminar, where he learned about new research on brain development in emerging adults. He later wrote to Liebzeit’s appellate counsel and the state “suggesting that a sentence modification may be appropriate based on new scientific research…that was not available at the time of the 1997 sentencing,” Gill wrote. Liebzeit’s lawyer, Rex R. Anderegg, filed such a motion, citing both the new research and Liebzeit’s brain damage stemming from inhalant use. Information about the brain damage, included in a separate report concerning Liebzeit’s drug treatment, was not presented to the court at sentencing. DesJardins held a hearing, Gill wrote. “The court concluded that Liebzeit had proven by clear and convincing evidence that both the new scientific research on brain development in emerging adults, and Liebzeit’s brain damage resulting from his own inhalant use constituted new factors,” Gill wrote. DesJardins found that “the impact the brain damage may have had on Liebzeit’s impulse control was relevant to whether Liebzeit was likely to be successfully rehabilitated,” Gill said. DesJardins also found that “new scientific research on brain development in emerging adults had found that individuals between 18 and 21 years old function closer to adolescents aged 13 to 17, than adults aged 22 to 25 years old.” DesJardins eventually granted the sentence modification making Liebzeit eligible for parole Jan. 1. His case still would have to be considered by the Parole Commission. The appeals court, however, agreed with the state that nothing showed that Liebzeit’s inhalant use contributed to his impulsivity. “At best,” Gill wrote, “the (drug treatment) report shows that his brain damage might have affected his concentration. But the crimes for which he was convicted were not impulsive crimes caused by an inability to concentrate.” The crime was not impulsive, but planned, Gill said. DesJardins found at the time of sentencing that Liebzeit could not be rehabilitated. Liebzeit’s “new science” argument fails because under state Supreme Court precedent, Gill wrote, “the research cannot constitute a new factor…because the conclusions reached by the research were well known when Liebzeit was originally sentenced in 1997.” WBAY: Daniel Kelly now in the race for Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Legislature passes plan for $31 million opioid settlement state received. The Republican plan still included about 85% of the Department of Health Services proposals. Those include:
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Federal judge says Enbridge can continue operating Line 5 pipeline through Bad River Band land until the line is rerouted. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Waukesha judge says clerks can't fill in missing info on absentee ballot envelopes. WXOW (Associated Press): Judge issues gag order for man charged with requesting others' absentee ballots. Reuters: Senate confirms John Lee for Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The New York Times: Highlighting disparities in voter fraud cases. The high-decibel political rhetoric behind fraud prosecutions drowns out how infrequent — and sometimes how unfair — those prosecutions are, said Richard L. Hasen, an expert on election law and democracy issues at the U.C.L.A. School of Law. “It’s hard to see felons in Gainesville getting jail terms, and then look at people in The Villages getting no time at all, and see this as a rational system,” he said. Slate: Federal judge allows employers to exclude HIV prevention drugs from insurance. If the higher courts accept (U.S. District Judge Reed) O’Connor’s invitation to destroy these agencies, here’s a partial list of the preventive care that insurers will no longer be required to cover: genetic testing for women with a family history of breast and ovarian cancer; medication to reduce risk of breast cancer; breast cancer screening; breastfeeding support; cervical cancer screenings; STI screening; colorectal cancer screening; HIV tests; domestic violence screening; medication for heart disease; a vast range of screenings for children and pregnant women; and, of course, PrEP. KIRO 7: Report shows more than half of prisoners are serving sentences of 10+ years. “That’s a big growth compared to if you look at the year 2000,” said Nazgol Ghandnoosh, a senior research analyst at the Sentencing Project. “When we invest a lot of our public resources into very long sentences, we’re not doing the more important things that we know are more effective at preventing crime in the first place.” The Marshall Project: Determining how much of ARPA funding went to policing. Local police agencies have used ARPA funds on law enforcement equipment and capital expenses — from tasers and rifles to cars and shooting ranges. The Marshall Project found five municipalities used funding to purchase armored vehicles. At least 38 governments across the country used ARPA funds for police tasers. Nine spent ARPA funds on police drones. "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: Elizabeth Rohl
Appointed to: Pierce County Circuit Court Appointment date: Dec. 22, 2020 Education: Law School – Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Madison High School – River Falls High, River Falls, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: January 2013-present – Assistant corporation counsel, St. Croix County Office of Corporation Counsel January 2011-December 2012 – Assistant district attorney, St. Croix County District Attorney’s Office March 2010-December 2010 – Attorney, Hammarback & Jacobson, S.C., River Falls, Wisconsin Bar and Administrative Memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin State Bar of Minnesota (lapsed) General character of practice: I am currently Assistant Corporation Counsel for St. Croix County. I represent the County and the public interest in a variety of civil actions. My practice is split between courtroom work and transactional work. Based on the current staffing of our office, I am the primary attorney for matters involving involuntary mental commitments, termination of parental rights, and HIPAA compliance. I share responsibility for child support enforcement, contract review, open records compliance, and providing legal advice to county departments. Describe typical clients: Our client is St. Croix County. Depending on the circumstances of the case we may be representing the interests of the County, a particular county department, or the interests of the public. My specializations are detailed above. Number of cases tried to verdict: Approximately 10-15 jury trials; numerous court 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: Without a doubt the most significant cases in my legal career have been the termination of parental rights (TPR) cases. These cases may not be significant to the public--given the confidential nature of the cases, the public will likely never know anything about them. But they are significant to me and, I like to think, significant to the families involved. Our office took over responsibility for these cases on behalf of St. Croix County in 2016 and the gravity of what is at stake is always at the front of my mind. Some of these cases end quickly, others are contested and take much longer. Regardless of which path the case takes, there is no greater feeling as an attorney than being able to attend the adoption hearing and to see the joy, relief, and excitement in the faces of the children and their "new" families. The first TPR case I filed involved three children who had been bounced around between their parents, family members, and foster families for almost a decade before we (I represented the Department of Children Services as petitioner) filed for termination. The discovery materials required several bankers boxes and I spent months pouring over the details of the neglect these children suffered. The case was filed in April 2016 and resulted in a three-day jury trial in January 2017. The jury found grounds to terminate the parental rights of the children's mother (the only parent who participated in the proceedings). Following the dispositional hearing in February the court determined that it was in the children's best interests to terminate the parents' rights. All three children were adopted by their foster families. With many of my other cases we see history repeat itself--we keep coming back to court with the same issues. The ability to make a lasting, meaningful change for children is the most rewarding thing I have been able to do as an attorney and therefore these cases carry great significance for me. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: When the Department of Children Services substantiates a finding of child abuse or neglect the subject of the substantiation has the option to appeal that decision. Those appeals are heard by the Division of Hearing and Appeals for the State of Wisconsin. I represent Children Services in those appeals. Depending on the nature of the subject's challenge, some of these cases are resolved. Others result in an adversary hearing before the Administrative Law Judge. I have been involved in 10 such appeals. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). Our office represents the Child Support Agency in child support enforcement. This involves establishing or modifying child support, establishing paternity, and potentially contempt for non-payment. In St. Croix County we will schedule pre-court conferences with the parties to attempt to have the parties stipulate. This involves explaining the process and the statutory arguments the parties could make as well as trying to mediate between the two parents. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Volunteer for Joe Boles, Pierce County Circuit Court Volunteer for Amber Hahn, St. Croix District Attorney Previous runs for public office: None All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Joe Boles, Pierce County Circuit Court, 2010 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: St. Croix Valley Bar Association, 2010 to present; officer, 2010-2014 Wisconsin Child Support Association, 2013 to present; Legal Track Committee, 2020 Wisconsin Association of County Corporation Counsel, 2013 to present Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: When I was an officer of our local bar association we became interested in the hosting a Wills for Heroes event. Wills for Heroes was a program that already existed wherein attorneys would volunteer their time to draft basic wills and power of attorney documents for first responders. All clinics that were being advertised where in the southern or eastern parts of the state. Upon reaching out, it appeared that there would be hurdles in getting the program to come to our area. Instead, we worked with the State Bar and local attorneys to get donations for our own equipment to run our own clinics. … I am no longer involvement in the administration of that program, but still volunteer at clinics. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge – The court system provides a valuable service to the communities in Wisconsin—resolving disputes, safeguarding the public, and ensuring proper protections for the most vulnerable citizens. However, the court system is only as good as the judges who serve. The people of Wisconsin and of Pierce County deserve a judge who can discharge those important duties fairly, quickly, and appropriately and I believe that I have that ability. I have a background in criminal law, both as defense and prosecution. In addition to transactional work like contracts and open records requests, my work in the Office of Corporation Counsel has given me experience in unique areas of law including involuntary mental commitments, guardianships, and termination of parental rights. My diverse experience in the practice of law means that I will be able to handle all the duties of a judge in all the variety of cases before the court. Not only do I believe I have the experience to execute the duties, but I am passionate about my community and continuing to serve the public interest. I have a strong connection to Pierce County—I grew up here, graduated from high school here, and now am raising my own family here. My father grew up here as well and then we went on to spend his career as a middle school science teacher, also here in Pierce County. The community is made of my friends, my family, my neighbors. Serving as a judge allows me to give back to a community that has given me so much in a way that not everyone is able. 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. “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. . . Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.” This closing paragraph of Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 highlights the importance of the Supreme Court’s decision in the lives of many of Wisconsin citizens. Before this decision, there was a string of legislation and case law that gave tokens toward equality but each of them always kept those relationships as something “other.” However, this decision clearly holds that the Constitution dictates that States must allow same-sex couples to marry and to have those marriages recognized in other states and providing, finally, equal dignity. The Court accurately expressed the ways in which the right to marry is fundamental, one of which is safeguarding children and families. The Court noted that without recognition of marriages between homosexual couples as the same as heterosexual couples, those children would suffer the stigma “knowing their families are somehow lesser” causing harm and humiliation. A decision such as this will no doubt have an impact on homosexual couples in Wisconsin and their families. Moreover, a decision that precludes arbitrary differences between segments of the population also serves to solidify that all citizens, of Wisconsin and the United States, are equal in the eyes of the law. That serves to benefit everyone, not just those directly affected by the Court’s decision. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: It would be impossible for me to answer this question without including Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. As a woman in the practice of law, I have occasionally felt lingering sexism—being referred to a “sweetie” or clients asking when the attorney is going to show up despite being told I am the attorney. My experiences pale in comparison to what Justice Ginsburg would have faced upon entering law school and throughout her ascent to the highest court. Her tenacity alone is admirable. After being rejected for a Supreme Court clerkship because she was a woman she persisted, ultimately earning her seat on the Court. Not only is the achievement admirable, but the manner in which she earned it is as well. Often quoted, Justice Ginsburg once said, “[f]ight for the things you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you.” Justice Ginsburg was a tireless advocate for women’s rights but never asked for special treatment, only equal treatment. Her life and career can serve as an inspiration for generations of women, following her lead. Since her recent passing, there have been many articles written about her many accomplishments. Some I knew, some I’d forgotten, and some I never realized. She was a brilliant legal mind whose decisions will be cited for years to come but her legacy will continue as much more than that. I also admire and respect St. Croix County Circuit Court Judge Scott Needham. When I started my career, there was much I didn’t know about the practice of law and I welcomed the guidance of Judge Needham. In his 26 years on the bench, Judge Needham has gained considerable expertise in the law and that is apparent in the decisions he makes. Judge Needham’s expertise led to his being named Trial Judge of the Year in 2010, recognizing his skill and accomplishment. What is readily apparent about Judge Needham is his dedication to the integrity of the court system and his service to the people of Wisconsin. Ever willing to step into leadership roles, Judge Needham is currently the presiding judge in St. Croix County and served as the Chief Judge of the Tenth Judicial District. Recently, when considering a campaign for the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Judge Needham opted to stay in St. Croix County, stating that he thinks he found his calling in the trial court. I certainly believe that to be true. The proper role of a judge: I found myself struggling to answer this question and I think the reason is simple—there is no one proper role for a judge. The wide range of cases that come before a court require that the judge adapt to a number of different roles. If presiding over a jury trial, the judge must act as a referee of sorts, applying and enforcing the rules of evidence. In a court trial, the judge must as a trier-of-fact, weighing the evidence and testimony to decide the “truth.” In cases involving vulnerable citizens (guardianships and mental commitments, for example) the judge adopts almost a parental role, trying to craft solutions that are best for the individual even if they don’t like it. And, in the increasing arena of treatment courts, the judge must step down from an authoritative role to act as a collaborative team member and motivator. No matter the role needed at the time, I believe it is of the utmost importance for the judge to maintain the integrity of the court system. In order to do so, the judge must remain impartial and apply the existing laws to the case before the court. Regardless of personal beliefs about an issue, a judge should not rule based on how the law should be, but rather what the law is. The judicial system serves as a check to ensure fair process for all litigants, not to legislate from the bench. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed
Copyright © 2021 Wisconsin Justice Initiative Inc.
The Wisconsin Justice Initiative Inc. does not endorse candidates for political office. The Wisconsin Justice Initiative Inc. is a 501(c)3 organization.
The Wisconsin Justice Initiative Inc. does not endorse candidates for political office. The Wisconsin Justice Initiative Inc. is a 501(c)3 organization.