By Gretchen Schuldt
Even the most inconsequential violation of a condition of community supervision makes a person ineligible for expungement of the crime from their record, the State Supreme Court decided.
"Once an individual completes his term of probation, if it is undisputed that the individual violated at least one of his conditions of probation – as in this very case – circuit courts must deny expungement," Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley wrote for the five-member majority. She was joined by Justices Annette K. Ziegler, Patience D. Roggensack, Brian Hagedorn, and Jill J. Karofsky.
The requirement for strict adherence applies both to conditions set by the court and those set by the Department of Corrections, Grassl Bradley said. Any violation makes a person ineligible for expungement.
Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, joined by Justice Rebecca F. Dallet, dissented.
"The majority opinion places expungement further out of reach of those defendants who would benefit most," Walsh Bradley wrote. "Although I agree with the majority that expungement requires satisfaction of conditions imposed by both the sentencing court and DOC, I part ways with the majority when it determines that the circuit court has no discretion to order expungement in the face of any rule violation, no matter how small."
The court's decision stemmed from a case involving Jordan A. Lickes' request to expunge three of four convictions related to a sexual encounter he had with a 16-year-old girl in 2012, when he was 19.
Lickes was charged with fourth-degree sexual assault, sexual intercourse with a child age 16 or older, disorderly conduct, and exposing his genitals or pubic area. The first three charges were misdemeanors; the fourth was a felony.
He pleaded guilty to the sex with a child charge and no contest to the others and was sentenced to 90 days in jail with work-release privileges. He was also placed on probation, but violated some of the rules and was sanctioned. DOC, however, did not seek to revoke his supervision.
His probation ended in 2016 and Lickes applied for expungement. His probation agent eventually certified that Lickes had successfully completed his supervision.
The Supreme Court, agreeing with the state Department of Justice and Attorney General Josh Kaul, said he did not.
Walsh Bradley, in her dissent, noted that DOC's standard rules of supervision require "that a person meet regularly with the probation agent and obtain approval from the agent prior to moving; changing employment; leaving the state of Wisconsin; purchasing, trading, selling, or operating a motor vehicle; borrowing money; or buying anything on credit."
The rules also require those on supervision to adhere to conditions set by the court or their supervision agent, and that those conditions can change at any time.
"Does the majority's determination mean that if, without agent approval, probationers from the border community of Marinette, Wisconsin cross to Menominee, Michigan to do grocery shopping, that they must be denied expungement? The majority apparently responds, 'Yes. Under the standard rules of probation, it is a violation.' "
"How about the standard rule of buying nothing on credit?" Walsh Bradley said. "What happens if the probationer, without agent approval, pays for gas with a credit card? 'It's out of our hands,' responds the majority. The same apparently holds true if the probationer misses a single meeting with the probation agent."
The statutory requirement that expungement candidates "satisfy" the conditions of their supervision leaves room for discretion by the judge and DOC, Walsh Bradley said.
Yet "the majority proceeds to rigidly interpret 'satisfaction' in an all-or-nothing fashion," she wrote. "In the majority's view the circuit court has no discretion at all in deciding whether to grant or deny expungement.
"One would expect a determination of such reach to be supported with more than the majority's cursory analysis," which was three paragraphs long, she said. "And it is an analysis that runs counter to the statutory language, has no basis in the case law the majority cites, and thwarts the purpose of the expungement statute."
Evers' judges: Jack L. Dávila
"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 indicates a direct quote from the judge's application.
Name: Jack L. Dávila
Appointed to: Milwaukee Country Circuit Court
Appointment date: April 9, 2020. (Elected April 2021)
Law School – Marquette University
Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Madison
High School – Cedar Grove-Belgium High School, Cedar Grove, Wisconsin
Recent legal employment:
November 2013-present – The Previant Law Firm, Milwaukee
September 2011-October 2013 – Tabak Law, Milwaukee
U.S. Army, 2002-2006
Bar and Administrative Memberships:
State Bar of Wisconsin
U.S. District Court-Eastern District of Wisconsin
General character of practice:
Personal injury, worker's compensation, and Social Security disability matters in Wisconsin state courts and before the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development and the Social Security Administration.
My personal injury practice has included representation in auto collision, product liability, premises liability and wrongful death actions. In civil matters I have experience in all aspects of the litigation process, including the initial filing of the summons and complaint, the discovery process (including depositions), motion practice and trial representation.
Describe typical clients:
My clients are diverse and come from all walks of life. They are regular, hard-working men and women who were injured either on the job or as a result of someone else's negligence. A significant portion of my clients come from Wisconsin's Hispanic community.
Number of cases tried to verdict: One
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
Noyce v. Department of Workforce Development Uninsured Employers Fund, et al.
Noyce v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, et al.
These cases involved a worker's compensation appeal to Wisconsin Court of Appeals and a third-party claim arising out of the same case in Jefferson County. My firm represented the injured worker, David Noyce....I was involved in these cases from approximately 2013 to 2018.…I was involved in all aspects of these matters....This case was significant because it involved complex issues of the interplay between worker's compensation law and third-party negligence law, including statutory interpretation and a question of adherence to longstanding precedent. Ultimately, the biggest reason it was a significant case is because our client suffered a severe traumatic brain injury and, as a result, was unable to return to the work force. His future depended upon the outcome of this case and I am proud that we were able to help him obtain some financial security and hope for his future.
Loontjens v. Sentry Insurance et al.
This was initially a Milwaukee County case before it was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin before Judge J.P. Stadtmueller. My firm represented plaintiff John Loontjens.…I was involved in this case from approximately 2013 to 2015. I was involved in all aspects of the litigation arising out of this case....Judge Stadtmueller denied summary judgment, allowing the case to move forward. This case was significant because we were able to assist our client who lost an eye while on the job when he was struck by an exploding tire rim that was negligently designed.
Meitner v. JLG Industries et al.
This was a Dodge County case before Judge Brian Pfitzinger. My firm represented plaintiff Bruce Meitner.…I was involved in this matter from approximately 2016 to 2018....This matter ultimately settled prior to the judge ruling on the motion for summary judgment. Our client was injured when an aerial lift he was working on collapsed from a height of approximately 30 feet, causing him to fall to the ground and suffer injuries to his leg. This case was significant because we were able to help our client obtain some measure of security for his family after he suffered severe injuries to his leg and as a result was unable to return to his employment as a construction worker.
Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies:
Represents injured workers in worker's compensation matters before the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development and the Labor and Industry Review Commission. Attends adversarial hearings before a DWD administrative law judge and submits appellate briefs to the Labor and Industry Review Commission, circuit court or Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
Describe your non-litigation legal experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation).
Participated in many mediations as part of client representation.
Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization:
Previous runs for public office: None
All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years:
Ed Fallone Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, 2019
Professional or civic and charitable organizations:
Voces de la Frontera Action, board of directors, November 2016-present
Wisconsin Hispanic Lawyers Association, treasurer/board of directors, June 2014-May 2018
Wisconsin Association for Justice, member, November 2013-present
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, member, 2016-present
American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, member, 2018-present
Hispanic Professionals of Greater Milwaukee, member, 2019-present
League of United Latin American Citizens, member, 2019-present
Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service:
Since 2009, first as a law student and since 2011 as an attorney, I have Volunteered at the Marquette Volunteer Legal Clinic since 2009; volunteer attorney at Voces de l Frontera Legal Clinic since 2016.
Why I want to be a judge – For the past two decades the common thread of my life has been service. From serving in the United States Army, to pro bono work during law school and as an attorney, to my practice representing injured people during a difficult time in their lives, to community service, I have always felt called to help others and serve my community. Serving as a judge would allow me to serve my community on an even greater level.
Many of my clients are members of the Latino community. I have seen firsthand the toll it takes on regular working people and their families to be injured and out of work for months, or even years, while waiting for their day in court. I have represented undocumented immigrants who are fearful of seeking legal recourse due to their immigration status. I have insight into the overwhelming feelings of confusion and helplessness that those with little means experience when they are forced to become involved in our justice system. As a judge I will ensure that everyone who enters the courtroom, no matter who they are, what they look like, what zip code they live in, or what their immigration status is, will be treated equally and with dignity and respect.
I come from humble beginnings. I grew up in the small town of Cedar Grove, Wisconsin in Sheboygan County, the son of two longtime union members. My mother is a retired public school teacher and school librarian, and my father is a retired machinist who immigrated to the United States from Puerto Rico. My father arrived in this country with an eighth grade education and learned English while working in Chicago’s factories. Both of my parents emphasized education as the key to being successful in life. After graduating from college I enlisted in the United States Army and served as a Spanish linguist non-commissioned officer from 2002-2006. I quickly saw that in basic training everyone was treated the same, no matter what they looked like or where they were from. In this sense the military and the justice system serve as great equalizers; everyone who enters the courtroom should be treated the same no matter who they are.
For the past decade I have invested time in organizations that serve Milwaukee’s Latino community. I serve on the board of directors of Voces de la Frontera Action and volunteer at the Voces Legal Clinic. I also volunteer at the Marquette Volunteer Legal Clinic at the United Community Center. I appear regularly at the Mexican Consulate in Milwaukee to give presentations on access to the justice system for injured immigrant workers.
My upbringing, military service, law practice, pro bono work and commitment to community service have shaped who I am, and I would bring this experience to the bench. Serving as a judge would be a continuation of my record of service to our country and community, and would provide me with an even greater opportunity to serve my community.
By Gretchen Schuldt
The state's prison population will return to pre-pandemic levels as courts reopen and the Department of Corrections accepts more people convicted of crimes into the prison system, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau.
During the pandemic, to slow the spread of COVID-19 in prisons, the state stopped accepting newly sentenced people. Instead, they sat in county jails. Now that the COVID-19 crisis is easing, the state is again accepting new inmates, LFB said in a budget paper. And in March, Corrections Secretary Kevin Carr told county sheriffs the admission backlog should be cleared within a few months.
Another factor – the Legislature's adoption of tougher laws – also contributes to more people being incarcerated, LFB said.
"Legislation from the 2019 session (which increased penalties and created additional crimes) may eventually lead to increased prison populations to the extent that offenders either serve new or longer sentences," the agency said. "No legislation was passed in the 2019 session that could cause a significant decrease in populations."
An expansion of the Earned Release Program, an early release treatment program for persons who are incarcerated with substance abuse disorders, may eventually help reduce the population somewhat, but any impact probably will not be felt for some time, it said.
LFB projected that the average daily prison population would hit 23,471 by the end of 2022-23, the same as in February, 2020, the most recent pre-pandemic population.
As of Friday, Division of Adult Institutions population was 19,377.
"While admissions to prison are increasing and COVID-19 positive cases are decreasing, the biggest lingering COVID-19 impact on the adult prison population relates to court operations," the paper said. "Case backlogs due to COVID-19, including trials and sentencing hearings, will likely take some unknown amount of time to address."
News reports indicate Dane County has a backlog of 8,000 cases; in Milwaukee County, the backlog could take up to two years to clear, the report said.
"According to the Milwaukee County DA, more than 3,000 suspects are awaiting official criminal charges...and only 60 criminal jury trials were heard in the past year, down "hundreds" from a typical year." the report said.
The state courts office reported that pending felony cases were up 35% statewide last year, LFB said.
The Joint Finance Committee, early in the budget process, eliminated several of Evers' corrections proposals that could have reduced the prison population. They included:
Excluded from eligibility would be people whose offense included: (1) a crime against life and bodily security (Chapter 940 of the statutes); (2) sexual assault of a child; (3) repeat acts of sexual assault of the same child; (4) physical abuse of a child; (5) sexual exploitation of a child; (6) trafficking of a child; (7) causing a child to view or listen to sexual activity; (8) incest with a child; (9) child enticement; (10) use of a computer to facilitate a child sex crime; (11) soliciting a child for prostitution; (12) sexual assault of a child placed in substitute care; or (13) sexual assault of a child by a school staff person or a person who works or volunteers with children.
By Gretchen Schuldt
A State Assembly committee recommended adoption of a bill that would make more people eligible to have their criminal records expunged, but also added four more crimes ineligible for expungement.
Felony stalking offenses, misdemeanor property damage to a business, misdemeanor criminal trespass to a dwelling, and violation of a domestic abuse injunction or restraining order would be ineligible for expungement under an amendment adopted by the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee on an 8-6 vote. The bill then was forwarded to the full Assembly on a unanimous vote.
The Senate's Judiciary and Public Safety Committee recommended Senate adoption of the bill, without the additional four ineligible crimes, on a 5-2 vote.
The full Assembly is expected to consider its version June 16.
Wisconsin's expungement law is stricter than other states' laws. Currently, a person who wants to have a criminal conviction expunged from their Wisconsin record must ask the judge at the time of sentencing, before the judge has any idea how that person does in prison or on supervision. The law also limits the availability of expungement to those less than 25 years old at the time of the crime and to those who do not have a felony conviction record. The offense for which expungement is requested must not be a violent felony and must not carry a penalty greater than six years in prison.
Both the Assembly and Senate versions of the bill would change the law in several ways. It would remove the discriminatory age limit of 25 and would allow people convicted of crimes to request expungement when they complete their sentences.
Other limits, including a prohibition on expunging records related to violent crimes and crimes carrying penalties of more than six years in prison, would remain in place.
Under the bill, once an expunction petition is filed, a judge would review it and either grant or deny it. If denied, a new petition could not be filed for two years.
The bill also would limit a person to one expunction.
The legislation also makes clear what it means to successfully complete a sentence. That would include completing community service, paying all fines, fees, restitution, and completing any community supervision without revocation.
Evers' judges: Chris L. Taylor
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. WJI also will continue to profile former Gov. Scott Walker's appointees who are still in office.
Italics indicates direct quotes from the application.
Name: Chris L. Taylor
Appointed to: Dane County Circuit Court
Appointment date: June 11, 2020 (Elected in April 2021.)
Law School – University of Wisconsin Law School
Undergraduate – University of Pennsylvania
High School – Birmingham High School, Lake Balboa, CA
Recent legal employment:
August 2011-present – State legislator, Wisconsin State Assembly
2003-present – Public policy director, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin
Bar and Administrative Memberships:
Wisconsin State Bar
Wisconsin State Supreme Court bar admission
General character of practice before becoming a judge:
My law practice consisted of civil litigation primarily in areas of family law, including various injunctions and guardian ad litem appointments. In my early practice, I also assisted partners with various plaintiff-side employment issues and a significant campaign finance case.
In my position at Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, I provided legal counsel to the Public Affairs Department.
Describe typical clients:
I primarily represented family law clients and developed a specialty in that area. At Planned Parenthood, I developed a specialty in reproductive health law, managed and reorganized our public affairs board, supervised junior lawyers and public affairs staff, provided support for policy makers and provided extensive legal analysis and writing regarding various reproductive health issues.
Number of cases tried to verdict: Approximately five. Had dozens of motion hearings, depositions, etc.
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:
As a state legislator for the last decade (2011-present), I used my legal experience to research, draft and pass important legislation in many areas, including law enforcement reform as follows:
1. Independent Criminal Investigations following police-involved deaths. 2013 Wis. Act 348 was legislation I co-authored with Republican Representative Garey Bies, a former deputy sheriff. This first in the nation law requires that following the death of civilian by law enforcement, two independent lead investigators outside of the police department involved must lead the resulting criminal investigation. This is significant in providing independence, transparency and accountability to the public.
2. Police Use of Force Standards, AB 1012-Other reform legislation I authored set specific police use of force standards to delineate the "objective reasonableness" standard set forth in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Though this bill has not passed, many provisions were eventually incorporated into reforms adopted by the Madison City Council.
3. Body Camera standards, 2019 Wisconsin Act 108-This bill resulted from a Legislative Student (sic) Committee on law enforcement body cameras I co-chair with Republican Senate Pat Testin. This unanimously approved legislation set important body camera standards for law enforcement, including a presumption that such footage should be available
to the public.
As a practicing attorney at Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin (2003-2011), I lead (sic) a five year initiative around protecting patients' rights to have their birth control prescriptions filled in Wisconsin pharmacies without harassment or delay. In administrative (In the Discipline of Neil Noesen, LS-0310091-PHM) and Court of Appeals actions concerning a pharmacist who refused to fill and transfer a patient's birth control prescription (Noesen v. Wisconsin, 2008 WI App 52), I primarily researched and authored two Amicus briefs regarding ethical and legal issues presented.
My legal research and advocacy helped pass an important state law in 2009 that requires pharmacies to dispense patients' birth control prescriptions without delay.
As a litigator in private practice from 1996-2003, I managed dozen of cases primarily involving family law, various injunction actions and several GAL (guardian ad litem) cases.
1. In In re the Marriage of Moe, 2000 FA1363 I represented petitioner from 2000-2002 in a contentious divorce action resulting in a trial and a plethora of post-judgment motions before Judge Diane Nicks. This case was significant because it concerned complicated determinations of the respondent's income due to his failure to disclose income streams found by extensively examining bank records.
2. In Hagen v. Heisig, 2002CV1167 I represented plaintiff from 4/11/02-5/20/02 in obtaining a permanent harassment restraining order from Judge Moria Krueger for employees and customers at her daycare facility. This was a significant case because it involved a child care business needing an harassment restraining order rather than an individual.
3. I also served as a GAL for an individual with mental health issues being evicted from public housing by the City of Madison. Though the defendant refused to contact me or appear for trial, I successfully litigated this case before Judge William Foust by showing that the city never attempted to accommodate his disability in violation of federal disability laws.
Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies:
Wrote amicus brief in 2004 administrative hearing regarding pharmacist Neil Noesen and his refusal to fill and transfer a person's birth control prescription; attended the hearing.
As legislator and Joint Finance Committee member, attended many hearings with staff and leadership of administrative agencies.
I treat these hearings as I would treat a legal hearing in preparing questions and soliciting needed information.
Describe your non-litigation legal experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation).
Volunteered with Case Mediation Program to help settle family law disputes; at Planned Parenthood, performed legal tasks including drafting, amending and advocating for legislation that supported health policy; prepared legislative and regulatory analysis, memos and materials on relevant public policy matters, and provided state and federal legal and constitutional analysis, legal research and writing on a variety of reproductive health, women's rights and campaign finance issues.
As legislator, evaluated and analyzed various policies, co-authored more than 250 bills and resolutions, focusing on needed legal reforms in areas of social justice, criminal justice reform, environmental conservation, protecting and enhancing democracy, women’s and civil rights and issues concerning children....I have used my legal background to play a key role in exposing nefarious assaults on our democracy brought, and sometimes buried, in lengthy, last minute motions that we are given little time to review. For example, the “Lame Duck” laws, which curtailed both executive and judicial powers, were first distributed to minority JFC members late on a Friday afternoon for a Monday hearing. This required me, as the only attorney among the minority members, to quickly digest, analyze and expose the significant legal ramifications these bills posed.
By Gretchen Schuldt
A Republican bill that would send thousands of people on community supervision to prison would cost the state up to $1 billion to build two prisons to house the increased population and $171 million a year in increased operating costs, according to a fiscal estimate from the Department of Corrections.
The bill, Senate Bill 188, would require DOC to recommend revoking a person's extended supervision, parole, or probation if the person is charged with a crime while on release.
DOC estimated that there would be an additional 6,280 revocation cases per year and 47%, or 2,952, of the recommendations would be ratified by the Department of Administration's Division of Hearings and Appeals, which reviews and decides such cases.
If each additional revocation resulted in an additional 19 months in prison, the average daily prison population would jump by 4,673.
The Hearings and Appeals Division now affirms about 87% of revocation recommendations and the average time served for those is 39 months. DOC said it is likely that a smaller percentage of revocation recommendations would be affirmed if the agency must try to revoke everyone accused of a crime. DOC said it now uses several factors to determine whether revocation is appropriate.
Bills similar to SB188 have been introduced in the past.
"I look forward to defeating this bill for a fourth time," said State Rep. Evan Goyke (D-Milwaukee), a leading legislative proponent of criminal justice reform.
Oshkosh Correctional Institution housed a daily average of 2,035 inmates in 2020, DOC said in its estimate. DOC would need two additional prisons of about that size to house the increased population.
"It is estimated that the cost to construct one new 2,000 bed medium security correctional institution would be approximately $450 million to $550 million," the agency said.
The Badger State Sheriff's Association, in testimony last month before the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee, said the bill would hit local jail budgets as well.
"This means 6,280 more individuals will be occupying county jails without reimbursement from DOC," the association said. "Essentially, this bill is an unfunded mandate to Wisconsin county jails."
And DOC Secretary Kevin Carr, testifying against the bill, said that prison populations declined during the pandemic.
"That number will be increasing back to pre-pandemic levels without legislative change," he said. "There are serious and immediate safety consequences within existing DOC facilities if any legislation increases the incarceration rate."
The State Public Defender's Office said the proposed process raised constitutional concerns.
"And while the administrative law judge would still retain discretion under the bill whether or not to revoke supervision...this bill will lead to prison sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the alleged criminal activity," SPD said.
By Gretchen Schuldt
(Updated 6/7/21 to correct Booth's biography.)
Ezekiel Gillespie, born a slave, grew up to win the right to vote for Wisconsin's Black men. (All women would have to wait a while.)
Gillespie may be one of the better-known unsung heroes in Wisconsin's legal history – he at least has a pocket park named after him – but his story seems especially timely now, as the Legislature works diligently to increase restrictions on who can vote and when.
Gillespie was born a slave in Georgia. His mother also was enslaved and his father reportedly was their owner. Reports about how Gillespie got his freedom are contradictory, but he may have bought his freedom from his own father.
State voters were asked in an 1849 constitutional referendum whether the voting franchise should be extended to African American men. There were numerous political offices up for a vote at the same time. The franchise referendum passed, 5,265 to 4,075, but a lot of voters who went to the polls didn't vote on the referendum question at all – they were more interested in other items on the ballot. Because the referendum did not receive a majority of all the votes cast that day, officials said, it failed.
That is how the matter stayed until 1865, when Gillespie tried to register to vote in Milwaukee.
Unsurprisingly, election officials turned him away, as did election officials when he showed up at the polls to vote.
Gillespie sued the Milwaukee board of election inspectors. In anticipation of the suit, Gillespie already was working with Sherman Booth, an abolitionist and newspaper editor. Gillespie was represented by Byron Paine, a premier civil rights attorney of the time and a former (and future) State Supreme Court justice, who may have had his fees covered by Booth.
Gillespie lost in Milwaukee County Circuit Court and appealed to the Supreme Court.
D.G. Hooker, representing the election inspectors, argued that the constitution required that the suffrage measure, to be adopted, had to be approved by a majority of voters in the election, not just a majority voting on the referendum.
"It is not reasonable to presume...that the convention intended to permit a change in the provisions of the constitution on so important a subject as the right of suffrage, and one which the convention knew would at that time have been particularly odious to a large majority of the people, without requiring that it should be approved, either by an actual majority of all the members of the legislature, or by an actual majority of the voters themselves," he argued.
But the court disagreed.
"Under the provisions of our constitution, as well as of other constitutions, persons are elected to a particular office who have a majority of the votes cast – not for the candidates for some other office, but for the candidates for that office...." Justice Jason Downer wrote for the three-member court. "To declare a measure or law adopted or defeated – not by the number of votes cast directly for or against it, but by the number cast for and against some other measure, or for the candidates for some office or offices not connected with the measure itself, would not only be out of the ordinary course of legislation, but, so far as we know, a thing unknown in the history of constitutional law."
Please help us identify people and events that deserve more recognition for their place in Wisconsin’s legal history. You can send as much information as you want, but at minimum we need:
-The name of the person / identity or name of event
-A picture, if available
-A brief description of the person or event and the person or event’s impact on Wisconsin law or legal history
-Where we can find out more about the person or event
We are closing this phase of the project on Nov. 15.
Please send the information to firstname.lastname@example.org or mail it to WJI, P.O.
Box 100705, Milwaukee, WI 53210
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin