Resolutions point to the legalization of marijuana in some form in at least 37 states, including every state surrounding Wisconsin. The Dane County resolution points to Wisconsin “becoming an island of prohibition.”

The resolutions also point to anticipated tax revenue and business opportunities related to legalization. Eau Claire County’s resolution specifically references $600 million and $300 million in tax revenue collected by Illinois and Michigan, respectively.

Some resolutions note the use of marijuana for pain relief. The Superior resolution, for instance, notes that “marijuana use as an alternative to prescription pain killers has been shown to reduce opioid addiction, and 22% of U.S. military veterans report using medical marijuana to treat Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.”

Resolutions also reference how criminalization has failed to curb marijuana use, the potential for undercutting the illegal market and ensuring that marijuana use is regulated and safe, and a desire to divert law enforcement resources to more serious crimes.

Milwaukee County’s resolution points to criminal enforcement that “often results in charges disproportionately to people of color and young people.” Dane County’s resolution similarly points to disparities in arrests “with Black individuals over four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana offenses than white individuals in Wisconsin, according to 2019 data.”

Some of the approved referendum questions set the age of legal use at 21, while others refer simply to adult use. Superior Councilor Mark Johnson moved for the age-21 threshold in his city’s ballot question due to his concern about use by youth.

Johnson told WJI that he intends the Superior referendum to let city officials know where the community stands generally on the issue. Legalization is happening across the county, and his constituents may “agree that the house needs to be built” even if they disagree about specific details like the color of the cabinets, he said.

In Milwaukee County, where a legalization question appeared on the ballot in 2018, the resolution authorizing this year’s question states that it is important to ask voters “the same question again to better understand how people’s views are changing on the issue of marijuana legalization, and to help put a stop to the waste of public resources toward enforcement which unjustly affects people of color.”

Marquette Law School poll results released August 17, 2022, show that 69% of all respondents — including 51% of identified Republicans — believe marijuana should be legal in Wisconsin. Only 23% of respondents were opposed to legalization, while 8% said they were unsure.

Under current Wisconsin law, a first offense for marijuana possession is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. Second and subsequent possession offenses are felonies. A second offense may result in up to three and a half years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
​
Dane County approved a second referendum question related to marijuana. Voters there will be asked whether all records of previous convictions for possession of small amounts of marijuana should be expunged.

​"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: Yadira Rein
 
Appointed to: Outagamie County Circuit Court
 
Appointment date: June 24, 2021 (elected to a six-year term in April 2022)
 
Education:
Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison
Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
High School – Neenah High, Neenah, Wisconsin
 
Recent legal employment:
February 2018-present – Attorney, McCarty Law, LLP, Appleton, Wisconsin
August 2011-February 2018 – Attorney, Sigman Janssen, Appleton, Wisconsin
May 2009-August 2011 – Attorney, Glenn, Hoff & Daniels, Appleton, Wisconsin
 
Bar and Administrative Memberships:
State Bar of Wisconsin
 
General character of practice:
My practice currently involves family law matters, guardianship cases and guardian ad item appointments. The primary focus of my practice consists of handling family law cases such as divorce, custody and placement disputes, and paternity matters. However, throughout the course of my career, I also have had the opportunity to handle other areas of law on a limited basis, such as personal injury, restraining orders and minor criminal cases.
 
Describe typical clients:
My practice connects me with people from all walks of life from business clients to dairy farmers. My typical client is a person who is going through a divorce or any other family law issue. Additionally, as one of the only Spanish speaking attorneys in the area, fellow Latino members of the community will often call me at work requesting my assistance in both legal and nonlegal issues.
 
Number of cases tried to verdict: Approximately 5-10 per year
 
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:
 
A Brown County marriage case: This case was complex as it consisted of a long-term marriage with a family-owned business and a non-working spouse with debilitating health issues. This case was significant to me as it not only required an understanding of how to evaluate their business but we had to be sensitive and know how to address the underlying health issues of one of the parties.
 
A guardianship case in Outagamie County: I represented an adult child in obtaining guardianship and protective placement of her mother whose health was deteriorating. It was significant to me because it was eye opening to the struggles that families have with their aging parents.
 
A Waushara County marriage case: I represented [the wife] in a post-judgment divorce matter. … The parties were divorced in 2016 after [she] filed for divorce due to [the husband] physically assaulting her.  He was ultimately charged and deported as a result that assault. While the Respondent was in custody, he was awarded alternating weekends of placement of their small child but the placement to be exercised by paternal uncle and his wife. When the Respondent was deported, the order continued with paternal uncle having alternate periods of physical placement against the mother's wishes and without a Guardian Ad Litem being appointed. This case was significant to me because it was clear that due to the language barrier between [the woman] and her divorce attorney and the Court [she] was not properly represented in Court. I became involved post-divorce and requested that a Guardian Ad Litem be appointment as required by statute which ultimately led to the her recommendation that the it was no in the child's best interest for the frequent visits between the child and her uncle. The paternal uncle ultimately agreed and stipulated to suspend visitation.
 
Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies:
My practice areas do not bring me in front of administrative agencies or commissions.
 
Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation).
I use non-litigation strategies, such as mediation and settlement conferences, often in my practice. When handling a family law matter, I consider it a success if I can help my client come to a resolution without putting his or her family through contested litigation. I also utilize the collaborative divorce model.
 
Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: N/A
 
Previous runs for public office: None listed
 
All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years:
Emily Lonergan, Outagamie County Circuit Court, 2020
Carey Reed, Calumet County Circuit Court, 2021
 
Professional or civic and charitable organizations:
Wisconsin Family Law Section, member, 2009-present
Appleton Bilingual School, board member, 2012-present
Wisconsin Hispanic Lawyers Association, member, 2008-present
 
Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service:
Throughout my career, I have handled many cases on a pro bono basis.  My personal goal is to handle two or three family law matters on a pro bono basis per year. I also consistently provide more limited legal and non-legal services to individuals who cannot afford representation. When I hear the fear and desperation in a caller's voice and I am not in a position to take the case pro bono, I do whatever I can to walk the caller through the applicable legal or non-legal process. For legal services, this includes providing copy of the pro se family packets, scheduling calls to discuss the process of a pro se divorce, and reviewing paperwork. For non-legal services, I have assisted and continue to assist Spanish speaking individuals with many issues including some as simple as talking to the local phone provider to set-up phone service. I feel a strong calling to use my bilingual abilities to help my community.
 
Quotes:
 
Why I want to be a judge -- I want to give back to the community that has given me so much. If not for everything that members of the community have given to me, I would not be where I am today.
 
I was born in El Paso, Texas, right across the border between the United States and Mexico. My stay in the United States only lasted a few days though as I went to live with my grandparents in Guerrero, Mexico. Guerrero was my home for approximately the first nine years of my life, when I joined my mom, who had moved to Larsen, Wisconsin, I did not speak a word of English when I moved to Wisconsin. I had to learn to adjust to a life without the family that raised me, in a new country where I could not speak the language. Looking back, I realize that it was an adjustment for my family members, as well, to adjust to having me there. There were times when I could not live at home with the various circumstances that existed; that is where my life began to be shaped by the people in the community. These people came from all walks of life, from school counselors, teachers, my manager at Burger King, my supervisor at our local grocery store, parents of friends, to the gas station clerk. I had people open their doors to their homes even though, oblivious to me at the time, their homes were already full. When my career advisor at high school told me that I was not college material, I had an adult drive me to the technical college that day to register me for a course. With a college course under my belt and a few people from the community cheering me on, I enrolled at the UW-Community College. It was there, too, that I learned a lesson in community giving after I received scholarships from local community members.
 
I would not be where I am today if I had not come across people that believed in me, guided me, and opened their homes to me. This life experience has created in me a strong desire to want to be a public servant. I feel that my unique life experience will give me the ability to relate to many of those who would come in front of me in Outagamie County. I once heard that people need to hear directions from someone who has already been to where they are going. If appointed judge, I hope to provide that sense of direction. I am ready to learn and work hard for the people in Outagamie County by drawing from my experience while upholding the core values of equal justice, fairness and impartiality in the administration of justice, accessibility to the court process, and treatment of all with dignity and respect.
 
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.
One case that had a significant impact on the people of Wisconsin is Michels v. Lyons, 2019 WI 57, 387 Wis. 2d I, 927 N.W.2d 486. This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of Wis. Stat. § 767.43, better known as the Grandparent Visitation Statute. In Michels, two unmarried parents wanted to decline periods of visitation with their minor child to a grandparent. For several years, the parents had allowed their child to spend significant time with her paternal grandmother. However, as the child grew, both parents decided to limit the amount of time their child spent with her grandmother. This decision was based in part on some questionable behavior by the grandmother, such as allowing the child to sip alcohol and letting her ride a horse without a helmet, and in part based upon changes to the child's schedule.
 
The grandmother petitioned for periods of visitation under the Grandparent Visitation Statute. The circuit court ruled in favor of the grandmother. The question before the Wisconsin Supreme Court was whether the Grandparent Visitation Statute was constitutional. The statute permitted a court to grant reasonable visitation rights to a grandparent of a child if the child's parents have notice of the hearing and the court determines (a) the child is a nonmarital child whose parents have not subsequently married each other, (b) the paternity of the child has been determined under the laws of this state or another jurisdiction if the grandparent filing the petition is a parent of the child's father.(c) the child has not been adopted, and (d) the grandparent has maintained a relationship with the child or has attempted to maintain a relationship.
 
The parents in this case asserted that they have a fundamental liberty interest in the care and upbringing of their child and that the trial court infringed upon this interest when it overruled their decision regarding the visitation. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision written by Justice Dallet, determined that the Grandparent Visitation Statute is facially constitutional because there are circumstances under which the law can be constitutionally enforced, but it was unconstitutional as applied to the parents in that case. The Supreme Court in Michels determined that, in order to be constitutionally applied, a grandparent must overcome a presumption by clear and convincing evidence that a fit parent's decision is in the child’s best interest. In the case at hand, the Court found that the grandmother did not overcome the presumption with clear and convincing evidence.
 
By narrowing the scope of the Grandparent Visitation Statute, the Court is protecting a parent's fundamental rights while leaving the door open for grandparents who meet the burden by clear and convincing evidence that the parents are not acting in the child's best interest to seek visitation. This case has a positive impact on residents of Wisconsin because it appropriately balances the rights of the parents with the interests of the grandparents and the children.
 
Two or three judges whom I admire and why:
I admire Justice Sotomayor for being the first woman of color and the first Latina to serve on the United States Supreme Court. As a young Latina, it was rare for me to see a woman of color, particularly a woman of Hispanic origin, in any type of leadership role. I can relate to Justice Sotomayor as we are both daughters of immigrants, English was our second language, and both of our families lacked financial resources and experience with higher education. Justice Sotomayor has said that it was important for her to tell the truth about her life, warts and all to inspire other "ordinary people". She went on to say that, role models on television are fantasized but that it is important to move people beyond just dreaming into doing by allowing them to see that you are just like them and you made it. Justice Sotomayor has said that she will continue with her commitment to speaking to young people of color and from low-income backgrounds about educational opportunities and sharing with them her own experience and tools for success. I also share in that commitment and hope to be able to inspire young Latina girls to pursue their education opportunities and to serve as a reminder that they should believe in themselves.
 
On a local level, I admire Winnebago County Circuit Court Judge Teresa Basiliere. I had the privilege of practicing family law with Judge Basiliere when she was in private practice. If I ever had a question on a case, I would often call her to ask for guidance and never walked away from any conversations we had disappointed. Judge Basiliere was confident, intelligent, kind, and reasonable as a practicing attorney and she took those qualities to the bench with her. I admire Judge Basiliere's dedication and the hard work she has put into her new role as judge in learning new areas of law.
 
The proper role of a judge:
The role of a judge involves several important responsibilities. These responsibilities include being a good listener, a hard worker, having a good temperament, and fairly and impartially applying the law to the facts of each case.
 
A key part of a judge's role is to listen. In my experience, clients are more willing to accept the outcome of a case when they feel that have been heard. While clients may not understand everything that is happening in court or everything being said by counsel, people from all walks of life and of all intelligence levels seem to universally understand and know if their judge is present and listening. A judge should also listen to counsel and respect the expertise that an attorney brings to a case. Each judge brings to the bench different areas of experience and inexperience. A judge that does not have experience in any given area of law needs to have the work ethic necessary to learn that area of the law and listen and respect the attorneys who do have experience in that area.
 
A judge also needs to be cognizant that her demeanor, body language and choice of words matters. As in private practice, a judge must give each party that comes into the courtroom the attention and time that they deserve. Due to the emotional nature of my family law practice, it is not uncommon for me to put out multiple fires a day. Some issues are miniscule compared to other more serious concerns, but both deserve my full attention. In their role, a judge needs to have a patient, kind, and respectful temperament, so that each person who comes in front of her feels respected. A judge should lead by example and show respect to not only the legal process but to all the people in the room. A judge should create an environment such that the parties will feel compelled to show the same respect in return.
 
A judge's role is also to consider the impact of a case or decision. A judge should consider what the goal or end-result is in a case and within the confines of the law craft a decision that will be attainable and practical to achieve. I believe that if we truly want to make an impact, we need to consider the practicality of the order or decision. If a judge keeps all of the above in mind, people will feel that justice was achieved even if they did not get the results for which they were hoping. In the end, we are all in pursuit of justice.

Columbia County
​
Total number of cases with bail-jumping charges: 473*
Total number of misdemeanor and felony cases: 1,370
Percent of misdemeanor and felony cases that include bail-jumping charges: 35%

Total number of felony cases with bail-jumping charges: 296**
Total number of all felony cases: 740
Percent of felony cases that include bail-jumping charges: 40%

Total number of misdemeanor cases with bail-jumping charges: 177
Total number of all misdemeanor cases: 630
Percent of misdemeanor cases that include bail-jumping charges: 28%

Largest number of bail-jumping charges issued in a single case: 14
Number of felony bail-jumping charges issued: 549
Number of misdemeanor bail-jumping charges issued: 469

*Excludes criminal traffic misdemeanor cases that include bail-jumping charges. Criminal traffic charges are not included in this analysis.

**Felony cases can include felony or misdemeanor bail-jumping charges or both; misdemeanor cases can include only misdemeanor bail-jumping charges. Case counts reported as of January 2022.

Case file

Two witnesses reported seeing Natalie punch and hit a man in the head and face. 

An off-duty Portage police officer, on his way into a fitness facility, also “heard a man and a woman screaming at each other and causing a disturbance,” according to a criminal complaint. The officer recognized both.

The man told police that he and Natalie had lived together for about a year and that she was upset that they broke up. Natalie came up to the man from behind, he said, and started hitting him in the head.

Natalie told police she and the man had spent the night together in a hotel.

Natalie, then 19, was charged with disorderly conduct / domestic abuse, which carries a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail, a $1,000 fine, and a $100 domestic-abuse assessment.

Columbia County Circuit Judge W. Andrew Voigt set a $500 signature bond on July 8, 2021. Natalie was ordered not to have contact with the victim.

She did not listen, according to a criminal complaint.

Exactly one week later, on July 15, Natalie was charged with misdemeanor bail jumping, a charge that carries a maximum penalty of nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine.  

After spending about half an hour with the same man, who had just been released from jail, in a friend’s bathroom, a frantic Natalie emerged “yelling for help,” according to the complaint. The man had overdosed. Natalie told her friend “not to call 9-1-1 because she did not want (her boyfriend) to go back to jail,” the complaint said. The friend called anyway. The man survived. 

Natalie was released on a $250 signature bond.

Misdemeanor bail jumping occurs when a person out on bond on a misdemeanor charge violates the conditions of that bond.

A bail-jumping offense may not by itself be a crime. Missing a court date, violating a local ordinance, or having a drink could all be bail-jumping offenses if bond conditions prohibit those things.

​Misdemeanor bail jumping carries a maximum penalty of nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine; felony bail jumping carries a maximum penalty of six years in prison and a $10,000 fine. 

It took more than three weeks this time before Natalie faced more charges – two counts involving credit cards and two more counts of misdemeanor bail jumping. Natalie and the boyfriend sometimes stayed with a woman and took an opportunity to relieve the woman of her wallet and debit card. The debit card was used in $300 worth of transactions. The boyfriend said Natalie took the wallet for drug money, according to the complaint. Natalie said the boyfriend took the wallet and then ditched her.

Voigt set a $1,000 signature bond and ordered Natalie not to have contact with the victim or the boyfriend.

The four charges each carried a maximum penalty of nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine.

In October, Natalie screamed at a woman loud enough to be heard by others and for someone to call the police.

She was charged with disorderly conduct and three counts of misdemeanor bail jumping. She faced another 2½ years in prison and $31,000 in fines. 

Circuit Judge Todd Hepler set a $500 signature bond.

All together, Natalie faced 6½ years behind bars and $82,100 in fines. Of that, 4½ years and $60,000 was attributable to misdemeanor bail-jumping charges.

Natalie eventually pleaded no contest to the disorderly conduct / domestic abuse complaint and to two counts of misdemeanor bail jumping in a plea deal that covered all four cases.

Judge James Evenson sentenced her to two years’ probation. Evenson assessed costs and ordered Natalie, with her boyfriend, to pay $300 in restitution. The judge agreed to make her record eligible for expunction if she kept out of trouble. 

But in May of this year, Natalie was charged in Dane County Circuit Court with felony identity theft and felony credit card fraud. In June she was charged in Columbia County with felony possession of narcotics, misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance, and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia. 

Those charges are pending.

Our methodology: WJI and Mastantuono Coffee & Thomas determined the number of felony and misdemeanor bail-jumping cases and charges in each county through court data. The data was reported as of Jan. 31. The total number of felony and misdemeanor cases filed in a county was obtained through the state's online court system. Cases selected for the "case file" section are chosen randomly through a random number-generator web site. The intent of the project is to show a variety of bail-jumping cases.​

Associated Press: U.S. Supreme Court lifts hold on order directing Yeshiva University to recognize LGBTQ+ student group.

The disagreement among the justices appears to be mostly about procedure, with the majority writing in a brief unsigned order that Yeshiva should return to state court to seek quick review and temporary relief while the case continues.

Courthouse News Service: Third Circuit hears appeal in malicious prosecution and civil rights case of physics professor falsely accused of being a spy.

A superconducting technology expert, (Xiaoxing) Xi’s life was turned upside down seven years ago by now-withdrawn espionage charges that accused him of relaying sensitive “pocket heater” technology belonging to the company Superconductor Technologies to Chinese researchers. 

Reuters: Senate confirms sixth public defender to federal appeals courts.

The Atlantic: In hindsight, the peak for women in American Law was March 2, 2016.

At that moment, the country appeared inches away from leveraging the law to serve women’s dignity and equality interests on a massive scale. Back in that spring of 2016, we really thought we could see gender equality from our back porches.

And then it was gone.

WPR: California sues Amazon for alleged anticompetitive behavior.

Reuters: Bankruptcy judge reports harassment related to Johnson & Johnson talc case.

Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Michael Kaplan in Trenton, New Jersey said at a hearing that he and his staff have been getting angry and menacing messages through phone calls, voicemails, emails and social media posts since his February decision not to dismiss the bankruptcy case of LTL Management LLC.
J&J created the subsidiary in October, assigned its talc liabilities to it and put it in bankruptcy a few days later, in an attempt to resolve approximately 38,000 lawsuits alleging that its Baby Powder and other talc products caused mesothelioma and ovarian cancer.

The Regulatory Review: The myriad administrative obstacles to decarceration.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Milwaukee Common Council committee recommends hiring private law firm to defend federal lawsuit.

Slate: Dahlia Lithwick on recent discussions of the Supreme Court by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan.

Roberts knows better than to suggest that the court’s problem this past term was simply a matter of “people disagreeing with a decision.” The court was handed to wealthy secret donors because of his own jurisprudence. And the court’s problem is now that it happened in plain sight. With all due respect, it is not that the public didn’t like the final score at the end of the term when the lights went out in June. The problem wasn’t just the losses; the problem was that his team moved the game to another field, then stole the ball and replaced it with a time bomb, then changed the rules, then lied about it, and then set the entire field ablaze. Now he wants everyone to shake hands and go home. The public is not so inclined. He is far too smart to believe we are all this stupid, which suggests to me that he knows we are right.

Bloomberg Law: Third Circuit nominee loses confirmation vote in Senate; reconsideration possible.

(Arianna) Freeman, aiming to become the first Black woman and first woman of color to serve on the Pennsylvania-based federal appellate court, received only 47 favorable votes to 50 against.
It appeared the failure to confirm Freeman was more about absent Democratic senators than opposition to her nomination.

Reuters: School that prohibits girls from wearing pants wants SCOTUS review of Fourth Circuit decision finding that dress code unconstitutional.
Health Affairs: Urgent action needed to protect those in custody from monkeypox.

Several cases of monkeypox have already been reported in jails nationwide. Yet, as we will detail in this article, there is no centralized tracking of the number of monkeypox cases in carceral facilities nor is there any guidance for prisons and jails from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or state health departments. 

Reason: Appellate court says confrontation clause rights outweighed health concerns in case involving COVID exposure.

M.W.'s possible exposure to COVID-19 without any symptoms of illness that prevents her from providing live, in-person testimony, does not satisfy any of the recognized circumstances rendering a witness unavailable. Therefore, she was available to provide live, in-person testimony. M.W. was willing to testify, she was physically and mentally able to testify, she was within the jurisdiction, and she remained in contact with the prosecutor.

APG Wisconsin: Attorney General Josh Kaul will refile abortion-law challenge if necessary.

Wisconsin Law Journal: Waukesha judge denies stay of decision blocking election clerks from filling in missing information on absentee ballots.

Politico: The provocative decisions of Trump's judges.

Vox: The case between Yeshiva University and an LGBTQ student group at the Supreme Court.

If the Pride Alliance merely sought access to meeting rooms or other Yeshiva University facilities, then they would have a stronger case under existing law. But the campus Pride Alliance seeks more. They seek the Orthodox Jewish university’s imprimatur as the “Yeshiva University Pride Alliance.” And that is probably more than the student group can demand from a religious institution. Yeshiva University raises a strong argument that requiring it to lend its name to an LGBTQ student group, even though a state court determined that New York anti-discrimination law requires it to do so, infringes on its right to make “internal management decisions” regarding its own interpretation of the Jewish faith.

One open question is whether the Court will confine its ruling to similar disputes between religious universities and campus groups, or whether it will hand down a more expansive victory for religious conservatives. In other words, will this Court take this case, in which a conservative religious organization raises a fairly strong legal claim, and use it to make deeper-than-necessary cuts against anti-discrimination efforts on campus?

ACLU: Criminal justice reform advances notwithstanding backlash.

But the national headlines don’t tell the full story: On the contrary, criminal legal reform continues to win in many parts of the country. The number of people incarcerated is down 22.4 percent (or 1,588,400 fewer persons) since 2010, much of it due to the hundreds of laws passed to reform the criminal legal system and the election of policymakers committed to smart reforms. On the local and state levels, voters and lawmakers have kept up this trend.

Center for Biological Diversity: Organization sues Environmental Protection Agency to force smog-reduction plans in five states.

U.S. News & World Report: Recent filings in the Mar-a-Lago search case.

​"Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications.
 
Italics indicate direct quotes from the application.​ Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.

Name: Judge Michael Zell
 
Appointed to: Portage County Circuit Court
 
Appointment date: June 24, 2022
 
Education:
Law School – University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
Graduate School – University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
High School – Slinger High School, Slinger, Wisconsin
 Recent legal employment:
April 2021-present – Assistant state public defender, Wisconsin
December 2018-April 2021 and April 2017-April 2018 – Assistant district attorney, Portage County
April 2018-December 2018 – Assistant district attorney, Marathon County
January 2015-April 2017 – Assistant district attorney, Wood County
2002-2015 – Owner, Zell Law Office LLC
 
Bar and Administrative Memberships:
State Bar of Wisconsin
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
 
General character of practice:
I began my career as an assistant public defender in Racine WI. I left that position after three years and worked for an OWI firm in Milwaukee for a little more than one year. I then ran Zell Law Office LLC for 13 years. I represented individuals in a variety of matters.  Due to the rising costs of health insurance, in 2015 my spouse and I decided that I would seek employment with the State of Wisconsin. I worked as an assistant district attorney for approximately six years. I worked in several different offices due to family reasons and greater opportunities. After six years of that work I decided that I wanted to work with clients, and joined the public defender's office.
 
Describe typical clients:
As a public defender, my current clients are indigent criminal defendants. When I was running Zell Law Office, much of my practice was family law and guardian ad litem work, as well as child welfare (CHIPS and TPR), and criminal appeals. When I perceived a need in bankruptcy in the Stevens Point area I began accepting clients for this purpose and filed quite a few bankruptcy petitions, mostly chapter 7. My solo practice also included some small estate planning and other civil litigation.
 
Number of cases tried to verdict: Dozens. I have not kept count.
 
List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years:

1. I am currently co-counsel in a first-degree intentional homicide in Marathon County (21CF1383 Marathon County). This is the most significant trial case I've defended. I've worked on other first-degree homicide cases on appeal, but this will be my first trial. Co-counsel is Atty. Anne Renc. Opposing counsel are Assistant DA's Kerri Puig and Jonathan Barnett. The case has a lot of community attention.  
2. As a prosecutor I tried as co-counsel a second-degree intentional homicide in Portage County (16CF353). The defendant was found guilty. This case received significant media attention in Wisconsin and was called "one of ten criminal cases to watch" by a Wisconsin legal publication. There are postconviction proceedings still pending.
3. Though slightly more than seven years ago, I was one of the lawyers on appeal for a criminal defendant convicted of first-degree intentional homicide (14AP1623-CR, District 1). I filed the appellant's brief just before joining the Wood County District Attorney. The Court of Appeals reversed the defendant's homicide conviction due to the issues I identified and briefed. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ultimately reversed the Court of Appeals.  

Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies:
I have worked on a significant number of probation revocation hearings, including by filing administrative appeals of revocation decisions. I also have filed a significant number of bankruptcy cases, which are not technically administrative, but proceed in a similar fashion.
 
Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation).
I have some experience with mediation. While operating Zell Law Office, a significant portion of my practice was divorce and family law. Many of those cases used mediators to resolve issues about child custody and placement. I also worked on cases as guardian ad litem for children. Though not characterized as mediation, the guardian ad litem in a divorce often attempts to broker a resolution between the parents and their attorneys.
 
Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: None
 
Previous runs for public office: None
 
All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years:
Steven Sawyer, Portage County judge, 2022
Rick Cveykus, Marathon County judge, 2022
 
Professional or civic and charitable organizations:
Portage County Bar Association, 2009 to present
 
Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service:

1. I was a volunteer special investigator for the Office of Lawyer Regulation from 2014 to 2020. As a special investigator, I accepted one or two cases at a time to investigate complaints against other OLR volunteers. I terminated my volunteer work due to family and work obligations.  
2. I was president of Wisconsin Rapids Rec Soccer for approximately three years, from 2016 to 2019. This is a local sports organization which creates opportunities for children in the community to experience soccer for a very low cost. There are two sessions per year, spring and fall, with over 600 children typically involved each season. I was responsible for organizing divisions by age, teams, coaches, and scheduling games. I left the organization when we decided to move from Wisconsin Rapids to Stevens Point.
3. In the past I volunteered as an income tax preparer for low-income individuals through an IRS program called VITA, or Volunteer Income Tax Assistance. I also volunteered and accepted cases from the Portage County Legal Aid Society when I was in private practice.  

Quotes:
 
Why I want to be a judge -- I have always loved the practice of law. As a young attorney the thrill of litigation was enough to propel me through the days in court, and the nights and weekends at the Marquette Law Library. I spent a lot of time in my first few years with Wayne LaFave’s Search and Seizure Treatise and Blinka’s Wisconsin Practice Series evidence manual. I was fascinated by all of it and spent a lot of time learning how it all worked. I was driven to be the smartest attorney in the courthouse, and tried cases and filed creative motions with this as my goal. I struck out on my own in 2003 because I was motivated to be the kind of lawyer that everyone wanted to hire, the smartest and best.
 
But after twenty-four years of successes and failures, I realize that the most important part of my career has been the relationships with other people. At the core of practicing law, and everything else, is the beauty of humanity. We are a great mass of fragile and flawed beings who have an intense need to connect with each other in meaningful ways. I thrive on these connections. I am glad that other lawyers perceive me as smart and capable. But I am much prouder to be approachable and likable, and to have clients tell me I have helped them. In the past year I’ve had several public defender clients tell me that I’m the best lawyer they’ve ever had. This is not because of my intellect or sharp wit. I recognize the spark of life in everyone, and I use my bedside manner along with competence and diligence to make the best arguments I can for them.
 
When a Portage County judge suggested I run for election in 2011, I laughed it off. But since that time, this seed has grown. I have carefully observed the local judges in Portage, Wood and Marathon Counties. Ultimately I came to realize that they are all very different people who have the job for different reasons. Their motivations for doing the work are all different. But the most noticeable difference is between those judges who respect the humanity of the people in their courtroom, and those who do not.
 
I want to serve as a circuit court judge because I am the best candidate to meet the needs of the people of Portage County. I have the broadest and deepest experience, and the intelligence to process any legal issue. But more importantly, I will treat the people in my courtroom with the dignity and respect they deserve, even if they have done something wrong. I will study not just the problem, but the people, in order to reach a fair and just result.
 
Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin.
It is tempting to identify Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) as the most important US Supreme Court case in the past 25 years due to my own personal and family implications. This decision recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry. This is an important landmark in our society. Despite the decision there are still significant challenges to people who are LBGTQ. This is a good start at recognizing an important freedom.
 
That being said, the most tangible problem in the United States in 2022 is our division into partisan tribes. Hyper-partisanship has brought government to a standstill, as positioning has become more important than solutions. When I was a teenager and young adult, politicians from both sides would negotiate and compromise to solve the big problems. That social cohesion has deteriorated, and we now seem more like two countries than one.
 
I read widely about this phenomenon and study history to try to understand how we got to this point. There are no easy answers. But certain things stand out as factors in the development of this problem. One is the change in the media system from one that was at least ostensibly neutral to one which openly stokes partisanship. Another is the development of social media, which allows for the easy spread of misinformation. Third is the unlimited spending by corporations and special interest groups on elections. Some call this the dark-money problem. The problem was created by the Citizens United decision in 2010, and I’d select this as the most significant supreme court case in recent history.
 
The Supreme Court agreed with a conservative non-profit and determined that corporations and other outside groups can spend unlimited money on elections. The Court reasoned that limiting independent political spending by these groups violates first amendment rights to free speech. This overturned election spending restrictions which dated back more than 100 years, and which were intended to prevent corruption in our electoral system.
 
This ruling has changed our electoral system dramatically by allowing those with money to control the messaging. Super PACs and dark money now empower the wealthiest members of our society to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections, meaning more and more partisan messaging.
 
Though we made it through the last presidential election without democracy failing completely, there continues to be an effort to limit the rights of citizens to vote. In combination with unimagined or unintended consequences of Citizens United, our expectations about the good life are in peril. Democracy itself appears to be in danger, and hyper-partisan bickering has prevented us from addressing the most important problems of our lifetime, such as climate change.
 
Two or three judges whom I admire and why:
The judge who has inspired me most has been Thomas Flugaur. I’ve appeared before many judges, and have developed friendly relationships with some. What I’ve learned is that judges are people, not deities or superhuman. All people are unique. I’ve seen judges screaming at lawyers or parties in the case. This lack of decorum really bothered me when I was a new lawyer. I’ve learned that the most important quality of a judge is temperament. This seems to be grounded in an appreciation for the humanity of every person.
 
Judge Flugaur is one of the smartest judges I’ve met. I’ve gone to his courtroom many times thinking I had the right answer, only to be surprised Judge Flugaur found something I did not. But Judge Flugaur is not known for his intelligence or his legal skills, though they are great. He is known for the way he engages with the lawyers and the parties in his courtroom.
 
For example, I loved to watch Judge Flugaur conduct indigency hearings in his courtroom. These are short hearings for a potentially indigent defendant to obtain a county-appointed lawyer when the public defender finds the person ineligible. Judge Flugaur called each defendant to the stand and talked about their life and financial circumstances. It was clear he thoroughly enjoyed these conversations, and generally the feeling was mutual. This is just one example of the kindness and empathy he showed people in his courtroom.
 
I also have learned a great deal from former Justice Shirley Abrahamson. Justice Abrahamson was a truly remarkable person. Reading her biographical page on the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s former justices page is humbling. She achieved so much in her lifetime. She was appointed in 1976 as the first female justice, and served until 2019, which is over forty years on the Court. Her achievements and awards during that time are too many to list.
 
Justice Abrahamson had a significant impact on me as a lawyer. As a young criminal-defense lawyer living in Milwaukee, I spent a lot of time in the Marquette Law Library reading appellate decisions. I learned more about many issues by reading her prolific dissents than by reading the majority opinions.
 
It is reported that Justice Abrahamson and Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg were close friends. During a ceremony honoring Justice Abrahamson in Madison in 2020, a video tribute from Justice Ginsburg was broadcast. Justice Ginsburg described Justice Abrahamson as the most “courageous and sage, the least self-regarding” of justices. She also pointed out that Justice Abrahamson inspired many young women to enter the profession. Most importantly, Justice Abrahamson never forgot Dr. Seuss’ “gentle maxim: ‘a person’s a person no matter how small.’”
 
The proper role of a judge:
The most basic role of a circuit court judge is to make decisions about disputed matters. The “proper” way to do this is in accordance with established principles of judicial conduct. The preamble in SCR 60 explains the importance of the role of a judge:
 
"Our legal system is based on the principle that an independent, fair and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that govern us. The role of the judiciary is central to American concepts of justice and the rule of law. Intrinsic to all provisions of this Code are the precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system. The judge is an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes and a highly visible symbol of government under the rule of law."
 
The principles necessary to meet this goal are extensively outlined in SCR 60, the Code of Judicial Conduct. That being said, there are a few simple concepts which form the bedrock of these rules.
 
Judges must be diligent and competent, studying the cases and the law to reach the right result. Judges must have integrity in their personal and professional lives, showing the community that they strive to live a good life, honoring the law and others. Judges must show impartiality in their reasoning and decisions, and should not allow their words or conduct to imply that their decisions are based in favor or bias.
 
Judges cannot allow partisanship, nor the appearance of partisanship, to guide their decisions. Particularly in the United States in 2022, Judges must show that the judicial branch is independent of the other branches of government. The law is an objective tool to govern a society, and judges must show that they are able to apply the law free from the bias of partisanship.
 
Judges must ensure that the courtroom is orderly and decorum is maintained. The courtroom is a place where all participants must have an opportunity to address the court in an orderly and controlled manner. Judges must ensure that the participants have the opportunity to address the court.
 
Though not stated in SCR 60, Judges must strive to be patient, dignified and courteous in performing their duties and managing the participants in the courtroom.
 
When making decisions, judges must be firm but respectful. Participants are more likely to accept a judge’s decisions when they are delivered in a respectful manner.
​

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission sees almost complete turnover in two years.

Reuters: For new term, U.S. Supreme Court will open in-person arguments to public once again.

The Hill: Questioned sentence Justice Samuel Alito wrote eight years ago was just used to deny insurance coverage for HIV drugs.

I’ve focused at length on what Alito wrote in Hobby Lobby because O’Connor’s decision shows that it was a time bomb, one now in the process of exploding. It is available in any case where any obligation could imaginably be fulfilled by the government. 

U.S. Department of Justice: DOJ files discrimination lawsuit against Milwaukee landlord and property manager.

Forbes: U.S. Bureau of Prisons interprets First Step Act narrowly, denying possible credits.

The effect will be that those prisoners with short sentences will get no reduction in their sentence, something that clearly goes against the BOP’s own experts on FSA.

Inquest: Will juries acquit in abortion prosecutions notwithstanding the facts?

Yet in prosecutions brought under this harsh new crop of abortion laws, we think nullification may have a larger role to play. Consider first that nullification only requires one juror to hold out. Criminal convictions must be unanimous, as the Supreme Court recently held in Ramos v. Louisiana. Thus, if even a single juror refuses to convict because they believe the law — as applied in the case before them — is unjust, nullification has occurred.

CBS: Federal judge dismisses Donald Trump's lawsuit against Hillary Clinton. 

Judge Donald Middlebrooks wrote in his ruling Thursday the court was "not the appropriate forum" for Trump's complaints about his rivals and others. The lawsuit accused Democrats and others of a "conspiracy" to link Trump to Russia during and after the 2016 presidential campaign.

"At its core, the problem with [Trump's] complaint is that [Trump] is not attempting to seek redress for any legal harm," wrote Middlebrooks, who serves the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Lowering the Bar: Judge dismisses case against Nirvana brought by man who was the baby on an album cover.

A judge erred when he used new research into the brain development of young adults to grant Jan. 1, 2023, parole eligibility to a man previously sentenced to life without parole, the state Court of Appeals has ruled. ​