|
By Alexandria Staubach
The year is just two weeks old, but two cases--one with significant implications for the criminal justice system--already have notable court activity. In the Wisconsin Court of Appeals District 3, a defendant in a criminal case filed his opening appellate brief seeking a declaration that a 468-day detention without appointment of counsel or a preliminary hearing violated his due process rights. James Grandberry sat for 14 months without even a copy of the complaint describing the allegations against him. He filed pro se motions to dismiss along the way. Grandberry’s case stems from the state’s first wiretap case aimed at disrupting the distribution of fentanyl. The case was filed under seal. Grandberry was arrested in summer 2024, but counsel was not appointed until September 2025, and his preliminary hearing was delayed until then. For individuals who remain in custody, preliminary hearings are supposed to take place within 10 days. But court commissioners in Brown County found exception to the rule at least seven times over 14 months. Granberry’s attorneys filed an interlocutory appeal—meaning an appeal before judgment in the trial court. The Court of Appeals, in its decision agreeing to hear the case, cited a 2022 Court of Appeals decision in State of Wisconsin v. Nhia Lee. In Lee, the appeals court ruled that a 113-day delay in appointment of counsel violated Lee’s rights, leading to dismissal without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice allowed prosecutors to refile the charges. The Lee appeal was initially taken to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, but after oral arguments that court dismissed its review as “improvidently granted.” Justice Rebecca Dallet in Lee noted that the court was minimizing important questions “about the efficacy of Wisconsin's process for appointing counsel for indigent defendants, which protects one of a defendant's most important constitutional rights.” Grandberry’s appeal asks 1) whether “during his exceedingly long stay in jail,” the lower court appropriately considered all of the relevant factors in finding good cause to continue to extend the time to appoint counsel and hold the preliminary hearing, and 2) whether Grandberry’s due process rights were “denied by delay.” In the second case, the ACLU of Wisconsin, the national ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, and the Law Forward law firm join forces seeking to intervene in litigation brought by the federal administration against the Wisconsin Elections Commission for refusing to give the U.S. Department of Justice confidential information about Wisconsin’s registered voters. “It has been widely reported that the United States intends to use this data to build an unauthorized national voter database and to target voters for potential challenges and disenfranchisement, and the United States’ own representations to states tend to confirm those suspicions,” the coalition’s memorandum says. A press release from the ACLU of Wisconsin says Wisconsin is among 21 states, plus the District of Columbia, that the U.S. DOJ has sued to obtain sensitive voter data.
0 Comments
 The Wisconsin State Capitol on Sept. 19, 2025. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach and Margo Kirchner The Wisconsin Assembly's Committee on Corrections on Jan. 7 will hear two bills relating to hygiene products for those in state and county custody. WJI supports and urges passage of both bills. The humane treatment of incarcerated individuals is at the core of Wisconsin Justice Initiative’s mission. Everyone in the government’s custody deserves the ability to care for their bodies, ensuring dignity and promoting the Department of Correction’s administrative rules regarding hygiene. The DOC cannot reasonably require good personal hygiene without providing the basic tools. The bills being heard, AB741 and AB736, move Wisconsin closer to humane treatment of those in custody. AB741 would require the DOC and county jails to provide at least two types of each personal hygiene product on a list in the proposed legislation, including deodorant, antiperspirant, shampoo and conditioner, various soaps and lotions, toothpaste and floss, and shaving cream. The products cannot be sold at more than 125% of the sales price of the product at the highest-grossing retail chain in the state. In addition, at least two varieties of culturally sensitive personal hygiene products such as shampoo, conditioner, and natural hair oil must be provided for different hair types, at no more than 100% of the sales price of the product at the highest-grossing retail chain in the state. The bill also requires the DOC or jail to provide each person in their care with a monthly personal hygiene stipend of $25 to purchase personal hygiene products from the commissary. The bill provides the funding to DOC to cover the stipends. WJI has submitted written testimony in favor of the bill. In November 2024, WJI spoke to an individual at Green Bay Correctional Institution who shared that base pay at GBCI is a mere five cents per hour, someone earning a degree makes 12 cents an hour, and the highest paying positions pay 42 cents an hour. The canteen at a DOC institution is a monopoly. Incarcerated persons cannot price shop. AB 741 first limits the cost of hygiene products to prevent price gouging, yet the merchant still makes its profit. The $25 monthly stipend helps the individual in custody afford those products without spending a week or more of pay. The requirement that facilities provide culturally sensitive products for different physical attributes is important for the people held in DOC care and in jails, many of whom are minority individuals. AB736 would requires the DOC and jails to provide free of charge to anyone in custody with an active menstrual cycle at least three brands of tampons in a variety of absorbencies, three brands of menstrual pads in various absorbencies, and one brand of reusable menstrual cup. The facility would also have to provide a means to sanitize inmate menstrual cups as needed. In WJI's view, AB736 should be regarded as critical legislation for women in the care of the DOC and in jails. As noted above with AB741, hygiene products in prisons are exorbitantly expensive, yet menstrual products are a basic necessity for a woman’s health and dignity. Last year, before DOC renegotiated its canteen contract, a box of tampons cost $2.61 for a pack of eight. That is $0.33 for a single tampon. They came in one size. For those unfamiliar, menstruating women often need at least five tampons per day. That number may double for perimenopausal women, who often experience irregular periods with very heavy blood flow and may need more, larger-flow menstrual products. The Mayo Clinic website recommends changing tampons every four to eight hours. Incarcerated women may spend hours working to afford these products, to hopefully keep blood and discharge from leaking and staining their clothes, which they must also pay to wash. For those who have never experienced a period, imagine working several hours or days to afford toilet paper. Placing feminine hygiene products behind a paywall asks women to choose between safe and hygienic products and homemade alternatives that are unsanitary and may cause infection. If insufficient menstrual products are provided, women may even leave tampons in place for many hours, risking toxic shock syndrome. A carceral system in which women experience restricted access to menstrual products is inhumane. Restricted access to menstrual products undermines a woman’s right to dignity. In November 2025, the Prison Policy Initiative released an analysis of prison rules and sanctions that demonstrates how the carceral system punishes women for menstruating—a physiological process over which they have no control. Rules that govern movement limit access to bathrooms, showers, and laundry services. Rules that govern contraband limit access to tissue paper and its proper disposal or punish women for sharing or trading menstrual products or keeping adequate supplies on hand. PPI identified that in Wisconsin, menstruating women may be disciplined under rules regarding damage to state property (if blood stains affect state-owned items), unauthorized transfer of property or possession of contraband regarding menstrual supplies, poor personal hygiene, and refusal to work or go to school.
As stated by PPI, “(t)here is no ‘safety and security’ interest in denying people the basic sanitary products they need to manage normal bodily functions.” The United Nations Human Rights Council in 2024 underscored that countries have the “responsibility to ensure the full realization of all human rights, including those relating to menstrual hygiene, and must take steps . . . to respond fully to menstrual hygiene and other health care-related needs by all appropriate means, including in particular through the adoption of relevant legislative measures.” A carceral system in which women experience restricted access to menstrual products is inhumane. Restricted access to menstrual products undermines a woman’s right to dignity. WJI has submitted written testimony of the bill. AB741 is sponsored by 19 Democratic Assembly members and four Democratic senators, but no Republicans—yet it has received a hearing in the Republican-controlled committee. AB736 is sponsored by 27 Democratic Assembly members and just one Republican Assembly member, but that Republican, Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah), happens to be the chair of the committee. AB736 is sponsored by nine Democratic senators as well. The Committee on Corrections consists of six Republicans and three Democrats.  Milwaukee's federal courthouse on July 18, 2024. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach
Milwaukee made national headlines when Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was convicted earlier this month for obstruction of a federal proceeding. Dugan was convicted in federal court of obstructing the administrative process of removal by the Department of Homeland Security by her actions at the Milwaukee County Courthouse on April 18, 2025. The jury found her not guilty of a misdemeanor charge of concealing an individual from arrest. Local media provided a play-by-play account of trial during the week of Dec. 15. The jury rendered its verdict on Dec. 18. Dugan’s attorneys have moved for additional time to argue that U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Adelman should set aside the jury’s guilty verdict—the first step in likely a lengthy post-verdict and appeal process. The case could land in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, especially regarding Dugan’s arguments of judicial immunity from prosecution. Adelman rejected those arguments in August 2025. If the defense’s motion for acquittal, which was filed at the close of the prosecution’s case, is any indication, Dugan is likely to mount a broad appeal, but jury instructions are an essential component of every case and, given jurors’ questions during deliberations, they could play a role in what arguments progress. Jury questions could indicate misunderstandings about the instructions. The split verdict—guilty on the felony but not guilty on the misdemeanor—and the questions the jury asked during deliberations beg the question: What happened? After evidence is presented at trial, the judge gives the jury a variety of instructions on how to proceed, including how to conduct deliberations, how to weigh the credibility of an expert, and, very importantly, the elements of the offenses that the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt for a guilty verdict. It is unusual for judges to issue written opinions about jury instructions, but in this case Adelman did, giving a small window into arguments that Dugan may make going forward. According to Adelman’s written opinion, the jury was largely given pattern instructions as “requested by the government and unopposed by the defense” regarding general matters. Pattern jury instructions are created by committees of judges and lawyers in each jurisdiction and are designed to standardize and simplify complex legal rules for jurors, but they do not exist for every crime in every case. Federal trial courts in Wisconsin are part of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals jurisdiction and usually start with the Seventh Circuit’s pattern rules. According to Adelman’s opinion, the Seventh Circuit pattern rules do not include standard instructions setting forth the elements of either of the charges against Dugan. Generally, when a pattern instruction does not exist, or a compelling reason exists to deviate from it, each side is permitted to propose an instruction. The judge then looks at the parties’ proposals, relevant law from cases that have dealt with the relevant statute, and pattern instructions in other circuits to craft an instruction. Parties can then suggest changes and object on the record if they disagree with what the judge reads to the jury. Adelman’s opinion indicates that the parties differed over the jury instructions regarding the elements of the two crimes charged in Dugan’s case. Adelman rejected some proffered instructions from each side. As to the misdemeanor charge of concealing an individual from arrest, Adelman instructed the jury that the government had to prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
Adelman wrote in his opinion that the lesser concealment charge for which Dugan was acquitted had no pattern instruction but “cases from other circuits adopt the foregoing elements.” Adelman wrote that the government argued against use of the word “actually” in the third element, arguing that “the word suggests the defendant must have actually succeeded in concealing the individual.” Adelman said he rejected that argument because the “cases include the word ‘actually’ not to require success but to make clear ‘that (the law) does not proscribe all forms of aid to a fugitive’ and that the ‘actual harboring or concealment element requires some affirmative, physical action by the defendant.’” The defense meanwhile sought an instruction requiring “materiality” for this charge. Materiality is a legal doctrine that distinguishes minor errors from substantial issues, preventing things that are trivial from triggering major legal consequences. Adelman wrote that materiality was not an element and that such an instruction was “unnecessary” because the third element included the word “actually” and “addressed the defense concern about mere trifles.” Adelman told the jury that a “federal warrant” includes federal administrative arrest warrants. He added statements in the instructions that “(t)he actual harboring or concealing element requires some affirmative, physical action by the defendant to hide, secrete, or keep out of sight” and that “(m)ere failure to disclose the location of a fugitive is not concealing.” The last statement was made over the government’s opposition, as Adelman found it to be “a correct statement of law.” Adelman declined to include the government’s proposed instruction that included language about conviction “regardless of whether the action was successful in actually delaying the individual’s observation, discovery or arrest.” Adelman wrote that “while the facts of the cases cited by the government may give that implication, they did not directly support an instruction using these terms.” Adelman excluded proposed defense instructions that “amounted to a rehash” of Dugan’s immunity arguments. As to the felony charge of obstructing federal proceedings, Adelman instructed the jury that the government had to prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
Adelman told the jury that DHS is a department of the United States and Immigration and Customs Enforcement is an agency within DHS. He told the jury that "'pending proceeding' simply means any process taking place in the manner and form prescribed for conducting business by or before a department or government agency, including all steps and stages in such an action from its inception to its conclusion.” Adelman included a definition of “endeavored” as meaning acting “purposefully, with knowledge that an action would have the natural and probable effect of wrongfully obstructing the proceeding. An ‘endeavor’ need not be successful.” He told the jury that “corruptly” meant “acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement.” According to proposed instructions filed in November, Dugan wanted the judge to tell the jury that “an effort to arrest a person, or to execute an arrest warrant of any kind, is not a proceeding within the meaning of the crime charged.” Adelman wrote in his opinion on the jury instructions that Dugan’s proposal “defined ‘proceeding’ too narrowly.” Adelman again rejected the defense proposal to add a materiality requirement on this count under Seventh Circuit law and because the definition of ”endeavored” that he gave “got at that same concept.” Other instructions proposed by the defense were not supported by case law or were “again a rehash of defendant’s immunity argument,” Adelman wrote. Dugan had proposed a jury instruction requiring the jury to unanimously agree on which, if any, of her actions established that she endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede a pending proceeding. Adelman explained in his opinion that the jury did not need to unanimously agree on the acts committed to execute the endeavor. During their six hours of deliberations, the jury asked two key questions focused on the elements of the offenses. The jury first asked whether Dugan needed to know the specific identity of the person ICE agents were seeking (Eduardo Flores-Ruiz) to be convicted of the concealment charge. Adelman responded that, yes, Dugan did need to know the identity of the person being sought. The jury then similarly asked whether Dugan needed to know the specific identity of Flores-Ruiz to obstruct a federal proceeding. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Adelman responded: "To know of a pending proceeding, the defendant needed to have sufficient knowledge about the nature of the proceeding." The jury then found Dugan guilty on that count. One juror told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that if Dugan had had to know the specifics of the proceeding at issue, the jury would have found her “not guilty” on the obstruction count. Dugan, who is not up for reelection until 2028, has been suspended with pay since April. Since her conviction, Republicans in the state Legislature have called for her resignation, threatening impeachment if she fails to resign. A judge has not been impeached in Wisconsin since 1853. Dugan has until Jan. 30, 2026, to file additional post-verdict motions and argument. By Alexandria Staubach The shuttering of WisconsinEye earlier this week has left a gaping hole in the public’s ability to watch what their officials are doing. For nearly 20 years, Wisconsin advocacy groups, community organizers, and independent journalists have relied on WisconsinEye, or “WisEye.” It provided comprehensive coverage of Capitol happenings and has been the state’s only gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Legislature, Supreme Court, Elections Commission, and more. WisconsinEye shut down on Dec. 15 due to a lack of funding and failure to meet minimum fundraising goals required to take advantage of a $10 million match offered by the Legislature earlier this year. It provided unedited, live coverage of full proceedings, as well as an important archive. WisconsinEye’s coverage allowed WJI staff and citizens across the state and nationwide to analyze arguments and identify the positions of Wisconsin’s legislators, justices, and executive branch officials without filter. Its closure highlights a dangerous trend: the decline of civic infrastructure. With the coverage and archive gone, tracking what happens at the Capitol becomes exponentially harder. Fish big and small—from formal media to nonprofits to active Wisconsinites of all parties and interests—will shoulder the weight of WisconsinEye’s demise. Wisconsin Justice Initiative's small staff is located in Milwaukee. WisconsinEye’s coverage of legislative hearings allowed staff to watch them without taking an entire day to travel to Madison. WJI has already missed a public hearing on proposed legislation to increase the maximum penalty for certain controlled substance offenses occurring near a homeless shelter. Kate Duffy, the woman behind Wisconsin’s @motherhoodforgood, spoke to WJI about the importance of WisconsinEye to what she does on that social media platform. Duffy's platform, with more than 100,000 followers, aims to make individual advocacy and civic engagement accessible to its followers. “As an independent content creator and civic educator, access to WisEye is essential to my work,” said Duffy. “More people are getting their news from social media, and many of us who aim to reach these audiences don’t have access to a traditional newsroom or the ability to be at the Capitol every day,” she said. Duffy said WisconsinEye allows her "to see for myself what’s actually happening in legislative hearings and floor sessions, without filters or spin.” “At a time when trust in information is fragile, WisEye remains one of the few truly objective, public-facing sources available,” she said. “Keeping it funded is critical to transparency and public understanding.” Amanda Merkwae, advocacy director at the ACLU of Wisconsin, confirmed that importance, telling WJI, “WisconsinEye plays a vital role in keeping the public informed and holding those in power accountable through transparency.” “Watching legislative floor sessions and committee hearings, Wisconsin Supreme Court oral arguments, and other programming on WIsconsinEye is part of my near-daily routine," she said. It’s unclear whether or how WisconsinEye could continue. Earlier this week a message replacing the decades-long archive of hearings and live coverage said in part: “Without consistent annual funding . . . citizens, legislators, legislative staff, the governor’s administration, agency leadership and staff, trade associations, attorneys and the courts, local government officials, journalists and all print, cable, television and radio news outlets, businesses, nonprofit organizations — all lose the only reliable and proven source of unfiltered State Capitol news and state government proceedings.” It attributed the shuttering to “extreme competition and a complete collapse in private funding.” That message has since been replaced by one highlighting the station’s award-winning coverage and years of service:  Legislation circulated for co-sponsorship by Sens. Mark Spreitzer, Kelda Roys, and Chris Larson and Rep. Brienne Brown earlier this week may provide an answer.
A new bill proposes the establishment of an Office of the Public Affairs Network to replace WisconsinEye. According a memo regarding co-sponsorship, the proposal “creates a permanent office to operate a public affairs network that will provide full coverage of state government proceedings in Wisconsin.” The memo says the Office of the Public Affairs Network would administer a network to:
The network would be governed by a board of seven, including the governor or their designee, two additional public appointees of the governor, and four legislators—one from the majority and one from the minority caucuses in both chambers. The Legislature would appropriate $2 million annually to support eight staff positions, which, according to the memo is equivalent to WisconsinEye’s “current coverage while supporting increased access.” The bill also directs the Department of Administration to “attempt” to obtain WisconsinEye’s digital archive to be incorporated into the new network’s archive. “While WisconsinEye's current contract requires them to hand over digital archives to the Wisconsin Historical Society for ongoing public access if WisconsinEye is ever dissolved or liquidated, WisconsinEye’s current funding issues have resulted in WisconsinEye taking the archives offline without a replacement becoming available,” wrote the senators. In the memo, the senators say the bill will transform “the recording, broadcasting, and archiving of Wisconsin’s state government proceedings from a failed private venture into a reliable, nonpartisan public service.” No matter the form, WisconsinEye’s coverage is critical to effective advocacy and public access to the actions of elected officials. “WisconsinEye’s live webcasts and recordings of state legislative proceedings in Wisconsin provide transparency and critical access to democracy for residents all over the state,” Merkwae told WJI. “We hope the Legislature can come to an agreement to continue this essential service, not only for individuals and organizations engaging in legislative advocacy, local government officials impacted profoundly by state government decisions, and journalists, but for everyday Wisconsinites who have a right to an accessible way to access what is happening in state government,” she said.  WJI policy analyst Alexandria Staubach speaks at a rally outside the Historic Federal Courthouse in Milwaukee on Dec. 15, 2025. Photograph by Jessica Schmidt. Wisconsin Justice Initiative policy analyst Alexandria Staubach spoke about the importance of protecting court proceedings at a Monday rally addressing the multiple consequences of Immigration and Customs Enforcement presence in Wisconsin courthouses. “When a place that is designed to protect you, protect your right to a fair and impartial trial, your right to protection, your right to dignity and equal treatment before the law, becomes a trap to ensnare people seeking justice, we are all less safe,” Staubach said. She added that victims, witnesses, and the accused don’t disappear but “just stay home.” The rally took place just prior to opening statements in Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan’s federal trial on charges of obstructing a federal agency and concealing an individual to prevent arrest. Dugan is accused of assisting an immigrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, evade ICE arrest by providing him access to a restricted hallway and directing federal agents away from her courtroom. Dozens of organizers and community members gathered outside the federal courthouse in Milwaukee, braving low digit temperatures to register their discontent with Dugan’s prosecution. Staubach noted in her comments the power of federal prosecutors, including recently appointed Interim U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel. “We’re going to say the quiet part out loud for Brad Schimel,” said Staubach, a former assistant district attorney in Colorado. “Prosecutions are discretionary.” Maxwell Love, the state political and campaign director for the Working Families Party, told WJI the coalition holding the rally was built “so that we could bring the case into the ‘court of public opinion.’” The group seeks “to make sure that the Milwaukee community could engage in a conversation about our values of fairness, due process, and democracy since we couldn’t be present in the courtroom,” Love said. The group highlighted the detrimental impact ICE presence has in the courthouse and its chilling effect on access to justice. “If due process can be violated for one group, it can and will be violated for all,” Wisconsin Working Families Party director Corinne Rosen said. “Today we stand together in this freezing cold to reject fear.” Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera, discussed the human impact and feelings of insecurity and intimidation created in immigrant community when ICE stands between them and access to justice. Louis Davis, executive director of SEIU Wisconsin led the crowd in chanting, “Your struggle is my struggle.” Nick Ramos, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign got the crowd going in yelling, “This is what democracy looks like.” The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that the chants and supportive honking could be heard inside the courthouse. Opening statements for Dugan’s trial began immediately after the rally. Prosecutors leaned heavily on the idea that courthouse arrests are “safe” and “routine,” and that Dugan’s “judicial robe didn’t put her above the law.” Dugan defense attorney Steven Biskupic said that conjecture about a chaotic morning was leading the federal prosecution and that Dugan did not obstruct law enforcement pursuit of Flores-Ruiz. Biskupic said Dugan directed federal law enforcement away from her courtroom in accord with a draft policy previously circulated by Chief Judge Carl Ashley to the Milwaukee County judges, telling them to direct federal agents to their supervisor. Biskupic said Dugan had not yet heard whether or for whom the federal agents had a warrant and so she did not intend to obstruct any action on their warrant. Biskupic also showed a screenshot of a group chat between federal agents, which suggested they had decided, on their own, not to arrest Flores-Ruiz in the courtroom hallway. A video shown during Biskupic’s opening remarks showed federal agents walking behind Flores-Ruiz at a leisurely pace as he exited the sixth floor of the courthouse where Dugan’s courtroom is located. The federal government plans to call up to 28 witnesses in the case and the trial is expected to last around five days.  WJI's Alexandria Staubach speaks at a rally outside the Historic Federal Courthouse in Milwaukee on Dec. 15, 2025. Photograph by Jessica Schmidt. Wisconsin Court of Appeals clarifies prior conviction count for domestic violence sentence enhancer12/11/2025 By Alexandria Staubach A recent decision by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals addresses the state’s ability to count prior convictions in cases where the “domestic abuse repeater” statute applies. The statute is a discretionary sentence enhancer that not only increases the length of a potential sentence but also morphs what would otherwise be misdemeanor conduct into a felony. That the sentence enhancer can turn a misdemeanor into a felony was top of mind for the trial court judge, but it was dismissed as inconsequential at the appellate level.  Hruz Judge Thomas M. Hruz delivered the opinion of the District 3 appellate panel, joined by Presiding Judge Lisa K. Stark and Judge Gregory B. Gill Jr.
Under the statute, a defendant may qualify as a repeat offender if during the preceding 10-year period they are “convicted on 2 or more separate occasions” of a domestic abuse offense. On appeal, the question for the court was whether those two prior convictions could stem from the same set of events or case. The defendant, Brian Tyrone Ricketts Jr., was convicted of two prior acts of domestic abuse, but the convictions arose out of a single incident in 2021. Ricketts argued that the single incident should not qualify him as a repeat offender under the statute. The state argued that the domestic abuse repeater statute applies to two convictions irrespective of how they were accumulated and that the statute should be interpreted in the same manner as the general repeater statute. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has interpreted the general repeater statute to apply “as long as the defendant was convicted of three misdemeanors during the requisite statutory time period, even if the convictions arose out of the same incident and occurred during a single court appearance,” Hruz wrote. However, a distinction between the general repeater statute and the domestic abuse repeater statute remained because the domestic abuse statute bumps what would otherwise be misdemeanor conduct up to a felony offense. That distinction led Brown County Circuit Judge John P. Zakowski to interpret the domestic abuse statute to require two separate and distinct occurrences of domestic violence in Ricketts’ case. “With the elevation of a misdemeanor to a felony, there is a significant change in the case,” he said. Zakowski relied on Supreme Court precedent related to the sex offender registration statute to conclude that the common, ordinary, and accepted meaning of two or more separate occasions means separate dates of offense. “For example, if a defendant had been involved in only one domestic abuse incident on a particular date and was asked on how many occasions s/he was convicted of a domestic abuse offense, the court would expect the correct answer to be ‘one,’” wrote Zakowski. The problematic word for the appeals court was “occasion,” which it said has “multiple common, ordinary meanings.” The court noted that the word can mean both an incident and a time at which something occurs or an instance of something. This, to the court, made the statute ambiguous. When a statute is ambiguous, the court may look outside the plain meaning of the text and examine legislative history or use other methods of statutory construction. In this case, “the parties have not directed us to any legislative history of the domestic abuse repeater statute that is relevant to the issue presented in this appeal,” wrote Hruz, so the court used other “canons” or principles of statutory construction. The appeals court agreed with the state that the statute should be interpreted consistently with the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s prior considerations of the general repeater statute. Because the statues appear to be related laws dealing with the same topic, population, or class of things, “they should be construed together,” wrote Hruz. In a footnote, Hruz wrote that the statute’s feature of bumping a new conviction from a misdemeanor to a felony is a “minor difference.” The appeals court then concluded that a person qualifies as a domestic abuse repeater “if he or she was convicted of two or more qualifying domestic abuse offenses during the requisite statutory time period, regardless of whether those convictions arose out of the same incident, had the same offense date, or occurred during the same court appearance.” Ricketts’ case was remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the appeals court’s ruling. By Alexandria Staubach At Milwaukee's celebration of International Humans Rights day, a panel of professionals and community activists were in lockstep that the United States is in a constitutional crisis. The city's eighth annual celebration of International Human Rights Day on Saturday was technically a celebration. But the event took on a cautionary tone as members of the public and city officials gathered in discussion around democracy, its erosion, and its relationship to human rights. Panelists in a segment titled “Unpacking Democracy and Human Rights,” emphasized that human rights are the bedrock of any functioning democracy. They explored the nexus between the constitutional crisis they believe is occurring and the erosion of human rights. The panel included James Santelle, former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin; Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera; Yante Turner, director of youth programming at GSAFE, which champions the rights of LGBTQ+ youth, and member of Sun-Seeker MKE, a Black trans-led community organizing group; and Svetlana Her, president of the Milwaukee Youth Council. Emilio De Torre, executive director of the Milwaukee Turners, led the discussion. Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson and Milwaukee Equal Rights Commission Chair Tony Snell Rodriguez gave opening remarks. “International Human Rights Day gives us the opportunity to reflect on what is happening in our country,” Johnson said, adding that “modern political trends are weakening human rights.” “We’ve got to stand against that movement,” he said. “Our democracy is not self-effectuating.” “Protecting human rights is not a passive task … it requires action,” he said.  Panelists at Milwaukee's International Human Rights Day celebration. L to R: James Santelle, James Santell, Christine Neumann-Ortiz, Svetlana Her, Yante Turner, and moderator Emilio De Torre. De Torre’s first question—whether the American democracy is in crisis—elicited comments from the panel that we are living in unprecedented times.
Santelle, who served 30 years in various roles within the federal government, called the current justice system “unrecognizable.” “It’s not just atypical, not just abhorrent, it’s inconsistent with the purpose of the U.S. Department of Justice,” he said. Santelle asked the audience to “embrace” feelings of disaffection to empower action. “Your own sense of disaffection from your government—you’re not alone and that sense is right and accurate,” he said. As U.S. attorney under President Barack Obama, Santelle led the Milwaukee office of federal prosecutors. He said the current justice department is working against the people by participating in litigation to dismantle the departments of education and housing and by engaging in prosecutions “premised upon the notion that the president of the United States does not like people.” Neumann-Ortiz said the immigrant community see signs of crisis in the increased freedom of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to wrongfully arrest people and in open discrimination by law enforcement. “We’ve got to think about our rights now and defend them,” she said. “Use your rights or lose them.” Turner noted the experience of Black and particularly queer Black individuals. Turner said calling this a constitutional crisis “feels unaccountable,” because “it’s always been a crisis for some people in this country.” Nevertheless, this is “a crucial point of change for better or worse,” Turner said—the only question being whether in the years to come we will be “building off or recovering from” the changes enacted at the federal level. Milwaukee’s Equal Rights Commission and the city’s chapter of the United Nations Associations host the annual event, open to the public. This year the event occurred at the Milwaukee Youth Arts Center.  Milwaukee City Hall. Photograph by Alexandria Staubach. By Alexandria Staubach
A large settlement moved one step closer to resolving claims of Milwaukee police misconduct, following a recommendation Monday by the city’s Judiciary and Legislation Committee. Meanwhile, while another city committee recommended a pay increase for officers. The Judiciary and Legislation Committee approved a budget-breaking $2.5 million settlement with the family of Keishon Thomas. Thomas died of an overdose in police custody in 2022, after officers failed to render care. That case has been the source of legal trouble for years. The family filed suit in Milwaukee County Circuit Court in February. Taxpayers would foot the bill for officers' inaction because the city of Milwaukee is self-insured. The proposed settlement now passes to the Common Council for approval. The payment would be among the most expensive in recent memory but for a $7 million payout to Danny Wilber in May. Wilber’s conviction was overturned after a federal appeals court found police misconduct resulted in an unfair trial. Wilber served 18 years in prison on the case. The committee also considered payment of $180,000 to Sedric Smith to resolve a federal case alleging constitutional violations by MPD officers. In a letter to the Milwaukee Common Council discussing the proposed settlement with Smith, City Attorney Evan Goyke and Deputy City Attorney Naomi Sanders wrote that “(s)ettlement is in the City’s best interest.” The committee postponed any recommendation on that settlement, however. Smith, who worked for a private security company at Ascension Columbia St. Mary’s Hospital, was stabbed by Edgar Padilla in early 2024. Prior to the stabbing, Padilla had launched himself and hurled racially charged insults at Smith inside the hospital’s parking structure. Smith, with the help of other private security officers, detained Padilla. According to court documents, Smith transferred Padilla to MPD custody as Padilla continued to “yell obscenities and engage in threatening behavior.” Smith then returned to patrolling the Columbia St. Mary’s emergency room. Officers Justin Arredondo and Jeremy A. Weber searched Padilla and located a knife in his backpack. The officers then called an ambulance to transfer Padilla to an emergency room. Neither officer secured or seized the knife before releasing Padilla to the ambulance, the complaint alleges. Neither officer accompanied Padilla to the emergency room at Columbia St. Mary’s, either. At the Columbia St. Mary's ER, Padilla was released into the care of the hospital “without police escort or order and with all of his belongings, including the knife,” the complaint states. Less than an hour later, Padilla stabbed Smith several times in the ER’s public restroom. While the 2025 budget originally proposed $3.5 million in allocations for settlements, ultimately only $1.9 million was approved. Since April, the Common Council has filled that gap by moving at least $3.8 million from the Common Council’s contingency fund to the damages and claims fund, and, for Wilber’s settlement, by using contingent borrowing. Contingent borrowing is a form of short-term, unplanned borrowing that was not anticipated in the year’s original budget. While the Judiciary and Legislative Committee was recommending the large settlement for the Thomas case, the city’s Finance and Personnel Committee at a simultaneous meeting recommended a resolution to ratify a final agreement between the city and the MPD that includes a 15% increase in pay for MPD officers. That resolution, now moving to the Common Council, takes the city and MPD one step closer to ending a nearly three-year battle over a contract predicted to require $51 million in additional salary funding to the department. Nov. 20 Note: This post has been corrected to reflect that the Judiciary and Legislative Committee postponed any vote on whether to recommend the Smith settlement to the Common Council.  The Wisconsin State Capitol. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach
A bill that could ensure continuity of care for those returning to the community from incarceration is moving at breakneck speed though the Legislature, as lawmakers scramble to catch up with other states having similar legislation already in place. The bill, AB604/SB598 was introduced in the Assembly Oct. 29 and in the Senate the following day. In just two weeks it passed through a committee in the Senate and had a public hearing in the Assembly’s Committee on Mental Health and Substance Abuse Prevention. Contrary to the speed with which the legislation is moving, the bill won’t benefit incarcerated Wisconsinites quite as quickly. The bill would require the Wisconsin Department of Health Services to submit by Jan. 1, 2027 a request to the federal Department of Health and Human services for waiver of federal Medicaid law to allow coverage for certain care prior to an individual’s release from prison. An imprisoned individual could then receive case management services and medication-assisted treatment for substance-use disorders during the 90 days before release, plus a 30-day supply of prescription medications for use after release. Under current law, individuals can apply for Medicaid coverage while incarcerated, but they are not actually enrolled until their release date. The proposed changes would not change who is eligible; they instead would move up the coverage date for certain care to shortly before release. “In rural areas, it can take weeks to see a primary care provider for medications and months to get behavioral services,” wrote the Wisconsin Counties Association in support of the bill. “When individuals are released without any support, outcomes are often poor,” the organization said. With a waiver in place, the state would receive reimbursement under the Medicaid program during the 90-day prerelease window. Without the waiver, the cost for any such medical services before release falls entirely on state and local governments. Written testimony from DHS suggests that a successful application for the federal funds would provide a “smoother care transition for incarcerated individuals,” and that prerelease coverage could reduce other Medicaid care costs, such as for inpatient stays. The Medical College of Wisconsin called the bill “a critical step toward improving health outcomes for a vulnerable population and reducing the burden on state and local governments.” “Nearly two-thirds of sentenced people in jails and 58 percent of those in state prison meet the clinical criteria for a substance abuse disorder, compared to just five percent of the general population,” wrote sponsor Rep. Clint P. Moses (R-Menomonie) in favor of the bill. He noted that “people leaving correctional facilities face up to a 40 times higher risk of overdose death within the first two weeks after release.” Gaps in care after release “contribute to recidivism, overdoses, and higher costs to taxpayers,” he said. “The savings generated through this federal match could be reinvested to expand treatment services and further reduce the financial burden on Wisconsin taxpayers,” Moses said. Nineteen other states have already enrolled in this federal matching program, which was introduced in 2023. States have to pass legislation permitting the waiver application.  Lovern. Photograph from the Milwaukee County website. By Alexandria Staubach Milwaukee County District Attorney Kent Lovern has responded to the State Public Defenders office accusation that his office is too close to community advocacy group Enough is Enough. Lovern defended his office’s interactions with the advocacy group in a letter sent last week to Chief Judge Carl Ashley. Lovern’s letter addressed the claim by attorneys in the SPD’s office that Enough is Enough’s “activities and formation have been closely coordinated with the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s office since its inception,” and that the group “should not be regarded as an independent grass roots organization.” Lovern told Ashley that “the District Attorney’s Office has provided an appropriate level of assistance to allow a community group to better understand and access the Milwaukee County criminal justice system.” He said his office provided support “with the spirit of facilitating greater access of community members to the important workings of its local government institutions, while maintaining the ethical tenets that govern our advocacy.” Enough is Enough initially reached out to Lovern in early 2024, after he announced he was running for district attorney, he said. The group shared their plans to serve as “a court watch entity to gather information about prosecution and sentencing practices.” After Lovern met with the nascent nonprofit group, he “indicated (his) general belief that more public engagement with our criminal justice system is always welcome.” He told Ashley it is important for the public to see “the difficulty of the work done on a daily basis” by government accountable to the community. Lovern told Ashley that after meeting with Enough is Enough, he asked Assistant District Attorney Joy Hammond to aid the group in its early efforts to understand the criminal justice system. Hammond then asked retired Assistant District Attorney Tom Potter to help. The SPD attorneys claimed that Hammond and Potter were particularly involved in the group’s initial formation. Lovern described Hammond as one of eight community prosecutors whose primary function is connecting community members with other institutions in Milwaukee County. Lovern said Hammond attended a few meetings with Enough is Enough over the course of a year. She also provided a courthouse tour for the group, met with a sitting judge and Enough is Enough in the courthouse cafeteria, and attended an off-site community event held by the group. Potter helped the group learn the Wisconsin Circuit Court Access Program (CCAP). Lovern found the most concerning assertion in the SPD letter to be the alleged editing by individuals related to the DA’s office of Enough is Enough communications to the judiciary. Lovern conceded that Potter helped edit a letter of introduction from the group to Ashley, but noted that Potter’s edits included a suggestion to “clearly establish the independence of (Enough is Enough) from the District Attorney’s Office.” Hammond contributed to a letter Enough is Enough intended to distribute to the community. “Hammond wrote four suggested paragraphs,” said Lovern. While he had not seen everything produced by the group, “I have not seen . . . writing that substantially contains the paragraphs written by Hammond,” he said. “There is no evidence that any member of the District Attorney’s Office has edited other (Enough is Enough) submissions to the Judiciary at large,” Lovern told Ashley. He said his office had not participated in “any community impact statements submitted to the courts” by Enough is Enough. Lovern listed two dozen other organizations with which his office has regular contact and said that Enough is Enough “is now one of those groups.” Lovern wrote that his office did provide Enough is Enough with copies of criminal complaints as the group got on its feet and learned how to navigate CCAP. Those “are obviously public documents,” he said, adding that his office’s assistance was “consistent with every other member of the public, including the media, who requests a copy.” A shared Dropbox folder in which fewer than 20 complaints were placed was used for several days. “There is no attempt to obfuscate the engagement (Enough is Enough) has with this office,” Lovern said. He highlighted that “SPD made special mention” that Enough is Enough intended to share its findings with the press, local leaders, and legislators. “This is precisely the function of court watch groups,” Lovern wrote. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed