By Margo Kirchner

​A suspect who confessed to a serious crime during a police interview at a police station was not in custody afterwards when he asked for a lawyer, the State Supreme Court ruled last week.
 
As a result, officers did not need to comply with the suspect’s request for counsel, the Court said in a 5-2 opinion written by Chief Justice Patience Roggensack.
 
Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, in a dissent, said the majority was “engaging in a work of fantasy” by suggesting that Daniel Bartelt could reasonably believe after his confession that he was free to leave the Slinger police station.
 
Bartelt argued to the Court that police improperly questioned him after he invoked his right to counsel. The Court found, however, that Bartelt was not in custody when he first said anything about an attorney.
 
The right to counsel does not attach until a suspect is “in custody,” which occurs when, under the totality of the circumstances, “a reasonable person would not feel free to terminate the interview and leave the scene,” according to the Court.

​In July 2013, detectives from the Washington County Sheriff’s Department and Hartford Police Department investigated an armed assault in a Richfield park and a subsequent murder in Hartford. Detectives quickly identified Bartelt as a person of interest regarding the assault based on a vehicle seen at the crime scene and a composite sketch of the attacker. The murder victim was Bartelt’s former girlfriend.
 
A detective contacted Bartelt and asked to speak with him about an unspecified incident. Bartelt agreed to meet with Washington County Sheriff’s Department detectives at the Slinger Police Department. Bartelt believed the detectives wanted to talk about the murder.
 
Two detectives questioned Bartelt in an interview room containing a table and three chairs. One door to the room was open and the other was unlocked. The detectives did not search Bartelt. They told Bartelt that he was not in trouble, was not under arrest, and could leave at any time. They then asked questions about the attack in the park.
 
The interview lasted about 30 minutes. While questioning Bartelt, one of the detectives moved his chair from one side of the table to about two feet from Bartelt and accused Bartelt of lying. After more questioning, Bartelt admitted he had attacked the woman in the park.
 
A detective asked Bartelt to put the confession in writing and said there likely would be more questions. Bartelt then asked whether he should “speak to a lawyer or anything.” The detective said yes, that was an option, to which Bartelt responded, “I think I’d prefer that.”
 
At that point, the detectives suspended the interview, took Bartelt’s cell phone, and left the room. They returned a few minutes later, told Bartelt he was under arrest, handcuffed him, and sent him to the Washington County Jail.
 
The next day, in a Washington County Sheriff’s Department interview room, Hartford Police Department detectives questioned Bartelt about the murder. Although the detectives read Bartelt his Miranda rights before questioning him, no counsel was present notwithstanding Bartelt’s mention of a lawyer the day before.

​Bartelt waived all of his Miranda rights and was questioned for about 90 minutes regarding his relationship with the murder victim and his whereabouts on the day she died. Based on statements Bartelt made during the second interview, detectives found physical evidence linking Bartelt to the murder.
 
In court, Bartelt moved to suppress his statements and any evidence derived from them. Following denial of the motion by Washington County Circuit Judge Todd Martens, a jury convicted Bartelt of first-degree intentional homicide and he was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release.
 
On appeal, Bartelt conceded that he was not in custody at the start of his first interview. But he pointed out that during the interview one detective moved his chair closer, the tone of the questioning changed, and he was increasingly treated as a target of the investigation. Bartelt argued that once he confessed to the attack in the park, a reasonable person in his circumstances would have believed he was not free to leave the police station, thus transforming the interview into a custodial interrogation and requiring the detectives to cease all questioning once he asked for any attorney. Therefore, he argued, detectives violated his Fifth Amendment rights when they questioned him the next day about the murder.
 
However, the Court concluded that although admission of guilt to a serious crime “is a factor to consider in a custody analysis,” given the totality of circumstances Bartelt’s confession to the attack did not transform his status into one of custody.
 
The Court noted in particular that even after Bartelt’s confession the detectives spoke in a conversational tone and did not restrain his freedom of movement. Thus, as Bartelt was not in custody, his request for a lawyer did not need to be honored.
 
Bradley, joined in dissent by Justice Shirley Abrahamson, criticized the court for ignoring reality:
 
“I committed a serious, violent felony.” If suspects uttered these words, would law enforcement let them walk out of the station? Would a reasonable person feel free to simply get up and leave? Engaging in a work of fantasy, the majority says yes. Mired to the grips of reality, I say no.
 
Legal decisions regarding the “free to leave” standard do not reflect how reasonable people actually think and act, Bradley said.
 
She then continued: “Our jurisprudence should reflect reality. It should be based on true inclinations and thought processes rather than pushing the mythical ‘reasonable person’ even further from the bounds of the real world. The majority accomplishes the latter.”
 
Bradley further charged the majority with omitting relevant facts from its analysis, such as how Bartelt would have had to walk around one of the detectives to leave the room; how the detective’s movement of the chair blocked Bartelt’s exit, put the detective within arm’s reach, and changed the atmosphere in the room; and how the tone of questioning had turned coarse by the time of Bartelt’s confession, enhancing coercive pressure.
 
She noted that although the “free to leave” test requires assessment of objective facts rather than subjective views of those involved, one of the detectives testified that once Bartelt confessed, the detective believed Bartelt was not free to leave. “If even the interrogating detective testified that a suspect was not free to leave, would a reasonable suspect in such a position really think he could just get up and walk out?” Bradley wrote. “Only in a fantasy world would a suspect act in this manner.“

The number of traffic cases filed in Municipal Court rose 30% in 2017, but still lagged far behind the traffic caseload the court saw as recently as 2013.

There were 57,324 traffic cases opened last year, up 13,146 from the number filed in 2016, court statistics show.

Reckless and dangerous driving in Milwaukee has angered residents and city officials, prompting former Police Chief Edward Flynn, who oversaw a sharp decline in traffic offenses, to promise last year to crack down on offenses. The Municipal Court statistics simply reflect Police Department activity.

Traffic ticket cases peaked in 2009, when 11,864 cases were opened, according to Municipal Court statistics. That is 49% more cases than were opened last year.

WJI joined with other groups in the statement below. Thanks to the ACLU of Wisconsin for leading the effort.

The Wisconsin State Assembly proposed a $350 million plan to build a new prison.  The following is a joint statement from the ACLU of Wisconsin, African-American Civic Engagement Roundtable, Black Leaders Organizing for Communities (BLOC), Black Lives Matter to Wisconsin Unitarian Universalists, Dominican Center, EXPO (EX-incarcerated People Organizing), Leaders Igniting Transformation (LIT), MICAH (Milwaukee Inner City Congregations Allied for Hope), NAACP Milwaukee Branch, Priceless Incite, Progressive Baptist Church, Uplifting Black Liberation and Community (UBLAC), Wisconsin Justice Initiative, Wisconsin Transgender Health Coalition, WISDOM, and Youth Justice Milwaukee reacting to the announcement:

Wisconsin does not need a new prison.  It needs to adopt smart reforms in its criminal justice system that reduce prison populations, reduce recidivism and make communities safer and stronger.  Many people are trapped in systems of incarceration because they have committed minor crimes that are often the result of substance abuse problems or mental illness.  Rather than warehousing people in prisons, we must provide treatment in our communities.  Too many people who could be supervised safely in their communities serve long sentences that decrease their chances of successful rehabilitation and reentry.  Similarly, hair trigger revocations of probation and parole send too many people back into the prison system for rule violations. Our groups are committed to creating meaningful reforms in these systems.

During a time when many states are reforming their broken criminal justice systems and closing down unneeded or unsafe prisons, the Wisconsin legislature seems intent on locking up more Wisconsinites.   Building costly new prisons isn't a solution to crime.    

We need a bold plan that follows the lead of states like Texas, where investment in community-based alternatives to prison not only saved taxpayers money but led to a dramatic reduction in the prison population and, at the same time, a decline in the crime rate that was greater than the national average.

Wisconsin needs legislators who are committed to fixing what is broken.  It is past time to address the continued criminalization of people of color, of the homeless, of the chemically-addicted, and of the mentally ill.  We need to provide quality treatment and services.  We need to envision a new criminal justice system—one that is substantially smaller and committed to the personal safety, health, and dignity of every individual as well as the broader community.

We should not be creating new laws that ensnare increasing numbers of people, and then building a new prison to accommodate this costly and ineffective punitive approach to criminal justice.    We can develop effective means of holding people accountable that increase safety in the short and long term; and address the socioeconomic and structural factors that make crime likely in the first place.
​
Wisconsin spends billions of dollars on a failed system of imprisonment that does not address the root cause of systematic problems.  According to the state’s data, about a third of people who leave the system are convicted and sentenced to a new prison term within three years. 
Wisconsin must do better by following in the footsteps of other states and reducing corrections populations and costs by: expanding approaches that have proven track records for keeping people out of prison; reducing the number of prison admissions that don’t involve new convictions; and reducing recidivism by removing barriers to employment.

We're reaching back to 2015 in our continual updating of who gets charged with felony possession of marijuana second offense or greater -- yup, still black people.

We've posted 22 cases from 2015 so far; defendants in 18 were African-American, three defendants were white, and one was Hispanic, according to court records.

Overall,  WJI has posted details about 72 cases opened in 2015 and 2016. A total of 60 African-Americans were charged, which is 7.5 times the number – eight – of whites charged. the number – eight – of whites charged. There were four Hispanics charged, according to records.

Fifty-six of the total arrests occurred in the city of Milwaukee north of I-94 and six occurred in the city south of I-94, a 9.3-to-1 north side - south side ratio.

A total of 10 cases began with arrests in county suburbs. 

The Brookings Institution last year reported that while blacks and whites nationally use marijuana at about the same rates, blacks were more than 3.5 times as likely as whites to be arrested for possession.

That is only about half  the disparity that exists in Milwaukee County felony possession of marijuana cases.

Follow along with us as we continue to track the arrests and their disparities. Still to come – 2017 cases.

Criminals came from public schools, birth control pills are an assault on nature, and legal recognition of gay marriage could open the door to polygamy, according to Gordon Giampietro, President Trump's nominee to be a federal judge in Milwaukee.

Giampietro in 2014, commenting on a blog post, also wrote that “calls for diversity” are “code for relaxed standards (moral and intellectual),” Buzzfeed reported Thursday.

 The in-house lawyer for Northwestern Mutual Life, is not a member of the Wisconsin Bar and has litigated, he says, about 31 cases to conclusion in his entire career.  WJI outlined some of his history in an earlier post.

Buzzfeed published additional information about Giampietro, including comments he made during two interviews with Lydia LoCoco and links to the audio of the shows.

His comments about public schools came during a 2002 interview with the Milwaukee Business Journal. Giampietro, a strong supporter the Milwaukee Parental Choice voucher program, said his views about the program were affected by what he saw growing up in Washington and by having a university professor for a father.

"I grew up next to lawyers, architects and crack dealers,"  he told the paper. "The common denominator I saw was that the children who succeeded in Washington were in private schools, and the children who turned out to be criminals were in public schools."

Giampietro, as a Choice advocate, appeared in opposition to a 1999 bill that would have prohibited discrimination against voucher school students based on "sex, race, religion, national origin, ancestry, creed, pregnancy, marital or parental status, sexual orientation or physical, mental, emotional or learning disability."

In 2014 and 2015 interviews with LoCoco on Relevant Radio, Giampietro further explained some of his views related to sexual orientation.

Recognition of same-sex marriage, he said, would undermine the “very idea of marriage.”

LoCoco talked during the July 2014 interview about Thomas More, who was beheaded after refusing to recongize King Henry VIII as the head of the Church of England. More, she said, went to his death to follow his conscience and follow his God. 

"Do you think those times are coming?" she asked. 

“I think we always have to be prepared for them," Giampietro responded. "Is it going to happen this year or next year, its hard to say. But I think at the end of the day, we’ve reached a point of, we’ve moved beyond civil society. When the government doesn’t allow people to disagree with it, to live in peace, what options are you giving those people to carry on? … It sounds alarmist, it sounds crazy, but we’re entering a very dangerous time in our history.” 

In the July 2015 interview, not long after the U.S. Supreme Court did recognize gay marriage, Giampietro opined: "Given this constitutional principle that the Court has laid down there really is no principled reason polygamy isn't the next thing to go. ... There's no limiting principle  here. There's no reason why it couldn't be these other arrangements. ..."

"The seeds for this problem go back decades, right?" he said. "As soon as the contraceptive mentality set root, what is the articulation for why marriage should be with opposite-sex couples? There isn’t one, unless society agrees that it has to do with the raising of children. And so we really are reaping what we sowed a few years ago.” 

LoCoco continued the theme. “So when my husband rants and raves about every problem in the world and his answer to everything is, ‘It was the pill! It was the pill! He’s absolutely right. I mean, in a sense.”

“Yes. Yes," Giampietro said. "Because that’s an assault on nature. And anytime you assault nature there’s gonna be a backlash. And that’s what we’re seeing today. In all kinds of ways, not just with respect to contraception and marriage. Whenever you go against God’s plan, bad things are gonna happen.” ​

By Gretchen Schuldt

More than 400 inmates serving state prison sentences pass their time in county jails each day.

Those inmates have little programming and little to do except mingle with an ever-changing cast of pre-trial detainees of all security levels.

The jails profit nicely from the arrangement – the state pays them $51.50 per day per inmate –  to house the state's overflow.

County jail time is "abysmal," according to Daniel Monge, who spent nine months of his state prison sentence in jail. 

"County jail time is tough - it's really tough," he said.

“If push comes to shove and you have to do one or the other, my vote actually is to build a new prison because serving time in a county jail is no joke," he said. "It’s extremely rough, it’s extremely awful, it’s borderline inhumane.”

Monge was a panelist at the recent "Inmate 501" presentation by State Rep. Evan Goyke at Turner Hall. Below is a video of Monge; former inmate James Cross; and Goyke talking about state jail time. (There is more video from the event, sponsored by Milwaukee Turners and the Confronting Mass Incarceration work group,  posted on the WJI Facebook page.) 

A list of participating jails follows the video.

This is the final installment in WJI's "Our crowded Wisconsin prisons" series that details the building repairs, upgrades, and new facilities the Department of Corrections requested as part of the 2017-19 state budget. Here is Part 1, Part 2,  Part 3,  Part 4,  Part 5,  Part 6, and Part 7.

The great majority of the budget requests, including those for health facility improvements and adequate food preparation areas, were denied. Instead, Walker and the Legislature established a committee to study prison facility needs.

The Legislature and governor did approve spending $7 million to build a geriatric prison facility.  The authorization came as an amendment to Gov. Scott Walker's proposed budget, and it is not clear how many inmates the facility will serve or whether it will meet the Department of Corrections' needs.

There were no requests submitted by the DOC for the facilities included in this last round-up. They are included to show how crowded facilities are and to serve as a reminder that action is needed to reduce the prison population, not just increase prison capacity.

Classification:  Medium security
Capital budget request: None

 
​Classification:  Minimum security (center system)
Capital budget request: None

By Gretchen Schuldt

​ Federal judge nominee Gordon Giampietro opposed guaranteeing Constitutional rights to students in the state's voucher program, the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program.
 
Giampietro, President Trump's nominee to succeed U.S. District Judge Rudolph T. Randa in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, also appeared in opposition to a 1999 bill in the Wisconsin Legislature that would have prohibited discrimination against voucher school students based on  "sex, race, religion, national origin, ancestry, creed, pregnancy, marital or parental status, sexual orientation or physical, mental, emotional or learning disability."

​"Does Wisconsin really need a judge who does not oppose discriminating against children?" the Wisconsin Justice Initiative wrote in a letter to U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) opposing Giampietro's appointment.

Giampietro also told the conservative Heritage Foundation that an earlier  Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction effort to ensure voucher students enjoyed Constitutional protections "would have been an extraordinary expansion of government control."

WJI urged Baldwin to investigate Giampietro's background.

​"When you do, we are confident you will conclude that he is not qualified for the federal bench," WJI said. 

The state's Republican senator, Ron Johnson, already returned his "blue slip," indicating support of the nomination; Baldwin has not.

Giampietro, a member of the right wing Federalist Society, is a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. He is not, however, a member of the Wisconsin Bar, which he quit in 2008.

​"His failure to join the state bar speaks volumes about his attitude toward the uniquely Wisconsin aspects of his chosen profession," WJI told the senator. "Federal judges often are asked to decide issues of state law when litigants are from different states. Is Mr. Giampietro familiar enough with Wisconsin laws to competently preside over those cases? Does he have any real interest in state law? His history and his refusal to associate himself with the Wisconsin Bar suggests he is not and does not." 

His record at the U.S. attorney's office "is mediocre at best," WJI said. "His cases were largely routine, run-of -the-mill criminal cases."

Giampietro, in responding to questions from the U.S. Senate's Judiciary Committee, used the terms "to the best of my recollection" and "I estimate" when stating how many cases he tried or litigated to conclusion: a very modest 31. That number includes even cases in which he was not a primary lawyer, and those during his careers in private practice and in government..

"The number of cases he claims is indicative of inexperience," WJI said. "The type of cases they were, their outcomes, and his level of involvement in each will provide a more accurate picture of his abilities." 

"Mr. Giampietro’s main qualification, like that of so many of President Trump’s nominees, appears to be his membership in the right-wing Federalist Society," WJI said. "His experience and demonstrated knowledge does not rise to the pre-Trump expectations the public and its elected representatives held for federal court nominees."

By Gretchen Schuldt

​A completely theoretical ability to use public records to identify and intimidate individuals is enough to deny the public access to those records, the State Supreme Court said this week in a ruling that is disastrous for the public records law.

The court, over a fiery dissent by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, decided that records can be denied even without any evidence that harassment or coercion would occur or had occurred.

The 5-2 majority, in an opinion by Chief Justice Patience Roggensack, said it was fine to delay release of information about who voted in a union recertification election to avoid voter intimidation that was only an imaginary possibility. The union involved has no history of such activities, Bradley wrote.

The majority cited as justification, as dissenter Bradley described it, "one uninvestigated and unsubstantiated complaint from Racine County, involving a different union, in a different election, in a different year, that did not involve a public records request."  

"For the third time in three years this court continues to undermine our public records law," Bradley wrote, joined by Justice Shirley Abrahamson. "Yet again, this court overturns a lower court decision favoring transparency of records to which the public is rightfully entitled."

The majority also ignored an earlier Court of Appeals ruling that the possibility of threats, harassment or reprisals cannot be given significant weight when the records custodian has not  determined it is reasonably probable those things would occur.

While the ruling immediately applies only to the case brought by Madison Teachers, Inc. against James R. Scott, the chairman and records custodian for the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC), the precedent and its new, extremely low bar for denying records likely will serve as a handy excuse for other governmental units to use when denying access to other types of records. 

In the Supreme Court's case, WERC denied Madison Teachers, Inc. access to information about who voted in a union recertification election until the voting, which occurred over 20 days, was over.

The union twice filed requests during the 20-day period for information about the voters, but WERC delayed complying. Madison Teachers filed suit, alleging violation of the public records law, and Dane County Circuit Judge  Peter C. Anderson ruled in the union's favor.

Scott, of WERC,  appealed directly to the Supreme Court with its permission, bypassing the Court of Appeals. 

Roggensack, in her opinion, said the public's right to government records is not unrestricted. 

"Preventing voter intimidation during elections conducted by phone and email, as occurred here, is challenging," she said. "Given MTI's repeated requests for the names of those who voted before the election concluded, it is entirely possible that those employees who had not yet voted would become subject to individualized pressure by MTI of a type that MTI could not exert when speaking to all members of the bargaining unit collectively." 

Then she went on to cite the unsubstantiated allegations:

​"Intimidation in the WERC certification election was a concern," Roggensack said. "Scott had received detailed and specific complaints of past coercion in other certification elections. Complaints included: a union representative directing an employee to a computer and coercing her to vote for recertification; another employee being repeatedly asked whether she had voted; and a third employee witnessing employees being similarly pressured to vote." 

Scott was correct in determining that keeping elections free of voter intimidation and coercion outweighed the public interest in access to public records, she wrote.

Wrote Bradley in dissent: "Scott's first argument——that disclosure would violate the secrecy of the ballot——rings hollow. Although the substantive votes on a ballot are confidential, the identity of those who voted is not.  Disclosing the names of those who have cast a ballot prior to the conclusion of an election does not violate the secrecy of the ballot." ​

Excerpts from Justice Ann Walsh Bradley's dissent.

This time the majority undermines the presumption of open access to public records by imputing an unsupported and ​nefarious purpose to the records requests based on nonexistent facts.
***
In short, it is difficult to imagine a scenario where there is less evidence of potential harm in the record than here. One would expect the highest court of this state to rely on more than such unrelated and unsubstantiated allegations for its assertion that the risk of voter intimidation or coercion here was great enough to overcome the strong presumption of open access to public records. It does not.​
***
The identity of the requester and the purpose of the request should not matter here. Nevertheless, if the majority is going to erroneously superimpose its own speculative motive upon the requester, it should at least mention existing facts of record that support a contrary conclusion. It fails to do so.
​***
The annual elections for public employees to select representatives for purposes of collective bargaining were previously conducted in person. They are now conducted electronically and employees vote either by phone or computer. MTI asserts that what was formerly an open and observable government process is now closed. It contends that the only opportunity that the public has for oversight of WERC's election administration is through public records. MTI explains that the need for oversight is revealed by the facts of record.

​However, the majority omits these facts. 
***
When speculating about the intent behind these records requests, the majority also ignores the record evidence that MTI advised WERC that it "w[ould] not engage in voter coercion or any other illegal election practices during the upcoming election." MTI explained at oral arguments that it made these records requests to ensure WERC properly executed its election administration duties. 
​***
Scott undermined his purported concern about protecting the secrecy of the ballot by releasing the names of those who voted after the conclusion of the election. I agree with the circuit court that refusing to disclose the names of voters during the election but releasing that information after the election is "entirely contradictory" and "paradoxical." Accordingly, I afford Scott's purported concern about maintaining the secrecy of the ballot little weight in the balancing test.​
***
The usual admonition is that if you do not have the facts, then argue the law. Conversely, if you do not have the law, then argue the facts. The majority has neither.

"Walker's judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Walker's appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. 

Name: Paul J. Rifelj
​
Appointed to: Milwaukee County Circuit Court

Appointment date: Dec. 14, 2015 (lost bid for full term in April 2016 election)
 
​Education:
            Law School – University of Wisconsin
            Undergrad – University of Wisconsin-Madison
            High School – Marquette University High School

Recent employment:
          2011 - present – Staff Attorney, State of Wisconsin Public Defender's Office, Wauwatosa
         2005 - 2011 – Staff Attorney, State of Wisconsin Public Defender's Office, Racine
          2003 - 2005 – Attorney at Law, Law Office of Paul J. Rifelj, Wauwatosa
          2001 - 2003 – Legal Intern, Legal Assistance to Institutionalized Persons Project, UW Law                                        School

Memberships:
          Wisconsin State Bar

Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings: I have been a trial lawyer for my entire legal career. I have extensive courtroom experience, with numerous trials and dozens of bench trials and evidentiary motions litigated. Within my office, I have a reputation as an attorney who regularly handles the most challenging and difficult cases available. And within the Children's Center, I am known to be an experienced and skilled litigator.

Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: Approximately 50

Cases on appeal:
One appellate case - Interlocutory Appeal
State v. McCotter 08 CF-1419 (Racine County)

List and describe the three most significant cases in which you were involved:

15-JV-116 (Milwaukee)
My client, a fifteen year old boy with no criminal record whatsoever, was Charged with two counts of Armed Robbery occurring over a period of three days. He was seen by police officers in the general vicinity of the second Robbery, and was later identified by the victim of the second robbery in a photo lineup. Other circumstantial evidence appeared to link him to the crimes when he was initially charged.
 
From the onset of the case, my client insisted that he was completely innocent … In preparation for trial, my investigator and I examined every detail of the case and interviewed 15-20 witnesses. Eventually, by combining my client's school records, statements from his teachers, family, and other witnesses along with cell phone tracking data, we established an alibi for the client which excluded him from the second robbery and cast serious doubt as to the first.
 
Our investigation moved the Assistant District Attorney to have serious doubts about his own case. He offered to dismiss the case outright if our client agreed to take a lie-detector test at the Police Administration Building. When the client passed the test, the case was dismissed, and the District Attorney apologized to the client in court for putting him through the ordeal of felony prosecution.
 
This is the scariest but most meaningful position a defense attorney can face – a totally innocent client accused of a serious crime. Without a solid commitment to protecting the rights of every defendant, the plight of the wrongly accused would catch us off-guard. This is the kind of case that led me to serve as a Public Defender the past decade.
 
07-CM-2663 (Racine)
This case was a classic example of governmental overreaching in the arena of criminal jurisdiction. Several prosecutors in Racine County set their sights upon the issue of juvenile truancy – certainly a noble cause. However, one of its strategies was to criminally prosecute the parents of truant teenagers, without any information to suggest that those parents were neglectful or otherwise deficient.
 
Furthermore, prosecutors skewed the statute in question to charge these parents with one criminal count for every five days in which their children missed part of the school day.
 
My client in the above captioned case was a mother whose teenage son was out of control. She tried desperately to get him to go to school and he refused. She was a law abiding, peaceful citizen with a problem kid - and the state charged her with 9 counts of criminality, exposing her to lengthy confinement.
 
In response, I challenged the Constitutionality of the charges, and filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing strict vicarious criminal liability was unconstitutionally vague. The Circuit court denied my motion, but the possibility of appeal caused the prosecution to amend the 9 misdemeanor counts against my client to a civil forfeiture.

The resolution of this case changed how cases like it were viewed throughout Racine County. My efforts protected my client and other parents from being unjustly targeted in criminal court.

12-JV-1341 (Milwaukee)
The defendant in this case was young girl who was beaten, imprisoned and sexually trafficked … When police stormed the home in which she was kept, the client did as she had been instructed to do by her captor – and ran from authorities. She was subsequently charged with Obstructing an officer.
 
Together with a Milwaukee Police Detective, the Assistant District Attorney and the Federal Prosecutor, we reached a resolution that would grant my client immunity from prosecution for any acts in connection with the confinement and sexual abuse.
 
I thought we had won the day. But I was stunned when my client told me that she couldn't testify against her abuser because she still feared him and still cared for him. … I visited my client every day to convince her to testify. …
 
Utterly terrified, she testified about the horrific abuse she endured. In the courtroom gallery were ten or twelve members of the pimp's family, cursing my client under their breath and shooting dirty looks at her. I sat in the front row so that she could see a friendly face in the courtroom. She had no other family or friends … a sad reminder of the isolation and need for attention that drove her into prostitution in the first place.
 
It was honestly refreshing to play a small part in her pimp's prosecution, while securing mercy for a client who truly deserved it.

By Gretchen Schuldt

A proposed amendment to the State Constitution making its way through the Legislature would result in more defendants in criminal cases held in pre-trial detention, discriminate against the poor and violate Constitutional rights, critics say.

It also is "bound to result in a lengthy, and costly litigation,” the State Public Defender's Office said in prepared testimony.

The Wisconsin Justice Initiative also submitted testimony opposing the amendment. 
 
“The amendment, if enacted, the most adversely impact poor people who cannot afford even a moderate cash bail,” WJI said. “Defendants with access to resources will be able to bail out; defendants without that access will not be able to do so. Cash bail simply serves to separate those who can buy their way out of jail from those who cannot.”

The City of Milwaukee registered in support of the amendment.

Proposed amendments must be approved by two consecutive Legislatures and then approved by voters in a referendum before they are added to the Constitution. The Legislature is considering the bail proposal for the first time.

The Assembly Constitution and Ethics Committee recommended adoption of the measure on a 5-2. Voting in favor were State Reps. Scott Allen (R-Waukesha), Jeremy Thiesfeldt (R-Fond du Lac), John Jagler (R-Watertown), Jesse Kremer (R-Kewaskun), and Chuck Wichgers (R-Muskego). Voting against were State Reps. Fred Kessler (D-Milwaukee) and Terese Berceau (D-Madison).

Cindi Duchow (R - Town of Delafield), the main sponsor of the Assembly version of the bill, said "there have been plenty of examples where a person commits a crime while out on bail that, with more flexibility under the state Constitution, may not have been out on bail to begin with.”
 
The U.S. Constitution, Duchow said, does not guarantee a right to bail. she said.
 
“Our state Constitution, under this amendment, will still guarantee a right to bail, but allow more flexibility in determining the bail amount in order to protect members of the community,” she said.