|
"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: Owen Piotrowski
Appointed to: Milwaukee County Circuit Court Appointment date: Jan. 7, 2026, (effective Feb. 1, 2026) to term ending July 31, 2027. (Piotrowski was earlier appointed to a planned retirement vacancy in Branch 38 and then named to Branch 31 to fill the immediate vacancy created by resignation of Judge Hannah Dugan.) Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Eau Clarie High School – Pacelli High, Stevens Point, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: September 2014-present – Assistant district attorney, Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin General character of practice: I am an Assistant District Attorney in Milwaukee County. My practice is exclusively in the area of criminal prosecution. For the past several years, I have supervised a team of four Assistant District Attorneys and two Assistant Attorney Generals who are responsible for the prosecution of non-fatal shooting in Milwaukee County. Describe typical clients: I serve the people of Milwaukee County. Given the size of the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office, I have served in a number of units prosecuting specific kinds of offenses: the domestic violence unit, the sensitive crimes unit, and the violent crimes unit. Number of cases tried to verdict: 63 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: State v. Xavier Sevilla, Milwaukee County case 22CF2693 This was a serious case that received significant media attention. As a 15 year old, Mr. Sevilla fired a gun during an ongoing dispute with another group of young people inside Mayfair Mall. Ultimately he shot 8 people inside the mall, four of whom had nothing to do with the ongoing dispute. The case began as a juvenile case and was waived into adult court only after the juvenile proceeding was appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I inherited this case shortly before the sentencing hearing when the prior ADA left my office for different employment. I had one week to familiarize myself with the case, communicate with victims, and make an appropriate sentencing argument. I succeeded in making an persuasive sentencing argument for an appropriate sentence without demonizing a defendant who was only 15 at the time he committed a mass shooting. State v. Kendall Love (22CF1689 and 22CF2000) and State v. Marvin Johnson (22CF1690 and 22CF1999) These cases involved two individuals who, acting together, shot two people around three hours apart in Milwaukee. In a nutshell, each defendant found a person they had a previous dispute with, hunted them down, ran up behind them, and repeatedly shot at their intended target. I charged the case, litigated the pretrial issues, and tried each defendant separately. Both defendants were convicted of a number of charges, including Attempted First Degree Intentional Homicide. Both defendants had significant criminal records. In each case the Judge followed my recommendation for an appropriately significant sentence of 40 years of initial confinement. State v. Sanchez Wilson, Milwaukee County case 19CF1411 This was a horrific case in which Mr. Wilson sexually assaulted a young girl in the morning and then, during a shootout with her uncle later that day, shot the same girl he had assaulted. This was my case from the beginning: I met with the family at charging, handled the pretrial litigation, tried the case (securing convictions on all counts), handled the sentencing, and consulted with the Wisconsin DOJ on the appeal. This case sticks out to me as significant because of the severity and variety of the crimes committed. It involved a wide variety of evidence: forensic interviews of children, DNA evidence, ballistic evidence, and many others. Ultimately during cross examination the defendant admitted to shooting the young victim. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: My career has been spent prosecuting cases in Circuit Court, so I have never practiced before an administrative agency or commission. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). My career has been spent litigating criminal cases, so I do not have significant experience with arbitration or mediation. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: I have never held an official position in a political campaign, partisan or otherwise. I was publicly involved in and did some campaign work on a State Senate campaign in 2020. My father ran as the Democratic candidate for the 24th Senate District. I made some public appearances as part of the campaign and engaged in some fundraising. Previous runs for public office: N/A All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: N/A Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Historic Brewers Hill Association, April 2025-present Public office to which you were appointed or elected: Kenosha Housing Authority, appointed, July 2019-present Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: As an attorney for the State of Wisconsin I cannot provide pro bono legal services. A few years ago I joined the Milwaukee Curling Club. The MCC is run mostly by club members volunteering their time, and I regularly volunteer at these events. My wife and I co-chaired/ chaired the MCC's end of year event for club members in the Spring of 2024 and 2025. I have also volunteered at Polish Fest for the last couple of years. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I have served the people of Milwaukee County as a prosecutor for over eleven years, and I believe that I can best continue to positively impact my community as a Circuit Court Judge. I have the courtroom experience, professional judgment, and empathy necessary to be a judge in a trial court. Circuit Court Judges are uniquely situated to positively affect their community. The Court system, whether in the criminal or civil context, is where we as a people resolve our disputes. Both parties advocate their positions, but ultimately the Judge makes the tough decisions. I have spent my time in the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office seeing how judges make those tough decisions every day. I have the courtroom experience to make the appropriate calls regarding evidence and the willingness to listen to the parties and make the right decision for the community. As a prosecutor I have served not only as a zealous advocate, but more importantly as a minister of justice. Acting in that role in Milwaukee County criminal courts presents unique challenges because of the volume of cases and the amount of information that needs to be processed. Throughout my career I have developed the ability to handle that volume without losing sight of the most important question in every case: is what I am doing the best thing for the community in this situation? Simply put, I love Milwaukee County. I am a lifelong Wisconsin resident who grew up in Stevens Point, then went to college in Eau Claire, and law school in Madison. But Milwaukee is where I have made my home. There's no place else I would rather be. and there is no better way I can serve my community than as a Circuit Court Judge. 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. I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court decision that had the biggest negative impact on the people of Wisconsin, and people across the United States, in my lifetime is Citizens United v. F.E.C., 558 U.S. 310 (2010). For more than 100 years before that case was decided, there were some limits on independent expenditures by people and corporations. The U.S. Supreme Court obliterated those long held limits in Citizens United. The only potential beneficiaries of that decision are large corporations and extremely wealthy individuals. Every Wisconsin resident has experienced firsthand the consequences of that decision. As a traditional political battleground State, Wisconsin residents are subjected, election after election, to ads run by Political Action Committees. These ads, as long as they aren't formally coordinated with a candidate, are entirely legal after Citizens United. This has changed the entire tenor of political discourse for the worse. As a Political Science student at the University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire between 2007 and 2011, I remember many debates about the effectiveness and appropriateness of attack ads in political campaigns. Those debates feel like ancient history. Citizens United has turned political campaigns into a series of increasingly dishonest and vitriolic attacks on candidates, which has shunted actual political discussion to the side. Possibly worse, because PACs are allowed to run these ads technically "independently" of candidates and campaigns, it's unclear to people watching just who is responsible for spewing the lies and hatred common in ads these days. Virtually everyone in Wisconsin seems to agree that political discourse has degraded over the past ten years or so. Every dinner table at every family gathering across the State seems to include a lament about the way politics used to be. Citizens United is directly responsible for that degradation by allowing PACs to spend virtually unlimited amounts on blatantly dishonest and hateful advertising. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: I have been fortunate throughout my career to practice in front of many excellent Circuit Court Judges, two of whom have now been elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Justice Rebecca Dallet is the current Judge or Justice who I admire most. Early in my career, while she was the Judge in Br. 40 of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, I was primarily assigned to her courtroom. At the time, she was assigned to a calendar of domestic violence cases. I was able to see firsthand how Justice Dallet conducted her courtroom. I was consistently struck by her ability to maintain firm control over her courtroom (and as anyone who has practiced in Milwaukee County in the domestic violence courts can attest, maintaining control over those chaotic calendars is one of the most difficult tasks a judge can face) while treating everyone with respect and dignity. I remember trying one particularly difficult case in Justice Dallet's court with a particularly difficult pro se defendant. She demonstrated tremendous patience with the defendant while holding me to a high standard. I have been impressed with Justice Dallet's work on the Supreme Court. She always held me to a high standard as a young lawyer, and she continued the hold prosecutors statewide to that same high standard in State v. Wayerski, 385 Wis. 2d 344 (2011). That case, arguably, expanded a prosecutor's obligation to uncover and disclose exculpatory information to the defense. I believe that prosecutors should be held to the highest standards, and I admire Justice Dallet's willingness to enforce that standard. As a historical figure, I have always admired former Chief Justice Earl Warren. I don't think that the impact of the decisions made by the Supreme Court can be overstated. The landmark Brown v. Board of Education Decision that abolished segregation in public schools may be the most significant civil rights decision in the history of the United States. It is also indicative of two things this I admire about Justice Warren. First, this was the controversial topic of the day, and Justice Warren managed to author a unanimous opinion on the topic. Obtaining that unanimity, rather than showing the public a divided judiciary, I believe contributes to the lasting impact of that decision. Second, Justice Warren considered social science research about the effects of segregation in reaching this decision. I believe that the most important quality that a Judge or Justice can display is a willingness to listen. Justice Warren, by engaging with and considering social science, opened the door for courts to consider a wider variety of information and reach better decisions. The proper role of a judge: I believe that a good judge serves three main functions. First, a good judge listens to the parties. Second, a good judge properly administers the rules of procedure. Third, a good judge makes substantive decisions on a case with the good of the community in mind. A judge needs to really listen to and engage with the parties in a case. When a party states their positions, I believe that a good judge considers it, and asks follow-up questions as needed. Listening is not a passive activity. This also means carefully considering the written submissions of the parties. This active listening is one of the things that I believe separates a lawyer's functions from a judge's function. A lawyer will zealously advocate for their positions. The judge must listen to the positions of both parties, sifts through the self-serving statements by both parties, and reach the appropriate legal decision. Second, a judge must accurately administer the rules of procedure. We have a justice system that runs on an adversarial model. The rules of evidence, rules of civil procedure, and rules of criminal procedure set the expectations of the parties. A judge must have a mastery of those rules so that the parties have a basis from which to litigate a case. I firmly believe that this does not involve splitting the proverbial baby; if a call on an evidentiary or procedural issue is close, a good judge considers all of the available information and makes a tough decision. Ultimately the system falls apart and becomes unpredictable if procedural rules are not applied accurately and consistently.
0 Comments
 By Margo Kirchner
Just seven judicial races across Wisconsin were contested in yesterday's elections. You’ve likely already heard about Judge Chris Taylor winning the open Supreme Court seat over Judge Maria Lazar. No Wisconsin Court of Appeals races were contested, so Judges Joe Donald and Rachel Graham were reelected to Districts 1 and 4 respectively, and newcomer Anthony LoCoco will join the appeals court in District 2. What happened in the six contested circuit court races? Here are results from the unofficial reports posted online by the respective counties. Dane County Branch 1: Recently appointed incumbent Ben Jones held off challenger Huma Ahsan, 55.7% to 43.9%. Florence and Forest Counties: Robert A. Kennedy Jr., with 2,182 votes, defeated Alex Seifert, with 1,644 votes. Kennedy will succeed retiring Judge Leon Stenz. Marathon County Branch 3: Michael D. Hughes defeated Douglas Bauman, 64.6% to 35.2%. Hughes will succeed retiring Judge LaMont Jacobson. Washburn County: Incumbent Angeline Winton-Roe beat challenger Aaron Marcoux by 819 votes, 2,792 to 1,973. Washington County Branch 2: Challenger Grant Scaife won against the incumbent, recently appointed Gordon Leech, 60.5% to 39.1%. Wood County Branch 3: Recently appointed incumbent Emily Nolan-Plutchak held off challenger Elizabeth Gebert, winning by 659 votes, 9,588 to 8,929. The election winners will start their new terms on Aug. 1, 2026. By Margo Kirchner In last week’s Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate debate, Wisconsin Justice Initiative’s legal challenge to the spring 2020 ballot question was the foundation for one of the final questions. WISN 12 in Milwaukee held and broadcast the debate between Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judges Chris Taylor and Maria Lazar on April 2. About 10 minutes before the end, WISN moderator Matt Smith asked Taylor why she had voted against the constitutional amendment known as Marsy’s Law when she was a state legislator. Taylor served in the Wisconsin Assembly prior to appointment as a circuit court judge in 2020. After Taylor’s answer, discussing her constituents' concerns with the provision, Smith turned to Lazar. He asked her about Marsy’s Law as follows: “Judge Lazar, critics have challenged the wording on the ballot as unclear and insufficient. The court, though, in a 6-1 ruling, disagreed with that. It has led to some questions, including new debates, about what information should be made public and when. Are there negative, unintended consequences to Marsy’s Law?” Lazar first answered that the amendment “is a very good, strong law,” but admitted that “there are some issues that have come up” for the courts to decide. “I think there are some points that will have to be addressed, but overall it has been astonishingly effective and important,” she said. She attributed issues with the amendment to the drafters not knowing all the possible perspectives or effects. “It’s not like we have lawyers in our Legislature drafting most of these bills,” she said. Though Smith did not name WJI or mention the caption of the court decision, his question referenced the lawsuit WJI brought in 2019 to challenge the Marsy’s Law ballot question. WJI argued that the ballot question not only failed to fully and fairly inform voters about the contents of the amendment but, in fact, misled them. WJI argued that the ballot question failed to inform voters of the amendment’s reduction of rights of an accused. An accused's right to a fair trial, for instance, was deleted from the constitution. The Supreme Court in 2023 ruled against WJI, six to one, on a ground that had not been raised by the state defendants and that two justices sprung on the parties at oral argument. The decision gave the Legislature broad freedom to describe proposed amendments, regardless of voters being confused or misled by the ballot questions. Voters are not entitled to a fair explanation of what they are voting on. Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote for the majority that the Wisconsin Constitution “does not require any substantive discussion of the amendment in the ballot question submitted to the people. No explanation or summary is constitutionally commanded.” A ballot question is deficient “only in the rare circumstance that the question is fundamentally counterfactual such that voters were not asked to approve the actual amendment,” he wrote. Justice Rebecca Bradley concurred, saying that “(t)he constitutional purpose of a ballot question . . . is not to educate voters.” “Voters are trusted to inform themselves,” she wrote. A recent bill, AB 207, would have provided voters with significantly more information. Introduced by Republicans, it ended up with bipartisan support in the Assembly, where it passed out of committee with a unanimous vote in October 2025 and then passed the full Assembly in November. The bill would have required the Legislature to draft a one-page disclosure notice for voters with the entire text of the actual proposed constitutional amendment (not just the ballot question), a plain language summary of existing law, and a plain language explanation of the effect of the proposed amendment. The disclosure notice would be published on the Wisconsin Elections Commission’s voter registration website for at least 30 days before an election, posted on each county clerk’s website, mailed with absentee ballots, and posted at the polls on election day. Sponsor Rep. Jerry O’Connor (R-Fond du Lac) stated in written testimony in both chambers that “(n)o one likes to be at a disadvantage when asked to take a position on a crucial matter such as amending the state Constitution. Yet that is how we treat our voters when we present the voters with a referendum question on a ballot. This is unfair and unreasonable. We can and should do better.” Rep. Dan Knodl (R-Germantown) stated in written testimony urging passage, “Ballot questions are not written to explain a proposal, they’re written to implement it.” He noted that the bill "strengthens voter trust through transparency and accuracy." The Senate received the Assembly’s approved bill in November. However, the bill did not progress through the Senate’s Committee on Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs. The bill died when the Legislature adjourned in March 2026. The Senate’s version of the bill, SB 205, received a hearing in that same committee in November 2025, but the committee failed to vote on it. As for Lazar’s statement that the Legislature does not have lawyers drafting bills, in the case of the Marsy’s Law constitutional amendment, it might not have been drafted by people in Wisconsin at all. Marsy’s Law has been the personal cause of Broadcom founder, billionaire, and later convicted drug felon Henry Nicholas III, following the tragic murder of his sister. Beginning with a Marsy’s Law constitutional amendment in California in 2008, he and his organizations have advocated for substantially similar amendments in at least 20 states. Marsy’s Law for Wisconsin, LLC spent over $1.5 million from January 2017 through June 2019 lobbying the Legislature to approve the amendment and ballot question so the matter could be sent to voters in spring 2020.  Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judges Maria Lazar (L) and Chris Taylor (R) vie for an open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The election is tomorrow, Apr. 7. City of Milwaukee commission to study lack of enforcement of housing voucher antidiscrimination laws4/1/2026  By Alexandria Staubach
A Milwaukee County ordinance makes discrimination against housing voucher holders illegal, but enforcement is essentially nonexistent. A City of Milwaukee agency is now looking at the issue. In 2018, then-Milwaukee County Supervisor Marina Dimitrijevic sponsored and helped pass the county ordinance that made discrimination against housing voucher holders illegal. But the county failed to develop a serious enforcement mechanism and has never litigated a complaint, says Stefanie Ebbens, senior administrator of the Inclusive Communities Program at Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council. FHC is a local nonprofit that operates a full-service fair housing program. Private landlords are not required to opt into the subsidized housing voucher (known as section 8) program, but if they do, they cannot then discriminate against those who use them. Discrimination against voucher holders isn’t just illegal at the local level. Wisconsin’s fair housing law also prohibits landlords from discriminating based on a person’s “lawful source of income,” which includes vouchers with monetary value. Nevertheless, in a decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Wisconsin, the judges questioned whether federal rent vouchers fit within the meaning of "lawful source of income." The City of Milwaukee’s Equal Rights Commission is now taking a closer look at the county ordinance and others around the state that are designed to protect individuals who have managed to obtain a subsidized housing (known as section 8) voucher to help cover the cost of rent. At a commission meeting in February, Ebbens told the commission about the frustration she and her clients experience when trying to secure housing. She said Milwaukee landlords have become “more bold because they know no one is coming after them.” FHC’s Megan Wanke presented problematic trends and discrimination in the acceptance of vouchers in Milwaukee. Maps in the presentation showed a disproportionate concentration of households using federally subsidized vouchers in Milwaukee’s highest poverty areas, which remain consistent with historical racial segregation and Milwaukee’s long history of redlining. The problem is a mismatch of available properties and people receiving housing vouchers. FHC shared data from a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities think tank study conducted between 2017 and 2021, which showed that while only 20% of the city’s voucher affordable properties are located high-poverty census tracts, 32% of voucher holders reside in them. Meanwhile 34% of the city’s voucher affordable housing properties are in low-poverty census tracts, and only 17% of the city’s voucher holders live there. FHC recently conducted its own testing investigation, which showed that 45% of major property owners in Milwaukee prohibit or restrict the use of section 8 vouchers, some with policies that are exclusive to Milwaukee. Wanke told the commission that about three-fourths of those property owners refuse to accept vouchers at all, while the others disqualify voucher holders with targeted restrictions that effectively cut them out of the market. One company in fact accepts voucher renters, just not in Milwaukee. Wanke shared that the investigation involved more than 7,000 residential units. Wanke said the difference in where voucher holders are concentrated cannot be explained by housing stock or average cost of rent, and it has “despicable racial discrimination implications.” Section 8 vouchers belong to a rental assistance program managed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. They are supposed to ensure that low-income families, seniors with fixed incomes, and disabled individuals have access to private-market housing. Participants pay roughly 30% of their income toward rent and utilities. A local public housing agency pays the remainder directly to landlords. The public housing agencies act as a conduit for the federal funding and ensure that rent makes it directly into landlords’ hands. The agencies have broad discretion in running their programs, which impose strict income requirements. The waitlist to receive benefits is often years long. In Milwaukee, the program is administered by the Housing Authority. Its waitlist is so long that it is currently closed. Participants are subject to criminal background checks that can be disqualifying. The local program must “accurately distinguish between criminal conduct that indicates a demonstrable risk to resident safety and property and criminal conduct that does not,” according to the Milwaukee Housing Authority’s Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy. Despite these protections, many still have trouble finding landlords willing to take their vouchers. Members of the public who testified at the commission’s meeting shared stories of landlords “ghosting” them at showings or failing to return calls. One woman, Katravia Lee, shared her struggles in attempting to find a landlord willing to accept her voucher in time for her to use it, after she had waited years to receive the voucher at all. Lee also expressed frustration at paying as much as $75 to fill out an application, just to have a landlord decline her without providing a reason. According to Wanke, the pressure to find housing reduces a renter’s desire to file a complaint to enforce the antidiscrimination laws. Complaints would take months to resolve, which they don’t have. Also, many who feel or know they have been wrongfully discriminated against also do not want to risk being seen as problematic. And despite the 2018 enactment of the county ordinance, there is no clear path to file a complaint with the county, Ebbens told the city commission. Milwaukee County's corporation counsel could not be reached for comment on this issue. The issue is not as pronounced in Madison. Wanke and Ebbens said that Madison has a more comprehensive and structured administrative process under a city antidiscrimination ordinance. Commission Chair Tony Snell Rodriguez assured community speakers that the commission would take action, ordering a comparative analysis of the Wisconsin county and municipal fair housing law from the city’s Legislative Reference Bureau and creating a subcommittee to evaluate whether the commission can enact more robust protections. Note: Author Alexandria Staubach serves on Milwaukee's Equal Rights Commission. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed