|
By Erik Reinthaler WJI Intern The American Bar Association has dubbed 2016 to 2026 the “Decade of the Female Lawyer,” but guest speaker Afra Afsharipour began her lecture at Marquette University Law School with a warning against confusing visible progress with real structural change.  Afsharipour. Photograph from UC-Davis website. Afsharipour, a professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law, presented the Boden Lecture at Marquette on Sept. 23, 2026.
Women now make up a substantial share of law students, associates, faculty members and law school leaders, while corporate America has spent years highlighting the growing number of women in leadership. But Afsharipour urged the audience to look past those numbers and “count the actual seats at the table.” After decades of progress in getting more women into law, Afsharipour’s lecture raised a question: Once the women are there, who gets the clients? Her lecture focused less on how many women have entered corporate law and more on what happens once they get there. Who gets the major client? Who controls the deal? Who gets called back for the next one? Afsharipour looked at these questions in the context of mergers and acquisitions, initial public offerings (IPOs), and litigation before the Delaware Court of Chancery. Who controls the deal? In mergers and acquisitions, numbers of women can look encouraging. More women sit on corporate boards and hold executive positions than in the past. But women remain less likely than male counterparts to occupy some of the positions most closely tied to major corporate transactions. Women are more often pushed toward areas such as human resources, marketing, and communications, while men remain more heavily represented in corporate development and deal-making, Afsharipour said. So being in the room is only part of the story. The other question is who sets the agenda. The same divide shows up among “outside” lawyers, meaning the law firms hired by corporations. Women remain underrepresented among the outside lawyers leading major mergers and acquisitions, particularly at prestigious firms and on the largest transactions. Afsharipour connected that divide to pay. She pushed back on the idea that law firm pay gaps can be explained simply by differences in hours worked. Women who miss out on major deals and important client relationships also miss the work that brings visibility, money and future business. The lawyers who get those opportunities become more attractive choices the next time around because they have more experience, stronger relationships, and a longer record of handling major matters. How the network reproduces itself Afsharipour’s research on IPOs offers one of the clearest examples. Lawyers who repeatedly work on IPOs learn more than securities law. They learn how regulators respond to difficult questions, how similar issues were handled in past transactions, and who matters in the field. They also get to know the bankers, executives, and attorneys who keep appearing on major deals. Afsharipour’s study examined 8,358 IPOs over 22 years and found that the gender gap among IPO lawyers was “virtually unchanged” from 2000 through 2021. Men were far more likely to end up among the most connected lawyers in the field. Researchers can see those networks by tracking which lawyers repeatedly appear together on transactions. Some names show up again and again, and those lawyers accumulate contacts, information, experience and, often, more work. Women are far less likely to reach those highly connected positions. That creates a gap that headcounts alone do not show: A firm can employ a large number of women while its most valuable clients and assignments continue to move through networks dominated by men. Even more women serving as general counsel did not necessarily change who got hired outside the company. Afsharipour found no evidence that companies with women general counsel were more likely to select women for issuer or underwriter legal teams. Power in Delaware Afsharipour found a similar pattern in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Delaware is the legal home of a majority of Fortune 500 companies, and its courts hear major disputes involving mergers, shareholders, corporate boards, and governance. A relatively small group of lawyers appears before those courts repeatedly. Women have become more visible in Chancery litigation, but visibility and influence are not always the same thing, Afsharipour said. On some measures, the median woman had more connections than the median man. At the top of the network, though, men still dominated. Men were more likely to encounter the same male lawyers across different cases, creating what Afsharipour described as a kind of social anchor. Women also left those networks at higher rates. Afsharipour was skeptical of the idea that those departures could simply be chalked up to lifestyle choices. Women often point to other reasons: not receiving credit for their work, being passed over for major assignments, and lacking the sponsorship needed to move ahead. That shifts the question away from why women leave and toward what they are being asked to stay for. Changing who gets the opportunity Afsharipour said firms need to look beyond basic numbers. Instead of counting how many women work at a firm, they can look at who serves as lead counsel, who gets credit for major matters, and who inherits the clients of retiring partners. She distinguished between mentorship and sponsorship. A mentor gives advice. A sponsor can actually put someone in the room. That can mean bringing a younger lawyer onto an important matter, handing over a client relationship, or using influence to put someone forward for a major opportunity. Those choices often happen informally. A senior lawyer may simply turn to someone he already knows or trusts. Over time, those decisions shape who gets experience, who develops relationships, and who moves into leadership. Afsharipour was skeptical that affinity groups alone can fix the problem. They may offer support and community, but they do not control who gets the biggest client or the next major assignment. Some of that sorting can begin much earlier, with certain law students and young lawyers being encouraged to pursue certain practice areas or firm leadership. Afsharipour’s arguments moved beyond law firm diversity. Corporate lawyers do not just advise powerful institutions. They help shape what those institutions do. They negotiate billion-dollar transactions, counsel major companies, and operate inside professional networks that influence the development of corporate law. Afsharipour warned about what happens when those networks remain too narrow: Groups made up of people with similar experiences can fall into groupthink or leave assumptions unchallenged. Ultimately, Afsharipour’s lecture suggested that the measure of progress should not be how many women enter corporate law, but who gets the client once there. Video of Afsharipour's lecture is available here.
0 Comments
Wisconsin voters will encounter three constitutional amendment referendum questions on the Nov. 3 ballot. In a series of posts, Wisconsin Justice Initiative will help you understand constitutional amendment referendum questions generally, and the Nov. 3 election questions specifically. This is part three in the series. Find parts one and two here and here.  By Margo Kirchner Wisconsin legislators want you to join them in overreacting to Gov. Tony Evers’ use of executive partial veto power with a constitutional amendment. Don’t fall for it. This proposed constitutional amendment appears on the ballot as “Partial Veto Referendum—QUESTION 1.” The referendum question asks voters the following: “Partial veto. Shall section 10 (1) (c) of article V of the constitution be amended to prohibit the governor, in exercising his or her partial veto authority, from creating or increasing or authorizing the creation or increase of any tax or fee?” Historically, Wisconsin governors have had broad partial veto powers regarding appropriations bills compared to governors in other states. Article V, § 10 of the Wisconsin Constitution currently allows the governor to modify an appropriations bill in part, provided the change does not create a new word by striking individual letters from words or create a new sentence by combining parts of two or more sentences. The proposed amendment would add language to that provision, prohibiting any change by a governor that would create or increase, or authorize the creation or increase, of any tax or fee. In the 2023-2025 biennial budget process, the Legislature passed funding provisions for the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 school years. Evers then used his partial veto power to strike words, digits, and dashes to extend school districts’ ability to increase revenue limits from two years to 402 years (from 2023 through 2425). Outraged, the Republican Legislature proposed this constitutional amendment in response. In 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the veto. In a 4-3 decision, the court found that the partial veto limitations as currently written apply to words and letters, but not digits. Further, the partial veto satisfied the veto power principles discussed in prior case law. As noted by the court, the Legislature could have overridden the partial veto with a supermajority vote. The Senate voted to override, but the Assembly did not. The Legislature has had the power to pass subsequent laws repealing the 400-year revenue limit extension, but it has not been successful. A bill this past legislative term would have eliminated the yearly school revenue limit increases after 2026. The bill passed both chambers, but Evers vetoed it and the Legislature again failed to override his veto. Republican lawmakers are now pursuing a parallel route of amending the constitution, arguing that a proper balance of power between Legislature and governor requires this constitutional change. Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) submitted written testimony when the proposed amendment passed through the Legislature on second consideration. (A proposed constitutional amendment must pass through the Legislature twice, in consecutive legislative sessions.) She wrote that the proposed amendment “restores the proper balance between the branches of government, and ensures taxpayers are protected from runaway tax increases in the future.” Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield) wrote that Evers’ 400-year extension “was a deeply egregious move,” which the amendment aims to stop from happening again. Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce wrote that Evers’ 400-year extension “is making Wisconsin unaffordable” and the amendment will “keep Wisconsin free from tax- and fee-increasing kings.” If passed, the amendment will affect governors of any party. Courts would ultimately have to resolve any ambiguities in the provision’s scope or application. Wisconsin Justice Initiative and WJI Action oppose the amendment. The constitution already includes procedures for the Legislature to override a veto or pass subsequent legislation. We should avoid filling our constitution—a source of individual rights and the basis of our state government—with provisions that side-step usual government processes. In essence, the proposed amendment is an extension of a political fight between this Democratic governor and the Republican-led Legislature. The state constitution should not be a battlefield for political fights between the Legislature and governor when the parties differ. Political disagreements should not shift the balance of power between the Legislature and governor that has existed for almost 100 years as backlash to one veto. The governor’s partial veto power was added to the Wisconsin Constitution by amendment in 1930, and this is not the first time voters have been asked to restrict the provision after a governor’s use of it. After Republican Gov. Tommy Thomspon used the partial veto to strike individual letters in words to create new words (nicknamed the “Vanna White veto”), voters approved a letter-striking restriction in 1990. After Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle used fragments from multiple sentences to create a new sentence (nicknamed the “Frankenstein veto”), voters approved another partial veto restriction in 2008. But we do not need to react with a narrow constitutional amendment each time the partial veto is used by a governor to the Legislature’s displeasure.   By Alexandria Staubach
Wisconsin Justice Initiative is providing an in-depth look at the constitutional amendments Wisconsin voters will see on their Nov. 3 ballots. This is part two in a series, providing the full text of each ballot question and each proposed amendment as well as the effect the amendment has on the document’s current wording. Part one in the series provides guidelines for evaluating any proposed state constitutional amendment. A deep dive into each proposed amendment, covering the amendment’s history, sponsors, and analysis, will follow, so stay tuned. If you need to register to vote you can do so here. If you want to see your sample ballot, you can do so here. To see who represents you in state government, visit this website. A constitutional amendment has the power to add something new to the constitution, subtract from something already in the document, or modify the document. This year, each amendment consists of an addition to the constitution in some form. We note the precise changes below. To dig into the legislative history, click on the "AJR" or "SJR" link. AJR 102: – Anti-equity amendment The ballot question “Shall section 27 of article I of the constitution be created to prohibit governmental entities in the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration?” Effect on Wisconsin Constitution Adds a new section to article I of the Wisconsin Constitution, which is Wisconsin’s Declaration of Rights. The amendment arguably would modify § 1, which currently states: “All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Full text of the addition to the constitution [Article I] Section 27 (1) In this section, “governmental entity” means the state, its political subdivisions including municipalities, the University of Wisconsin System, the Technical College System, any public college or university, any public school district, and any office, department, independent agency, board, commission, authority, institution, association, society, or other body in state or local government created or authorized to be created by the constitution or any law, including the legislature and the courts. (2) A governmental entity may not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration. (3) This section does not prohibit action that must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, if ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the governmental entity. (4) Nothing in this section prohibits bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration. (5) If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with the United States Constitution or federal law, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that the United States Constitution and federal law permit. Any provision of this section held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section. SJR 116: Amendment to restrict the governor’s partial veto The question Shall section 10 (1) (c) of article V of the constitution be amended to prohibit the governor, in exercising his or her partial veto authority, from creating or increasing or authorizing the creation or increase of any tax or fee?” Effect on Wisconsin Constitution Adds to current language found in article V, § 10, which outlines the power of the governor to approve or veto bills, to reduce the governor’s partial veto power. Full text of the proposed addition to the Constitution (changes in red) [Article V] Section 10 (1) (c) In approving an appropriation bill in part, the governor may not create a new word by rejecting individual letters in the words of the enrolled bill, and may not create a new sentence by combining parts of 2 or more sentences of the enrolled bill, and may not create or increase or authorize the creation or increase of any tax or fee. AJR 10: Amendment banning closure of places of worship during states of emergency The question “Shall section 18 of article I of the constitution, which deals with religious liberty, be amended to prohibit the state or a political subdivision of the state from ordering the closure of, or forbidding gatherings in, places of worship in response to a state of emergency, including a public health emergency?” Effect on Constitution Adds to current language found in article I, § 18, governing the declaration of rights regarding religious worship, to prohibit any government from banning group gatherings in places of worship during national, state, and local emergencies. Full text of the addition to the Constitution (changes in red) [Article I] Section 18. The right of every person to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any person be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, without consent; nor shall any control of, or interference with, the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship; nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or religious or theological seminaries; nor shall the state or a political subdivision of the state order the closure of or forbid gatherings in places of worship in response to a state of emergency at the national, state, or local level, including an emergency related to public health. Next in the series: an in-depth look at the proposed partial-veto amendment.  The Wisconsin Constitution display in the Capitol in Madison on Sept. 18, 2026. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Margo Kirchner Wisconsin voters will encounter three constitutional amendment referendum questions on the Nov. 3 ballot. In a series of posts over the next two weeks, Wisconsin Justice Initiative will help you become an informed voter on constitutional amendment referendums generally and the Nov. 3 election questions specifically. Because constitutional amendment ballot questions alone do not sufficiently inform you about the proposed changes, ensure you’re up to speed before mailing your ballot or heading to your polling place. Here are tips to prepare for all constitutional amendment ballot referendums. As a start, it’s helpful to know the process for amending the Wisconsin Constitution. The Legislature must pass a proposed constitutional amendment twice, first during one two-year legislative term (“first consideration”), and then again during the next two-year legislative term (“second consideration”). The Legislature then submits the amendment to voters at an upcoming election of its choosing. If voters approve, the amendment then becomes part of the constitution. The governor is not involved in the process. When the Legislature passes the proposed amendment on second consideration, it also passes the wording of the ballot question that will ask voters to approve the change and names the election at which voters will see the question. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that the Legislature has broad leeway in writing the question. The question may be vague, confusing, or even misleading, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court said that’s OK under the state constitution. In a case brought by Wisconsin Justice Initiative, challenging an amendment ballot question as insufficient and misleading, the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2023 ruled that the Legislature’s “submission” of the proposed amendment to the people “does not require any substantive discussion of the amendment.” “No explanation or summary is constitutionally commanded,” Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote for the court. Hagedorn said a ballot question is only deficient “in the rare circumstance that the question is fundamentally counterfactual such that voters were not asked to approve the actual amendment.” In a concurring opinion, former Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley wrote that the court’s test boils down to, “Did the ballot question contain clearly false information?” The purpose of an amendment referendum ballot question “is not to educate voters,” she said. “Voters are trusted to inform themselves.” So how do you do that? Here are guidelines for any election with a constitutional amendment ballot question. The short version is in the block immediately below. Read on for a more in-depth discussion. Voter guidelines for constitutional amendment referendums: 1) Know that the short ballot question is not the actual amendment. 2) Know that constitutional amendment ballot questions are framed and worded for a “yes.” 3) Look for other reasons why this question is on the ballot. 4) Consider whether this is something better addressed in the form of a statute than a constitutional change. 5) Think about the impacts—known and unknown. 6) If you don’t understand an amendment ballot question or what the amendment itself is, perhaps have a general rule to vote “no,” or do not vote on it at all. 1) Know that the short ballot question is not the actual amendment. The amendment itself can be quite long. It could add a new provision to the constitution, add new language to a current provision, or delete language from the constitution. Look for a copy of the actual amendment on the Legislature’s website under constitutional “enrolled joint resolutions.” Or, Ballotpedia has a page with ballot measures in various states—scroll down to Wisconsin, click on the link for the amendment and look for “text of measure.” 2) Know that constitutional amendment ballot questions are framed and worded for a “yes” answer. The Legislature has passed this amendment, twice. Legislators want you to pass it as well. They write the question, and the question will make you want to say “yes.” So what do you think about this Legislature? Do you generally agree or disagree with what it does and wants? Sleuths among our readers can look up which legislators voted in favor or against the proposed amendment. What do you think of them? Legislative votes can be found by clicking on the initial Assembly or Senate joint resolution on the Legislature’s website. (An example is here.) The vote tally should be near the top. If you click on the vote tally it will show how the lawmakers voted. 3) Look for other reasons why this question is on the ballot. For instance, is this an attempt to get around the governor when the Legislature and governor are from different political parties? Has the governor vetoed an attempt to pass a statute on the same subject? The pace of constitutional amendments has increased. From 2006 to 2022, voters saw six constitutional amendment ballot questions. Since 2023 there have been 11, including the three coming up. Clashes between the Legislature and Gov. Tony Evers may explain the uptick. Remember the governor is not part of the amendment process. When the governor and Legislature are in accord, legislation is relatively easy to enact because the governor often approves what the Legislature has passed. But when the parties differ, a bill may get the governor’s veto. In this climate, the Legislature may turn to constitutional amendments to bypass the governor. Question 2 on the November ballot (banning closure of places of worship during a state of emergency) exemplifies this. Evers vetoed a bill on the same point in 2021. The Legislature may seek to cement something into the constitution in case control of the Legislature changes or it does not like the makeup of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Voters can also examine whether the Legislature is using this question to bring voters to the polls. Constitutional amendments are often hot-button issues. This year’s questions include whether the governor’s partial veto should be limited following Evers’ adjustment to school district funding for 400 years, restrictions on places of worship during a state of emergency following the COVID-19 pandemic health emergency restrictions by the Evers administration, and anti-DEI sentiment. By focusing on attention-grabbing issues that stir up strong feelings, the proposed amendment may drive certain demographics to the polls, while keeping the topic in the news. Many recent amendments have been about elections, which is an ongoing hot-button issue. The Legislature could have chosen the April 2026 election for some of these provisions but waited for the November election instead. Sen. Tim Carpenter (D-Milwaukee) accused Republicans of placing amendments on the November 2026 ballot to boost conservative turnout, comparing the strategy to Wisconsin’s 2006 same-sex marriage ban amendment. Is there really a problem that needs fixing, or is this a political issue? Has the Legislature backed the proposed amendment with evidence? Sponsors of the 2025 voter-identification constitutional amendment (which passed) provided little to no evidence that voter impersonation occurs. Wisconsin already had a strict statute requiring voter identification. Meanwhile, a study noted by the ACLU of Wisconsin found just 31 credible voter impersonation cases nationwide out of more than 1 billion votes from 2000 to 2012. Voter identity “protections” were a solution in search of a problem. So why did we need a constitutional amendment? As reported in Ballotpedia, Rep. Rob Kreibich (R-New Richmond) provided one reason: “For clarification, photo ID is already required by Wisconsin State Statute. But a ‘yes’ vote would amend the Wisconsin Constitution to include this requirement, which will further protect the integrity of the voting system from our leftist-activist WI Supreme Court.” 4) Consider whether this is something better addressed in the form of a statute than a constitutional change. Constitutions generally set up government structures, provide guarantees of rights, and talk in broad terms that can stand through time. Statutes are generally where we hash out where the rubber meets the road. That’s because statutes are easier to change. Undoing a constitutional change can take three to five years. The more detail that is in a constitution, the more government officials’ hands may be tied when times and circumstances change. 5) Consider the impacts—known and unknown. The Legislature is not required to conduct studies before proposing constitutional amendments. Voters should ask whether this purported solution to a proposed problem has been studied. What has happened in other states that have passed similar constitutional provisions? The consequences may be unknown because they are unstudied, or they can be known but not widely discussed before voters go to the polls. Examples of unintended consequences can be seen from recently passed amendments. For instance, the April 2020 victims’ rights amendment has allowed police officers who fatally shoot someone to claim that they were victims acting in self-defense, entitling them to the right to privacy and to keep their names from the public. The April 2024 ban on government entities receiving outside election funds or equipment affects cities that previously obtained grants from nonprofit sources to purchase voting machines. Taxpayers will now have to foot the bill for new equipment or repairs to old equipment. 6) If you don’t understand an amendment ballot question or what the amendment itself is, perhaps a general rule is to vote “no,” or do not vote on it at all. If you do not know what you’d be agreeing to with a “yes,” or if you haven’t identified an issue with the status quo, leaving things as they are may be the best answer. A legislative bill that would have made the Legislature provide voters with reliable information on constitutional amendment ballot questions failed to pass the Senate during the last legislative session. The bill, AB 207, would have required a one-page disclosure notice 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 notice would have been posted 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. WJI will advocate for passage of a similar provision this coming legislative session. We encourage you to do the same. "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: Jeremy J. Guza
Appointed to: Waukesha County Circuit Court Appointment date: July 3, 2026, to term ending July 31, 2027 Education: Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Platteville High School – Blair-Taylor High, Blair, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: January 2020-present – Attorney/owner, Guza Law Office LLC, Sussex, Wisconsin July 2017-January 2020 – Veterans service representative, Department of Veteran’s Affairs, Milwaukee, Wisconsin August 2014-July 2017 – Attorney/owner, Guza Law Office LLC, Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin June 2014-August 2014 – Associate attorney, Kratz Law Firm, West Bend, Wisconsin Military service: I served in the Army National Guard from 6/03 to 6/10. I was inactive National Guard from 6/10-6/11. My unit was activated to active duty ARMY from 6/04-11/05 for training and missions in Iraq. I chose to not renew my contract with the National Guard in 2010. At that time I was an ES, Sergeant, and near the top of the promotion list. I received an Honorable Discharge. Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin General character of practice: I am a criminal defense attorney practicing primarily in Waukesha County. I've taken Public Defender work in multiple counties throughout the state including Trempealeau, Juneau, Sheboygan, Fond du Lac, Manitowoc, Washington, and Ozaukee Counties. Previously, I handled divorce and child support cases, revocation hearings, Chapter 51 commitments, and Chapter 55 Guardianship hearings. I've also been co-counsel on a civil matter involving a non-compete agreement. I have been solo trial counsel on multiple criminal trials spanning from 1 to 5 days long. Describe typical clients: My typical clients are criminal defendants, usually with pending criminal charges. I haven't specialized in any area of law, but my primary focus has been on criminal defense including homicide, OWI, drug dealing and drug possession, retail theft, domestic abuse cases, civil ordinance violations, and traffic tickets. Number of cases tried to verdict: 6 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: In 2021 I was solo defense counsel on a Len Bias Homicide in Washington County in front of, now retired, Judge Todd Martens. . . . This case involved a drug delivery homicide of a novel synthetic opioid that was quickly put on the temporary drug schedule in the Wisconsin Statutes. The drug itself was not listed in the Statutes as an illegal substance at the time of the delivery. This was a difficult case for all involved because a young adult had lost their life due to drug usage, yet that drug usage may have been due to a, technically, legal substance at the time of use. I believe that this is a significant case because it demonstrates my ability to operate in the gray space between what is right, what is legal, and what is just. In March through July of 2021 I was, again, solo defense counsel on a Len Bias homicide; but this time it was in Waukesha County in front of Judge Arthur Melvin. Opposing counsel was District Attorney Sue Opper. I filed a Denny motion regarding a possible 3rd party suspect which, although I was unable to identify, police should have been able to identify. The motion was never heard in front of Judge Melvin as Attorney Opper dismissed the case before the motion could be heard. This case was significant because the police elicited a confession from my client that he had sold drugs to the co-defendant, yet, with overwhelming evidence that there was likely a third party that actually delivered the drugs, and not my client, District Attorney Opper did the correct thing and dismissed the case. It is rare that a homicide is charged and outright dismissed without a jury trial or a plea agreement. From September 2022 through August 2023, I served as co-counsel for the defense in a First Degree Intentional Homicide case in Juneau County Circuit Court before the Honorable Stacy Smith. . . . My involvement included pretrial preparation, litigation of constitutional search-and-seizure issues, participation in evidentiary hearings, and briefing related to the admissibility of evidence obtained during a warrantless search. A central issue in the case was law enforcement's reliance on the community caretaker doctrine as justification for the search. After multiple days of testimony and briefing, the court ultimately upheld the constitutionality of the search on alternative grounds. This litigation was significant because the case arose during a period of substantial change in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. At the time of the search, law enforcement relied on the community caretaker doctrine as a recognized basis for warrantless action. Between the time of the death and the conclusion of the case, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected that doctrine as a constitutional justification. The litigation therefore required careful analysis of evolving constitutional law, the effect of that change on the pending case, and whether the search could be sustained on any grounds independent of the community caretaker doctrine. The case remains on appeal following extensive pretrial litigation. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: From 2014 through 2017, I represented multiple clients during revocation proceedings. Every revocation hearing is overseen by an Administrative Law Judge to determine whether revocation is warranted. I've handled multiple preliminary hearings in front of Court Commissioners. I've also handled preliminary family law matters in front of Court Commissioners. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). 90+% of criminal defense work is non-litigation negotiation. I have experience negotiating with prosecutors as well as negotiating with adversarial attorney's in family law cases. For the last two years I have been witnessing will signings on behalf another attorney. I have also represented clients during depositions. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: NA Previous runs for public office: None listed All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: None listed Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Sussex Lions Club, 2021-present ATV 4 Vets, vice president, 2012-2015 Village of Sussex, volunteer, 2022 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: I was a pro bono legal counsel for the non profit ATV4Vets after I stepped down as the Vice President of the organization. As legal Counsel I provided expert guidance to the organization's President on multifaceted matters pertaining to the non-profit's operations, including fundraising strategies and prudent allocation of resources. Furthermore, I demonstrated proficiency in drafting, reviewing, and editing contracts and letters of intent for grants Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: My desire to serve the people of Wisconsin as a judge is rooted in my commitment to public service, the rule of law, and the constitutional principles that protect every person who comes before the courts. I served in Iraq from 2004 to 2005 and spent seven years as a member of the Wisconsin Army National Guard. That service instilled in me a deep sense of duty, discipline, accountability, and respect for institutions larger than myself. It also reinforced the importance of leadership, sound judgment, and service to others. Those values have guided me throughout my legal career and would continue to guide me on the bench. My military service, my experience as a citizen, and my work as an attorney have all strengthened my respect for the Constitution and the protections it provides. The Constitution is not an abstract concept; it is the foundation that safeguards individual liberty, due process, equal protection, and the rule of law. As a judge, I would have the responsibility to apply the law faithfully, protect the rights of all parties, and ensure that every person is treated with fairness, dignity, and respect. Through my work as a defense attorney in Waukesha County, I have seen firsthand how important the courts are to individuals, families, victims, defendants, and the community as a whole. Court decisions have real consequences. They affect liberty, safety, families, livelihoods, and public confidence in the justice system. That responsibility requires patience, humility, preparation, impartiality, and the ability to listen carefully before making difficult decisions. My experiences have also given me a strong appreciation for the rule of law. I have seen the importance of fair process, careful fact-finding, and decisions based on the law rather than emotion, assumption, or bias. I believe a judge must be firm when necessary, compassionate where appropriate, and always faithful to the law. Wisconsin is my home. My connection to this state has been shaped by my military service, my work as an attorney, and my continued commitment to the people and communities I serve. I want to serve as a judge because I believe I can contribute to a judiciary that is fair, accessible, efficient, and worthy of the public's trust. If appointed, I would approach the role with humility, independence, and a deep respect for the responsibility entrusted to the judiciary. I would work each day to uphold the rule of law, protect constitutional rights, and serve the people of Wisconsin with integrity and fairness. 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. Caniglia v. Strom is one of the most significant United States Supreme Court decisions of the past 25 years because of its impact on Fourth Amendment protections, particularly the constitutional protection afforded to the home. In my view, the decision had a positive impact on the people of Wisconsin by reaffirming that the home occupies a special place in our constitutional system and that warrantless government entry into a residence is subject to strict limits. In Caniglia, the Supreme Court addressed the scope of the community caretaking doctrine and whether that doctrine could justify a warrantless search or seizure inside a person's home. The Court unanimously held that the community caretaking exception, which had developed largely in the context of vehicles, does not create a broad standalone justification for warrantless entries into the home. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed a core principle of the Fourth Amendment: the home is entitled to the highest level of constitutional protection. This decision is especially important for the people of Wisconsin because it provides clear guidance that law enforcement authority, even when exercised for public safety or welfare purposes, must remain within constitutional boundaries. The decision does not prevent police officers from responding to emergencies or acting when another recognized exception to the warrant requirement applies. Rather, it ensures that general concerns about safety or caretaking do not become an open-ended basis for entering a person's home without a warrant. The positive impact of Caniglia is that it strengthens both individual liberty and public confidence in the justice system. Wisconsinites should be secure in their homes and confident that constitutional protections apply equally, regardless of the nature of the investigation or the government's intent. By requiring courts and law enforcement to carefully identify a valid constitutional basis for warrantless home entry, the decision promotes accountability, consistency, and respect for the rule of law. The case also serves an important practical function. It gives law enforcement officers, attorneys, and judges clearer direction when evaluating searches and seizures involving a residence. That clarity is valuable because Fourth Amendment issues often arise in fast-moving and difficult circumstances. A clear rule helps protect individual rights while also assisting law enforcement in understanding the limits of its authority. For these reasons, Caniglia v. Strom represents a meaningful reaffirmation of constitutional principles. It recognizes that the Fourth Amendment remains vital in protecting citizens from unreasonable government intrusion and that those protections are most powerful in the home. The decision positively impacts the people of Wisconsin by preserving privacy, reinforcing the rule of law, and ensuring that constitutional rights remain central to the administration of justice. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Two Justices that I admire are Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice John Paul Stevens. They are both esteemed figures in the realm of American jurisprudence, each leaving a lasting legacy characterized by their commitment to the principles of justice, fairness, and the rule of law. I admire Justice Anthony Kennedy for his role as a pivotal swing vote and his dedication to upholding constitutional rights and liberties. Throughout his tenure, Justice Kennedy authored numerous landmark opinions that shaped the legal landscape of the nation. His opinions often reflected a deep appreciation for the complexities of individual rights and a keen awareness of evolving societal norms. One of Justice Kennedy's most notable contributions to constitutional law was his pivotal role in advancing LGBTQ+ rights. He authored several landmark opinions that expanded legal protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, including the historic decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015. Justice Kennedy's eloquent defense of dignity, equality, and liberty resonated profoundly, marking a transformative moment in the struggle for LGBTQ+ rights and affirming the principle of equal protection under the law. Justice Kennedy's jurisprudence was also characterized by a commitment to protecting fundamental rights, including freedom of speech, religion, and autonomy. His opinions often balanced competing interests with sensitivity and nuance, reflecting a deep respect for individual dignity and autonomy. Similarly, I admire Justice John Paul Stevens for his intellect, integrity, and unwavering dedication to the rule of law. Known for his keen analytical mind and incisive writing style, Justice Stevens authored numerous influential opinions that shaped legal doctrine across a wide range of issues. Furthermore, I admire Justice Stevens for his principled approach to constitutional interpretation, which prioritized fidelity to the text, history, and values underlying the Constitution. His opinions often reflected a commitment to safeguarding individual rights and promoting democratic principles. Justice Stevens' respect for legal precedent and his willingness to engage in rigorous intellectual debate earned him widespread respect among colleagues and legal scholars alike. Justice Stevens' legacy is marked by his independence and willingness to evolve over time, a trait that all judges should strive to achieve. While appointed by a Republican president, Justice Stevens' jurisprudence evolved toward a more liberal orientation during his tenure on the Court. His willingness to reevaluate his views in light of new evidence and changing circumstances exemplifies a commitment to intellectual honesty and judicial integrity. In conclusion, I most admire both Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice John Paul Stevens for their commitment to upholding constitutional principles, protecting individual rights, and promoting justice and equality, inspiring generations of jurists and citizens alike. The proper role of a judge: The proper role of a judge is to faithfully apply the law, fairly manage the courtroom, and decide each case based on the facts, the law, and the arguments presented. A judge must be impartial, independent, patient, and committed to ensuring that every person who appears in court is treated with dignity and respect. Judicial independence is essential to that role. A judge must decide cases without fear or favor, and without being influenced by politics, public pressure, personal relationships, or personal beliefs. The judge's duty is not to reach a preferred outcome, but to apply the law fairly and consistently, even when the decision is difficult or unpopular. A judge must also ensure that every party receives due process. That means giving people a meaningful opportunity to be heard, carefully considering the evidence, applying the correct legal standards, and explaining decisions clearly. The courtroom should be a place where litigants, attorneys, victims, witnesses, defendants, and members of the public can have confidence that the process is fair. Impartiality does not mean indifference. A judge should understand that court decisions affect real people and often involve serious consequences for families, liberty, safety, property, and the community. But empathy must be balanced with restraint. A judge must listen carefully, treat people respectfully, and still remain guided by the law rather than emotion, bias, or assumption. The proper role of a judge also requires humility and discipline. Judges must recognize the limits of their authority. They do not make policy from the bench, advocate for one side, or substitute their personal views for the law. Their responsibility is to interpret and apply the law within the framework established by the Constitution, statutes, precedent, and the facts of each case. Integrity is equally important. A judge must maintain the public's trust by acting ethically, preparing thoroughly, being transparent in reasoning, and demonstrating fairness in both conduct and decision-making. Public confidence in the judiciary depends not only on correct legal rulings, but also on the perception that each case was handled honestly, respectfully, and impartially. In sum, the proper role of a judge is to serve as an independent and impartial guardian of the rule of law. A judge must protect constitutional rights, ensure fair proceedings, apply the law faithfully, and administer justice with integrity, humility, and respect for every person who comes before the court.  Entrance to the Wisconsin Supreme Court hearing room at the State Capitol in Madison. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach
Renowned attorney, author, and human rights advocate Bryan Stevenson argued in the Wisconsin Supreme Court last week on behalf of a child charged in adult criminal court. He and the state’s attorney faced frequent questions from the justices (making what lawyers call a “hot bench”). Stevenson represents Noah Mann-Tate, who was 10 years old when charged in adult court with intentional first-degree homicide for shooting and killing his mother in November 2022. “There are only 14 states where it is theoretically possible to try a 10-year-old child as an adult, and in none of those states has it happened that a 10-year-old child was prosecuted as an adult,” said Stevenson. While 10-year-olds have been charged as adults, no party could point to an instance of another 10-year-old enduring prosecution in adult criminal court. After being charged in adult trial, Mann-Tate sought “reverse waiver,” a procedure by which children charged in adult court can apply for transfer to juvenile court. The circuit court judge found Mann-Tate ineligible to waive into juvenile court based on the statutory criteria for reverse waiver. District 1 of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals then ruled that the statute was “unconstitutionally incomplete” for its failure to consider the unique attributes of youth. At last week’s oral argument, Justice Brian Hagedorn called that decision “breathtaking” in its failure to apply a complete constitutional analysis. Arguments focused on whether the reverse waiver statute permits a trial court to consider age and, if not, constitutional questions about fundamental fairness and due process. Implicit in the arguments was whether the factors included in Wisconsin’s waiver statute (found in the juvenile code) by which children are waived from juvenile court to adult court should have been read into the reverse waiver statute (found in the criminal code) even though not set forth in the reverse waiver statute. Under statutory procedures for waiver from juvenile court to adult court, a trial court considers the unique attributes of youth when making its determination. According to the waiver statute, “(t)he personality of the juvenile, including whether the juvenile has a mental illness or developmental disability, the juvenile’s physical and mental maturity, and the juvenile’s pattern of living, prior treatment history, and apparent potential for responding to future treatment,” are all factors on which the trial court “shall” base its decision when deciding whether to waive a child into adult criminal court. The reverse waiver statute does not include those attributes of youth. It explicitly requires only that a court consider the seriousness of the offense, the effect waiver might have on deterrence, and the adequacy of treatment provided by adult court and facilities to a juvenile offender. There seemed to be some consensus among the justices that if the waiver statute’s youthfulness factors should apply to the reverse waiver analysis, they could simply remand the case back to circuit court with an instruction that the judge consider all relevant evidence, including age. However, if a judge is precluded from explicitly considering age under the reverse waiver statute, “that would be unconstitutional,” argued Stevens. The hot bench went back and forth with the state’s attorney, Assistant Attorney General Lisa Kumfer, about whether Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Jane Carroll in fact considered Mann-Tate’s age. In denying reverse waiver, Carroll wrote that “the most compelling reason to keep Mann-Tate in the juvenile system was his age.” She said she felt "10-year-olds do not belong in the adult system” but that it was a legislative decision. “The Legislature has clearly indicated that 10-year olds who are charged with first-degree intentional homicide do belong in the adult system, unless those statutory factors are all proven by a preponderance of the evidence with the burden being on the defendant,” wrote Carroll. She found that Mann-Tate could not meet the burden. Whether she felt precluded from considering Mann-Tate’s age was a significant point of discussion during oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The state argued that Carroll must have considered age, as Mann-Tate’s age is implied by the nature of the reverse waiver hearing itself. But the absence in Carroll’s decision of express consideration of maturity, inability to appreciate or comprehend the permanence of his actions, and impulsivity was repeatedly referenced by Justices Chris Taylor and Susan Crawford. And the state’s attorney and justices disagreed about whether the trial prosecutor told Carroll she was precluded from considering the youthfulness factors found in waiver statute. “In our society, the culpability of a child is not considered the same as the culpability of adults,” said Taylor. “For (Carroll) to say look, the most important factor, I can’t even consider it … we’re just supposed to ignore that?” she asked Kumfer. “I think that statement is being taken out of context,” Kumfer responded. “Do we think explicit consideration of age would have gotten to the opposite outcome?” Stevenson asked the justices. “If we considered the age of the child, you would not be able to use the word 'planning,' as if that’s the same as when applied to an adult,” he said regarding an assertion by the state that Mann-Tate engaged in a premediated crime. Kumfer dodged questions from Crawford and Taylor regarding whether the waiver statute should be read into the reverse waiver statute but did not expressly oppose the idea that Mann-Tate’s case could be remanded with an instruction to consider the unique attributes of youth. Whether the statute’s failure to explicitly include consideration of the unique attributes of age, and whether that failure was a violation of Mann-Tate’s due process rights, elicited stronger opinions from the state. “Maybe it’s not fair that a 10-year-old can be prosecuted as an adult, but that is a policy choice for the Legislature,” said Kumfer. Kumfer argued that the law as written is constitutional. “It might be unwise, it might be unfair—as, like, a justice principle—we definitely know things about maturation of juvenile brains now that we didn’t know in 1993, but that means that this needs to go to the Legislature to change it. It does not mean that in every single circumstance a 10-year-old cannot be subject to adult court jurisdiction,” she said. No justice asked the state what circumstance would warrant the prosecution of a 10-year-old in adult criminal court. “I don’t think we need to categorize the constitutional violation in the maze-like way that the state has done,” Stevenson argued. “We fundamentally disagree that the courts cannot create constitutional protections,” he said. “They do that all time,” he said, pointing to cases involving parole or the death penalty. By Margo Kirchner
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals last week held that a $20,000 municipal forfeiture for parking commercial trucks in a residential driveway was unconstitutionally excessive. District 2 Judge Mark Gundrum issued the one-judge decision, overturning the sanction imposed by Lakeside Municipal Court on a city of Fond du Lac citation. Dennis Murray appealed from the judgment finding him guilty of violating an ordinance prohibiting parking a commercial walk-in truck in a residential area. Murray had argued at trial in municipal court that his two vehicles met exceptions in the ordinance for tow trucks or vehicles servicing a property. The municipal court found the exceptions did not apply and imposed a $20,549.50 forfeiture for the violation: $281.50 per day for the more than 70 days elapsing between issuance of the citation and trial. Gundrum affirmed the municipal court’s finding that Murray violated the ordinance. However, he agreed with Murray that the total forfeiture violated federal and state constitutional provisions prohibiting excessive fines. Gundrum stated that the federal excessive fines clause in the Eighth Amendment and state law limit a government’s power to extract payments as punishment. Fond du Lac argued that the forfeiture amount was really about nuisance abatement rather than punishment. Gundrum rejected the argument, as the city did not bring a nuisance abatement civil lawsuit but instead issued a citation resulting in a punitive forfeiture. Gundrum applied a proportionality test pursuant to state case law. He found that the city failed to rebut Murray’s argument that the amount imposed was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of his offense. Gundrum remanded the case to the municipal court to impose “an appropriate forfeiture.” Joint Finance Committee approves additional $4 million for data-sharing among law enforcement9/8/2026  The Wisconsin State Capitol. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach
The Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee met last week to approve a $4 million supplemental appropriation for the Wisconsin Department of Justice. The supplement supports grants to law enforcement agencies for data-sharing platforms under a new program created by 2025 Wisconsin Act 58. Act 58 created a short-term grant program for the acquisition and adoption of data-sharing programs. According to the law, the platform must be able to “integrate data from common law enforcement systems on a real-time basis” and “provide advanced, configurable search, analytics, and visualization capabilities that support common mission needs for law enforcement.” Although the bill passed in the Senate along party lines, with Republicans voting in favor and Democrats against, the Democratic senators on the Joint Finance Committee did not object to last week’s supplemental allocation, including Sen. Kelda Roys, who voted against the actual bill. Act 58 had bipartisan support in the Assembly. A Peregrine Technologies Inc. representative appeared at a public hearing in May 2025 in support of the Senate bill that became Act 58. The company “hopes to turbocharge local police department access to surveillance data, while curbing cops’ abuses of their technologies,” according to a 2024 Forbes profile of company co-founder Nick Noone, who previously worked at Palatir. Forbes called Peregrine’s platform “a super-powered Google for police data.” Noone and co-founder Ben Rudolph formed Peregrine after they embedded with the San Pablo, California, police department over 18 months. Shortly before Act 58 was enacted, the Brennan Center discussed the impact of centralized data-sharing hubs and warned that “new data fusion tools risk embedding biases and chilling free speech.” “(T)hese data sharing capabilities may be a boon to police departments,” wrote the Brennan Center. However, “the easy access to massive troves of data and ability to repurpose sensitive information far beyond the purpose for which it was initially collected can also facilitate intrusive searches and misuse of data for non-law enforcement purposes.” Peregrine’s data sharing interface allows departments to generate data-sharing requests and access information from other police departments, including departments not associated with the platform. Kyle Whyte, Peregrine senior account representative, demonstrated aspects of the company’s interface at the May 2025 hearing. He showed what officers could access for a given individual with a profile in the database. The overview for a fictional suspect, Travis Kameko, showed a “connections count” and possible associates from a shared home address or case. A blank box in the presentation was for personal history, which the software could populate though generative artificial intelligence. Whyte estimated the program could be run across Milwaukee-area police departments for $2 million a year. The city of Milwaukee would individually operate at around $400,000, Whyte said. A small department like Waukesha would cost $75,000. Whyte said the technology could connect different departments’ different systems. Ostensibly, Peregrine could make data from jurisdictions that employ facial recognition technology available to agencies that are prohibited from acquiring it. Whyte said Peregrine has a proven track record of “reducing overtime and boosting morale.” Grants under Act 58 must be awarded on or before June 30, 2027. WJI has submitted open records requests to the Wisconsin DOJ regarding its full budget and grant applications under Act 58 and to the Milwaukee Police Department regarding use of Peregrine. We have not yet received a response from either entity.  Entry to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the Capitol in Madison. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach
The Wisconsin Supreme Court opens its session with oral arguments next week, including a case concerning the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s reverse waiver statute. “Reverse waiver” is used to describe a case that begins in adult court but is later transferred to juvenile court. Under the pertinent statute, adult circuit courts exercise original jurisdiction over various homicide charges for any child alleged to have committed the crime “on or after the juvenile’s 10th birthday.” That jurisdiction can only be transferred to juvenile court through the reverse waiver process. Noah Mann-Tate was charged with intentional first-degree homicide, a Class A felony (the most serious), for shooting his mother in November 2022. He was 10 years old at the time. Charges were brought in early 2023 after Mann-Tate made conflicting statements to police about what happened, including an admission that he was angry with his mother, stole and hid the key to her gun safe the night before, accessed a gun, and shot her in the morning. Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Jane Carroll denied Mann-Tate’s motion for reverse waiver. She said that “the most compelling reason to keep Mann-Tate in the juvenile system was his age” and that a 10-year-old did not belong in the adult court system. However, she found she was required to consider only the factors listed in the statute, which do not include age. The reverse waiver statute defines three factors that must be considered by the adult court when considering transfer: whether the juvenile can receive adequate treatment in the adult criminal justice system, the seriousness of the offense, and the effect on general deterrence. The burden is on the child to establish that statutory requirements for reverse waiver are met. In Mann-Tate’s appeal from Carroll’s decision, Wisconsin Court of Appeals District 1 found Wisconsin’s reverse-waiver law unconstitutional. Judge Sara Geenen wrote the decision for the appeals court panel. Geenen wrote that a decade after Wisconsin enacted its reverse waiver statute, the U.S. Supreme Court “fundamentally altered the way in which juveniles are treated in the criminal justice system.” Based on the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, the high court distinguished juveniles for the purposes of sentencing. The Court of Appeals found that the distinction is not limited to Eighth Amendment issues. It said that additional factors discussed by the U.S. Supreme Court should be considered during reverse waiver proceedings. Those factors include the child’s chronological age related to maturity and impulsiveness, the child’s ability to appreciate risk and consequences, family and home life and the circumstances of the crime, impact on family, peer pressure, the effect of age on the child’s ability to navigate the criminal justice process, and the possibility of rehabilitation. Mann-Tate argued, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that the statutory factors set out in Wisconsin law are “unconstitutionally incomplete” because they fail to include the “unique attributes of youth” as identified and required by the U.S. Supreme Court. Geenen noted that the circuit court could not find whether adult court treatment services were sufficient because although Mann-Tate had “below-normal-intelligence,” there was no medical diagnosis in the record, despite the child telling officers that he has five imaginary people who talk to him. Because Mann-Tate’s mental health needs were unknown, he could not prove that the adult system could not provide adequate treatment. The state asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to review the case, leading to next week’s argument date. Of note, Bryan Stevenson, the acclaimed attorney and executive director of Equal Justice Initiative (a human rights organization in Montgomery, Alabama), has entered an appearance on Mann-Tate’s behalf for purposes of the Supreme Court proceedings. By Alexandria Staubach
A new legislative committee to study district attorney resources held its first meeting at the Capitol last week. For almost four decades, Wisconsin has struggled with the model used to allocate prosecution funding across the state’s many offices. The State Legislature's Legislative Council created the study committee to evaluate current needs. The current funding formula assigns the available number of full-time employment positions based on caseload as an empirical measure of need. According to some, the evolution of a prosecutor’s practice has rendered the metric obsolete, as it fails to account for changes in the nature of the role and the added responsibilities these attorneys now face. “Wisconsin had the right intention, objective statewide allocation, but the inputs and follow-through have not kept pace with the work,” said Mindy Tempelis, president of the Wisconsin District Attorneys Association, during a presentation at the committee’s meeting, the first of four now planned. During the meeting, Tempelis identified three “interlocking failures” that have undermined the system: the nature of the work changing faster than the system around it, the Legislature’s tendency to fund only part of measured needs, and the measure itself no longer being “trustworthy enough to tell us exactly how large the gap is or where positions belong.” “There has always been a gap,” she said. “Examining whether the formula accurately reflects the offices’ actual workloads and whether it created unintended consequences that do not serve the interests of justice,” will be a lead objective of the committee, said Rep. Ron Tusler (R-Harrison), the study committee’s chair. Tusler is joined by Vice-Chair Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine), Rep. Ann Roe (D-Janesville), Sen. Jamie Wall (D-Green Bay), and subject matter experts like State Public Defender Jennifer Bias, several district attorneys, and professionals in law enforcement. The committee hopes to recommend legislation, said Tusler. “We need to pass something that is passable,” he said. “We’ve had a divided government for the last eight years in Wisconsin, (so) we need to think of both sides and both parties.” “Whether you want more diversions or more aggressive prosecutions, the solution isn’t fewer prosecutors,” said Winn Collins, deputy administrator of legal services for the DA’s association, during a presentation at the meeting. “When you have 300 cases you can’t be creative,” he said. “A prosecutor is left with the option to just say what’s my standard offer in this kind of case.” Tempelis and Collins discussed prosecutor pay, along with allocated positions. Collins attributed the comparatively low pay of government work, coupled with the emotional and time demands of the role, as drivers of the issues elected district attorneys face with retention. The issue isn’t volume of positions alone, but what those positions pay, according to the pair. The result is often a prosecutor core that is young and less experienced said Collins. “People who have less time and people with less time, they’re going to make more irrational decisions.” Evaluating cases for specialty dockets, thousands of hours of digital discovery generated by now commonplace security camera footage and body cameras, and victim communication under Marcy’s Law have all added to the workload of those in criminal justice, the presenters said. They also noted more obscure pressures. How law enforcement is funded impacts caseloads, Tempelis said, referencing law enforcement grants that underwrite specific types of policing. “When law enforcement gets grants to do specific kinds of police work, it generates more cases,” she said, pointing to the increase in cases based on grant money earmarked for tactics like OWI checkpoints. Committee member Wall said the criminal justice system was not set up for “rational management.” “If we were starting from scratch, we wouldn’t start with 71 different nexuses around the state,” he said. He asked what Tempelis and the Wisconsin DAs association hoped to gain from the committee. Tempelis asked for a comprehensive study of what prosecutors’ workloads look like, followed by a measure that accurately reflects the size and scope of work in each jurisdiction and can evolve. She suggested that such an overhaul would necessitate a new entity to oversee the work and “help us make smarter decisions than what we have happening now.” |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed