"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: Anna L. Becker Appointed to: Jackson County Circuit Court Appointment date: Aug. 28, 2014 Education: Law School – Hamline University School of Law Undergrad – University of Minnesota High School - no information provided by applicant Recent Employment: 2007 - present – Jackson County court commissioner, family court commissioner 2007-2013 - Law Office of Anna Becker 1999-2006 - Jackson County district attorney (did not seek re-election to a fifth term) Memberships: State Bar of Minnesota Wisconsin State Bar U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin Wisconsin Family Court Commissioners Association Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: Experience in criminal litigation and civil litigation; handled family law, guardian ad litem work, ChIPS cases, guardianships. Worked extensively on a city flodwall project by doing real estate condemnation for levee improvements following a flood. I began my career assisting the City Attorney...Village Attorney who was a partner in my law firm. I tried numerous civil forfeiture cases in that capacity. In addition, I did collections actions for Northern Christmas Tree Growers and Nursery and handled divorces and other civil and criminal cases. ... I was elected District Attorney after a 1998 campaign with two opponents. As District Attorney I spent a great deal of time working with law enforcement agencies prosecuting criminal cases and traffic forfeitures. As one of the two attorneys in our small office I was in the courtroom on a daily basis and gained very valuable experience. I worked as a self employed attorney part time after my children were born. Later appointed family court commissioner. Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: Jury, more than 13; non-jury, "too many to count." Number of cases on appeal: Most, if not all, of the cases appealed during my tenure as DA were handled through the AG’s office, not ours. We may have handled a very small handful of appeals but I do not recall any of significance. Describe the two most significant cases you have hear as a judicial officer. I really cannot think of any particularly significant cases as most of the matters I preside over are pretty routine. One that stands out as a bit odd is a small claims pro se case (09SC519). The parties were each offered a turn to present evidence to the court. After at least a half hour, I summarized what I thought each party was attempting to prove. Both agreed that I had it correct. When I then asked them what their problem was because it essentially sounded like they were in agreeent with the facts and what they each wanted, they agreed that they had no issue and the case was settled. It was very bizarre. . Professional or civic organizations, volunteer activities, service in a church or synagogue, or any other activities or hobbies that could be relevant or helpful to consideration of the application:
Pro bono legal work: As FCC I routinely assist pro se litigants in finding the correct forms to use and the legal process, but I am prohibited from providing them with legal advice. In 1997 I participated as a presenter on estate planning at a program sponsored by a local bank for the community. For numerous years I assisted the judge(s) with presentations at the annual Student Government Day at the Courthouse. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge – I was born and raised in Jackson County and we own the farm that has been in our family for nearly a century. I have a strong belief that the community is what you make it. … In a small community like ours, where everyone tends to know everyone else, integrity, work ethic and the ability to apply the law as written can be difficult. Nevertheless, it is critical that the judge uphold the laws and to be able to withstand the scrutiny that may flow from an unpopular but legally mandated decision based on the facts. Best Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision in the last 30 years - Board of Education v. Earls Board of Education v. Earls was a case involving the 4th Amendment privacy rights of public school students involved in extracurricular activities. The school policy required random UA’s (urinalysis) of student in extracurricular activities regardless of whether there was a suspicion of drug activity concerning the students. The US Supreme Court ruled that the UA’s did not violate the 4th Amendment rights of the student because the students had a diminished expectation of privacy and because the policy as a whole furthered the important interest of preventing drug use among students. I agree with the court’s ruling and the rationale behind it. This case strikes a fair balance between individual privacy rights and the public interest of protecting our youth. Worst Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision in the last 30 years - Bowers v Hardwick Bowers held that states could imprison homosexuals for having sex with their partners and it facilitated discrimination against gays and lesbians. It is one of the worst civil rights decisions since Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which gave the Supreme Court’s blessing to Jim Crow. … Seventeen years later the Supreme Court directly overruled its decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and held that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. In that case the court chastised itself stating “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today.” … This case holding does not just affect homosexuals and lesbians. It goes to the heart of the privacy interests of all Americans and attempts to intrude into the basic privacy rights of American citizens. These types of rights must be zealously protected for this to remain the great country of democracy and freedom for which America is known. There must be a balancing test and this factual scenario clearly did not past that test. This case holding does not just affect homosexuals and lesbians. It goes to the heart of the privacy interests of all Americans and attempts to intrude into the basic privacy rights of American citizens. Judicial philosophy - I believe that the role of the judiciary is to interpret the law and apply it to the specific factual scenario set out before the court. To believe otherwise would be to denigrate the separation of powers between the execute, legislative and judiciary branches. Stare decisis is what give the laws and system of justice stability. … The role of the judiciary is to consistently and evenhandly administer justice, maintaining a stable presence in the community that fosters future growth and positive infrastructure.
Other information you feel would be helpful to your application – More than 3 generations of my family have lived in Jackson County and we continue to call it home. As a long term resident, I cherish the lifestyle of living in a rural county and believe it is a terrific place to raise a family, run a business, and grow old. I believe I can make a positive impact on the county and is citizens as a judge. As a parent of elementary school children I also believe the court system can have a positive impact on the youth in the community. I successfully ran for election for District Attorney 4 times and believe that I can do the same again in a judicial race. I would cherish the opportunity to continue to serve and protect my community and its rural values. It would be a great honor to be appointed to this judicial vacancy.
0 Comments
Scott Wales and Kashoua "Kristy" Yang are competing for the Branch 47 judicial seat now held by Milwaukee County Circuit Judge John Siefert. This is the only contested Milwaukee County judicial race this year. Wales and Yang agreed to answer a series of questions from WJI to better inform voters about issues in the race. This week's question: Do you support the 54 retired judges' proposal to require any circuit court judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors and indirect supporters who contribute $1,000 or more to the judge's election effort? (The limit for appeals court and Supreme Court judges would be $2,500 and $10,000, respectively).
Milwaukee County could face liability on constitutional claims related to Sheriff David Clarke's participation in a federal detention program the State Supreme Court last week shrouded in secrecy. A federal judge in Oregon already has ruled that a request from Immigration and Customs Enforcement is not reasonable cause to incarcerate a person. While not binding on Wisconsin, the Oregon decision clearly lays out the danger in accommodating detention that include little or no evidence of criminal activity. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled, 4-2, last week in favor of Clarke's contention that he can keep secret records related to inmates who remain incarcerated beyond their normal release point at the request of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The extra-long incarceration is limited to 48 hours, but Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays don't count, according to the Oregon Federal Court decision in Miaria Miranda Olivares v Clackamas County. That means the actual extra incarceration could be much longer than 48 hours in many instances. (See decision at the end of this post.) Asked if the ruling meant the state now has a secret detention program, attorney Peter Earle responded, "I think so." "This would not be an alarming case at the level I'm alarmed if these were normal times," he said, referring to recent ICE roundups of immigrants.. Earl represented Voces de la Frontera, an immigrants rights group that sought access to ICE forms called I-247s that ask local law enforcement to honor the extra-long detention for specified inmates ICE believes may be in the country illegally. A constitutional claim like the one in Oregon is possible, Earle said, if defendants caught up in the program can be identified. There is a concern, he said, that people will just get lost in the system. Earle said the inmates held under the federal program are accused of state and local offenses, not federal crimes. The federal government also does not compensate the county for the costs it incurs holding the inmates for ICE. In Oregon, Miranda-Olivares was arrested for violating a domestic violence restraining order and booked into the the Clackamas County Jail on March 14, 2012, according to the decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart. "The County maintains a custom or practice in violation of the Fourth Amendment to detain individuals over whom the County no longer has legal authority based only on an ICE detainer which provides no probable cause for detention." - U.S. Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart The jail the next morning received the federal request to hold Miranda-Olivares. Miranda-Olivares was charged with two counts of contempt of court and a judge set bail at $5,000. Under normal circumstances, she could post $500 cash and be freed. In this case, though, there was that ICE detainer. Jail officials, over the next two weeks, told Miranda-Olivares' sister repeatedly that Miranda-Olivares would not be released even if the bail was posted because of that document. Miranda-Olivares eventually pleaded guilty to one charge and was sentenced to 48 hours in jail, with credit for time served. She was held for an extra 19 hours, however, because of the ICE detainer. In her decision, Judge Stewart noted that complying with an ICE detainer request is voluntary, not mandatory. "Miranda-Olivares was not charged with a federal crime and was not subject to a warrant for arrest or order of removal or deportation by ICE," Stewart wrote. "The County admits that Miranda-Olivares was held past the time she could have posted bail and after her state charges were resolved based exclusively on the ICE detainer." ICE, however, did not show probably cause to hold Miranda-Olivares, Stewart said. "It stated only that an investigation 'has been initiated' to determine whether she was subject to removal from the United States," she wrote. "There is no genuine dispute of material fact that the County maintains a custom or practice in violation of the Fourth Amendment to detain individuals over whom the County no longer has legal authority based only on an ICE detainer which provides no probable cause for detention," Stewart wrote. The county, Stewart said, "violated Miranda-Olivares’s Fourth Amendment rights by detaining her without probable cause both after she was eligible for pre-trial release upon posting bail and after her release from state charges." |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|