​Name: Patricia A. Baker
 
Appointed to: Portage County Circuit Court
 
Appointment date: Dec. 7, 2020 (elected to a six-year term in April 2022)
 
Education:
Law School – University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
Undergraduate – University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota
High School – ​La Crosse Central High, La Crosse, Wisconsin
 
Recent legal employment:
March 2017-present – Private practice attorney, Kessler & Greer Law Office/ALR LLC, Stevens Point, Wisconsin
November 2011-March 2017 – Clerk of Circuit Court, Portage County, Wisconsin
December 2009-November 2011 – Assistant city attorney (part-time), Wausau, Wisconsin
October 2007-November 2011 – Assistant district attorney (part-time), Waushara County, Wisconsin
November 2005-December 2009 – Solo practioner, Stevens Point, Wisconsin
March 2000-November 2005 – Assistant district attorney, Marathon County, Wisconsin
 
Bar and Administrative Memberships:
State Bar of Wisconsin
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
 
General character of practice:
Approximately 30 percent is CPS (child protective services) and APS (adult protective services) Chips and guardianship matters - both as adverse counsel (parents and ward) and guardian ad litem work including Protective Placement reviews and initial petition matters. Another 30 percent is representation of parties in divorces and post-judgment work. I also work as a guardian ad litem in family cases. Approximately 30 percent is representation in criminal matters: felony, misdemeanor and probation revocation.
 
I work in four counties: Portage; Wood; Marathon and Waupaca. I have several civil matters and administrative review matters with WI. Dept of Families. I am also a Portage County Family Court mediator and conduct one to two mediations each month, as well as mediations for other types of matters.
 
Describe typical clients:
I am court-appointed in many cases however have many private clients in all of the above categories, as well. With regards to my criminal cases, I have slightly more female clients than male which is my choice. I believe that women frequently have different needs and goals in criminal court which are frequently not met by male attorneys. I also have multiple Legal Aid Society appointments where I represent indigent women in family cases.
 
Number of cases tried to verdict: Approximately 40-50 criminal and CPS jury trials
 
List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years:
1) K. S. was a Marathon County criminal case involving a young woman who was a child sexual assault survivor and a sexual exploitation victim. Many survivors have a tumultuous experience with law enforcement, and she was no different. When I met K.S. she was in jail having been arrested for residing with a drug dealer and having distribution quantity drugs and weapons located in her home. She was held in custody on a $10,000 cash bond. Our initial meeting was 2½ hours. It was clear she had made many poor choices based on an elementary need for companionship. She and I identified a strong support network for her - however they were all located in Milwaukee. I needed to get her out of the jail and to a place where she could receive the support and accountability that would set her up for success. My client had a significant criminal record. The District Attorney was seeking a lengthy prison sentence. He was opposed to her release on bond citing potential for escape, for non-appearance, potential for new crimes etc. I also needed to convince the judge, the former District Attorney, to reverse her decision to impose a $10,000 cash bond - something wholly unobtainable for my client.
 
We held a contested evidentiary motion hearing to modify her bond in 2019. I had multiple witnesses including the Executive Director from Lotus Legal Clinic in Milwaukee and a former Milwaukee County Family Court Commissioner testify as to the "plan" we created to support K.S, house her, and hold her accountable to the court.
 
At the conclusion of the hearing the Judge stated that she had never reversed an order for such a large cash bond, but felt that we had put together a plan for K.S. that could be successful. The judge released K.S. on a $10,000 signature bond and she never missed another court appearance. The longer that K.S. was in the community on bond, her chances to avoid prison improved. We went back to court for her sentencing approximately ten months later. By then, she established a solid track record that supported probation with possible early termination. This was a successful outcome for me; for K.S.; but also for the criminal justice system. K.S. is actively working with other exploitation survivors now. She is not taking a bed in Taycheedah and she is contributing to her community as a citizen now. I could not be prouder of K.S. and her accomplishments since my first meeting with her in the Marathon County Jail.
 
2) K.F. is a woman with a four-year-old daughter who was a product of an unprovable sexual assault. K.F. is indigent and did not have an attorney to defend against the challenge the biological father mounted against K.F.'s "good cause finding" to not reveal the identity of the father in the child support agency.
 
Once he found out through various small-town contacts that K.F. had given birth to his child he began using the legal system to harass her. He filed motion after motion badgering her into agreeing to a minimal placement order with the child. He continued with threats to take the child away from K.F. completely and permanently. The Guardian ad litem in the matter contacted me and asked if l would consider representing K.F. through the Portage County Legal Aid Society. I agreed to do so.
 
In the first hearing (November 2017) we were able to minimize the father's contact with the child until a variety of requirements were met, e.g. psychological evaluations and counseling. Since that time, we have held thirteen evidentiary hearings that have involved every family court challenge imaginable. We have involved Child Protective Services, restraining orders, multiple levels of law enforcement, multiple psychological professionals, and multiple medical professionals throughout these contested hearings. The father was ultimately diagnosed with significant psychological disorders that explain the ferocity of his legal demands in these proceedings. We also learned through a lengthy background investigation that the man left a trail of criminal convictions and unseemly activity in the state in which he had previously resided.
 
We do not yet have a final order in the matter but we have achieved sole legal custody for K.F. as well as primary physical placement and a variety of rules that protect the child and mother. The case is set for the fourteenth evidentiary hearing in the near future.
 
This case has been significant for me as this woman could have lost all rights to her only child but for my actions stepping in to give her a voice against a violent and abusive perpetrator. This case continues today, and I look forward to continuing to ensure that K.F. retains custody and primary placement of this child.
 
3) I recently represented a severely autistic 37 year old man who is the object of a guardianship and protective placement.
 
During my annual review of his case his guardian told me that he would like to have his right to vote reinstated. The man has been institutionalized his entire life. I met with him and conducted my own evaluation of his ability to comprehend the election process. After seeing his ability to communicate using a physical aid it was clear he was well-informed and capable of making an informed decision in the ballot box, with the use of an aid. I filed a petition on his behalf; we participated in a contested hearing as to his abilities and the court agreed that he was certainly intelligent, informed, and was worthy of regaining this constitutional right that had been removed 20 years earlier. The man and his family were elated that I was able to see past his disability and use the law to regain a cherished constitutional right.
 
Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies:
I represented E. B. in multiple felony forgery and fraud charges. She was an accomplished Nursing Assistant and had begun taking classes to become an R.N. With the felony charges, she had her name added to the "Caregiver Misconduct" registry. We appealed the decision and I negotiated a settlement with the WI Dept. of Families whereby her name would be removed after one year. I also contested a second "caregiver misconduct" registry case for a daycare owner. We went to a contested hearing and won. Her day care is now open and providing care to children today.
 
Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation).
I have participated in ADR [Alternative Dispute Resolution] training through Marquette University (1997 through 1999) and have also recently taken the University of Wisconsin Divorce and Family Mediation Training. I mediate approximately 1 to 2 family law matters every month for the Portage County Family Court Commissioner. The statutes limit us to mediating only custody and placement issues for the county. I have also been retained privately to mediate guardianships and other family matters.
 
Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization:
Treasurer, Veronica Isherwood for Portage County District Attorney (when she ran as a Democrat, unsuccessful)
 
Previous appointments and runs for public office:
Portage County Circuit Court, 2016 (lost in general election)
Village of Park Ridge trustee and president, 2012-2018 (appointed and then elected)
Stevens Point Area Public School District, 2014-2020 (won elections)
Portage County clerk of circuit court, 2011-2017 (appointed and then elected)
 
All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years:
Susan Happ, Wisconsin attorney general, 2014
Joanne Kloppenburg, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2011
Rebecca Dallet, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2018
Jill Karofsky, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2020
Katrina Shankland, Wisconsin Assembly, various
Julie Lassa, Wisconsin State Senate, various
Paul Piotrowski, Wisconsin State Senate, currently
 
Professional or civic and charitable organizations:
Portage County Bar Association, 1998-present; officer 2013-2016, including as president
Rotary of Greater Portage County, 2012-present, including as president
Community Foundation of Central Wisconsin, 2014-2020, including as president
Mid-State Independent Living Choices Inc., 2012-present, including as director and president
Wisconsin State Bar, Bar Relations committee, 2017-present
Wisconsin Judicare, Inc., director, 2017-present
Friends of Emerson Park, member, 2019-2020
 
Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service:
As listed … above, I have represented K.F. as a Portage County Legal Aid case since November 2017. I have logged nearly 200 hours of pro bono representation in her matter. (I have also paid for countless documents; certifications and subpoenas in her case, as I know she is unable to pay for these things).
 
Recently, a social worker called me and asked me to represent another young woman with an autistic child in a domestic abuse restraining order hearing to protect her and the child. I asked that the woman see if she qualified for Portage County Legal Aid Society representation and if yes, would handle the restraining order matter. She qualified. There was also an on-going CPS matter and the family court order needed to be modified. We held multiple evidentiary hearings to ensure that she and the child were protected from her abusive former boyfriend. I represented her in a day-long trial in her post-judgment family court matter, as well as the restraining order. We successfully changed custody and placement in the family matter and obtained an injunction which provided the protection my client and her vulnerable child needed.
 
I volunteered at a State Bar of Wisconsin "Wills for Heros" clinic for the Wausau Police Department in 2018. I saw what a terrific program it is and decided to organize a clinic in Portage County with the Bar Association. We held it in 2019 serving 40 police officers. I have attempted to organize a second clinic, however have been unable due to the pandemic.
 
Quotes:
 
Why I want to be a judge -- My greatest passion as a lawyer has been to represent those who might not have a voice in our justice system: the vulnerable child, an intimidated victim, or a senior who can no longer speak. It has been fulfilling to me to represent the State in criminal cases where justice was achieved for a victim; rehabilitation obtained for an addict, or expungement for a deserving teen. In every case, I advocate for the best result possible using the many tools that the justice system offers.
 
I have had a unique and varied legal path. Law was a second career for me, attending Madison while pregnant with my first and second children. In addition to being a lawyer, I have been a stay-at-home mom, a co-parent in a divorce, served as Clerk of Circuit Court and been a long-time school board member. I have been so much more than just a lawyer. Every position: prosecutor, defense attorney, guardian ad litem, Asst. City Attorney, and Clerk of Court has given me a unique perspective and a broader understanding of our complex justice system. It has also given me an opportunity to learn how the systems work and the tools that each area offers.
 
Attending law school was a privilege for me. I was the first person in our family to attend college. I can see the rungs on the ladder that were extended for me. My goal has always been to improve the lives of all I touch and to repay the opportunities that were given to me.
 
In every position I have held, I have worked to uphold our legal institutions by treating all people with respect and dignity. It is vital to understand that the litigants that enter the system might be dealing with one of their worst moments of their life; a divorce, an eviction, or addressing a crime.
 
The integrity of our legal system depends squarely on the integrity and empathy of the judges running those courts. It also relies on the judge appreciating that this case might be the most important moment in this litigant's life. This requires listening, humility, and empathy; qualities that I have always strived to demonstrate.
 
We must also acknowledge that our courts are at a crossroads: we have never had so many pro se litigants; our systems are being scrutinized for its treatment of people of color, and how it interfaces with law enforcement; we are using electronic technology in court hearings that lowers the decorum and perception of the courts. These issues must be addressed. My varied background gives me unique tools to understand and work towards resolution. I embrace the challenges these issues present.
 
My career path has been unique and varied; I have always tried to see the glass half-full, and I have embraced opportunities for improvement. Should I be appointed, I would bring all these life experiences to the bench.
 
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.
As a three-term member of the Stevens Point Board of Education, for me the case that has demonstrated a significant impact to residents of Wisconsin is Davis v Grover 166 Wis. 2nd 501, 480 N.W. 2d 460 (1992).
 
In the late 1980's then Governor Tommy Thompson advocated for a parental choice program to allow the State of Wisconsin to send taxpayer money to private schools to educate children. The first program was the Milwaukee Public Choice Program (MPCP) and was authorized as part of the budget bill in 1989. Actions by Superintendent of Public Instruction, Herbert J. Grover, caused a school parent Lanzetta Davis, and her daughter to challenge. The issues presented to the court were regarding the constitutionality of how the bill was enacted; the uniform district school clause and whether the classification of the bill, applying only to residents of a "first class city" was a violation of the Wisconsin Constitution, Sect. IV, Art. 18.
 
The Supreme Court, by a five to four majority ruled that the process by which the bill was created was constitutional and that the "first class city" classification was likewise constitutional. This despite only being available to "Milwaukee" residents.
 
The Supreme Court found that how the legislation was enacted - as part of the budget bill, to be constitutional. While they discussed the substantive issues of poverty in the City of Milwaukee that brought about the need for reform, the reality is those comments were nothing more than window­dressing for their analysis of whether the bill was a violation of the constitution.
 
Additionally, while they stated a controversial bill should be vigorously debated in both houses of the legislature, only the dissent points out the lack of such a debate in the full senate. The Supreme Court provided a defense of the goals of the program stating reform was necessary due to the "monumentally oppressive poverty problems as found in first class cities...". However, this was nothing more than dicta, as the real issue before them was the process by which the bill was passed - as part of the budget.
 
Once this method of passing school legislation (via the budget) was deemed constitutional, it created a gateway for subsequent legislation which allowed religious schools to receive funding via the choice program in 1994. It also set the stage for the dramatic statewide expansion of school choice throughout Wisconsin in 2011. Today the State spends over $145 million on private school vouchers annually and every dollar is taken from the local public school district.
 
The majority created a precedent which justified this process of enacting controversial legislation. The precedent has affected local school districts across the state since its decision. The result of this decision by the Supreme Court has impacted the delivery of education to generations of Wisconsin schoolchildren.
 
Two or three judges whom I admire and why:
While I have worked with many wonderful judges these three stand out in my personal experience:
 
Hon. Jill Falstad, Circuit Court Branch 1, Marathon County
I worked with Judge Jill Falstad when she was District Attorney for Marathon County. I can state unequivocally that she was my mentor and the person that instilled in me my work ethic. When people state that I am thorough and well-prepared, the credit all goes to Judge Falstad. We co-counseled multiple jury trials in which I learned the benefit of preparation.
 
Additionally, she has always pursued justice with a passion and done "the right thing" even when that meant doing the most difficult thing. We once disagreed on a disposition in a domestic abuse homicide. While we disagreed, she displayed a remarkable sense of compassion and never swayed from seeking justice in the case.
 
When District Attorney Falstad ascended to the bench in Marathon County, I knew she would take that work ethic, her dogged pursuit of justice, and deep compassion with her. While she turned out to be a tough sentencing judge, my clients who appeared in her court were always treated with respect, dignity, and listened to thoughtfully. If I am appointed to the bench I will aspire to be as thorough, as thoughtful, and as compassionate as her.
 
Hon. Gregory Grau: Circuit Court Branch 4, Marathon County
I had the good fortune of trying multiple jury trials in front of Judge Grau when I worked as an Assistant District Attorney in Marathon County. I have chosen Judge Grau because he pushed me to "find the authority" for every decision. I recall my law professors telling us to always look to the statutes. I received the same admonition from Judge Grau asking "what is your authority for that?" countless times. A good judge listens but also demands preparation and a solid footing upon which decisions are to be made. Judge Grau was that judge - demanding the best from those appearing in front of him. He pushed me to reach farther, work harder, and always know the authority for which I made my requests. He was an outstanding role model.
 
Hon. Frederic Fleishauer: Circuit Court Branch 1, Portage County
I appeared before Judge Fleishauer more times than I can count. He was always thoroughly versed in the statutes and case law and an excellent jurist. However, I am listing him here because of my admiration for his leadership in our community. Judge Fleishauer advocated tirelessly for thoughtful problem-solving in the justice system. He was the catalyst for the creation of the Portage County Justice Coalition more than twenty years ago; our pre-trial supervision program for OWI offenders; and a private organization (Justiceworks Ltd.) to provide mentors and other alternative programs in the criminal justice system. He was deeply involved in our community, a true advocate for justice, and embodied the role of leader of the Portage County Justice system.
 
The proper role of a judge:
A Circuit Court Judge is a leader in the county justice system, a role model and moral compass for a community. In the courtroom the judge needs to exhibit decorum but also listen carefully to all parties. Respect for all people in the courtroom is essential.
 
Most people will enter a courtroom only once or twice in their lifetimes. It may be one of the most difficult moments in that person's life. A judge must remember that while day-to-day hearings might become rote and routine, for the person seated in front of them, this might be the most critical moment of their life. A judge must give that interaction the great weight such an encounter deserves.
 
The court must base its rulings on the proper authority, be it statutes or case law. A judge must be prepared and well-versed in the applicable statutes and case law. A Circuit Court judge does not make law, but rather applies existing law to the situation before it, even when the judge may not agree with the applicable law. When a judge rules, they should clearly explain the basis upon which they are relying. A recitation of the relevant facts is essential to understand why the judge ruled the way they did.
 
A Circuit Court judge respects the role of the jury as the finder-of-fact and equally respects the constitutional role of jurors in the justice process.
 
It is important for the judge to be perceived by all as fair and impartial in all matters. When there is a perception that it might not be possible to appear to be fair and impartial, the judge must be prepared to recuse him or herself and allow another court to handle the matter.
 
A judge realizes the power of their words - they can encourage a defendant to improve themselves, speak to divorcing parents about the value of co-parenting and mutual respect, or motivate a litigant toward rehabilitation.
 
The role of the judge in treatment or alternative rehabilitation programs is monumental. The judge can empathize with a defendant, inspire, motivate, or buoy up a relapsed defendant. As a team member for treatment courts, the judge bears the ultimate responsibility when a defendant fails and needs consequences or to be expelled from the program.
 
Outside of the courtroom the judge is a community leader and the face of the county justice system. The judge must be able to turn a blind eye to criticisms for unpopular rulings.
 
The judge's personal life is on display, as well. Actions by the judge and his or her family in the community must be beyond reproach. A judge should consider themselves a role model for good citizenship.
 
Lastly, the role of the judge is to be an ambassador for the justice system. A judge listens, and cares deeply for the integrity of the justice system. A good judge imbues respect in all ways for our constitutional form of government.

Case File

​During ten days in spring 2021, Kelsey Alexandra Grams landed herself in criminal legal trouble twice. Her second criminal case included a charge of misdemeanor bail jumping.

From April 30 to May 1, 2021, Grams called 9-1-1 more than 170 times from her residence in Superior. Sometimes she hung up and sometimes she laughed or screamed or told jokes. Other times she provided information including, among other things, that there were two dead bodies in her basement, someone was shot in her backyard, someone stole her child’s toys from her yard, she was running a sex trafficking ring, someone was peeping in her windows, and there was an overdose death next door.

Squads were dispatched to Grams’ residence multiple times. One officer in particular responded to the residence at least four times and spent more than two hours there. Grams sometimes talked with him or yelled at him, and other times she did not. 

Officers investigated the residence next door and found it was empty.

After Grams failed to stop calling 9-1-1, officers obtained a warrant and arrested her inside her residence. They found no bodies on the property.

Grams was charged on May 3, 2021, with three counts of false-emergency (9-1-1) phone use. Each misdemeanor count exposed Grams to a fine of between $100 and $600 and 90 days in jail.

Court Commissioner Rebecca Lovejoy released Grams on a $1000 signature bond. By law, release conditions included that Grams not commit any crimes.

Just four days later, on May 7, police responded to a call from a social worker for the Douglas County Department of Health and Human Services. The social worker reported that she was working on a child custody case involving Grams.

The social worker had just found voicemail messages from Grams from the evening of May 6 and morning of May 7. In one message, Grams said she knew where her child was and that if the child was not returned to her “’it wouldn’t be pretty.’” In another, Grams said that if the social worker did not return Grams’ child the social worker would be “’lucky to survive.’” 

The social worker said she feared for her safety and that of the foster family caring for Grams’ child because Grams knew their address.

Officers found Grams and arrested her. 

On May 10, 2021, Grams was charged with felony stalking and misdemeanor bail jumping because of the release condition in the prior case that she not commit any crimes. The felony carried a potential three and a half years in prison and $10,000 fine. The misdemeanor bail jumping carried a potential nine months in custody and $10,000 fine.

Lovejoy set $500 cash bail and conditions that Grams not contact the social worker or foster parents.

Grams did not pay the cash bail amount and remained in custody. The court denied a request by Grams’ attorney to replace the cash bond with a signature bond.

On July 12, 2021, Grams pleaded no contest to one count of false-emergency phone use in the first case and an amended misdemeanor charge of unlawful use of a phone in the second case. The other false-emergency counts and the bail-jumping count were dismissed as part of a plea agreement.

Douglas County Circuit Judge Kelly J. Thimm sentenced Grams on the false-emergency count to 89 days in jail, with 67 days of credit for time served, and a $100 fine plus court costs. On the unlawful-phone-use count Thimm imposed 60 days in jail (with no sentence credit) but stayed that custody and imposed two years of probation, and a $25 fine plus court costs. 
​
Thimm also ordered Grams to have no contact with the social worker.

Our methodology: WJI and Mastantuono Coffee & Thomas determined the number of felony and misdemeanor bail-jumping cases and charges in each county through court data. The total number of felony and misdemeanor cases filed in a county was obtained through the state's online court system. Cases selected for the "case file" section are chosen randomly through a random number-generator web site. Facts set forth in the case file section are allegations from criminal complaints.

The intent of the project is to show a variety of bail-jumping cases and the frequency with which such charges are made.

​"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: LaKeisha D. Haase
 
Appointed to: Winnebago County Circuit Court
 
Appointment date: Dec. 7, 2020 (defeated in April 2022 election)
 
Education:
Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, Oshkosh
High School – Franklin High, Franklin, Wisconsin

​Recent legal employment:
February 2019-present – Associate attorney, paralegal supervisor, Hogan Eickhoff, S.C., Appleton, Wisconsin
September 2011-January 2019 – Assistant state public defender, Office of State Public Defender, Appleton, Wisconsin
 
Bar and Administrative Memberships:
State Bar of Wisconsin
U.S. District Court
 
General character of practice:
The general character of my current practice consists of Family Law - pre and post-disposition; criminal defense to include minor traffic offenses through Class A felonies, revocation proceedings before Administrative Law Judges; CHIPs proceedings where I represent both parents and children; Termination of Parental Rights proceedings representing both children and parents; Civil Litigation limited to Injunction Proceedings; Chapter 51 Commitments; and Chapter 54 and 55 proceedings.
 
Number of cases tried to verdict: 4
 
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:
Injunction proceeding in Manitowoc County before Court Commissioner Charles Wingrove - the petitioner - wife alleged that my client, the respondent - spouse, sexually assaulted her throughout the court of the relationship and petitioned the court for an injunction. My client had a prior sexual assault conviction and was a registered sex offender. I obtained text messages between the parties. I was able to illicit testimony at the proceeding proving that the petitioner created the allegations due to infidelity and my client choosing to leave the marriage. My client was afraid that the injunction would jeopardize his placement with his children in the subsequent divorce proceedings. My client was fearful of testifying due to his past convictions. I spent a significant amount of time preparing my client for testimony. The petition for injunction was denied. Following the hearing, the clerk ran after me to not only congratulate me but inform me that throughout the proceeding she was messaging other clerks about the hearing because she was impressed with my preparation and professionalism. She also informed me that the court commissioner is rarely impressed by any counsel and responded positively to my representation of counsel, my professionalism, and preparedness. She then urged me to take more cases in Manitowoc County.
 
2nd degree and 3rd degree sexual assault in Brown County before the Honorable Donald Zuidmuilder …. The state alleged that my client sexually assaulted his family friend after a night out of drinking at a concert. The state moved to admit other acts. Specifically, the state wanted to admit evidence of the client grabbing another individual's breast years earlier in Michigan. As co-counsel for the client, a police officer, I drafted the objection for other acts. My primary role as co-counsel was to cross-examine the alleged victim at trial. My objection to the state's motion for other acts was successful and the court denied the state's motion. In preparation for trial, I reviewed the text message exchanges between the alleged victim and her husband which led to defense preparing to present additional motions to include the exchanges at trial. The state eventually dismissed the case, I believe, in part on the strong defense presented during pretrial hearings and telephone conferences with the state. Unfortunately, the state did refile the case later.
 
I am co-counsel to a client on a 1st Degree Intentional Homicide charge in Outagamie County before the Honorable Gregory B. Gill, Jr. … I am the eighth attorney that has been appointed and the only attorney that has not been fired by the client. This case has been scheduled for trial on three separate occasions and the adjournments have not been due to defense counsel. My involvement in this case is significant because of my commitment to representing people of color, specifically, black men that are incarcerated in smaller counties in Wisconsin on higher level offenses. I am aware of the lack of legal representation from attorney's of color in the State of Wisconsin and I am all to familiar with the desire of clients to trust the judicial system even if it is a small fraction by way of their counsel. This client has expressed his appreciation of having an attorney of color represent him, an attorney that understands the cultural differences and dynamics that are important for him. My representation of this client has been nothing short of zealous advocacy but I also developed a relationship with him that is built on likeness and understanding that prior counsel could never provide.
 
Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies:
While employed with the Office of the State Public Defender I represented defendant's in revocation proceedings. As an Assistant State Public Defender, I represented countless clients in revocation proceedings.
 
In private practice, I continue to represent clients at revocation proceedings, I have represented four clients in revocation proceedings while in private practice; three of which I was successful in avoiding revocation and one was a waiver of right to a revocation hearing.
 
Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation).
Outagamie County Drug and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Court (DATC) - As defense counsel team member, I was an integral part of the Drug Court team, I participated in pre-court staffings, hearings, team communication and decision making, information sharing, and team training.
 
Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: N/A
 
Previous runs for public office: N/A
 
All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: N/A
 
Professional or civic and charitable organizations:
Women in Management, 2020 to present
Wisconsin Association of African American Lawyers, 2011 to present
Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, 2019 to present
National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, 2020 to present
Winnebago County Bar Association, 2019 to present
 
Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service:
As an Assistant State Public Defender I was restricted from practicing or volunteering in any legal capacity outside of the agency.
 
As an Assistant State Public Defender, I was a member of the Affirmative Action Equal Employment Opportunity Advisory Committee, the Outagamie County Coordinating Counsel Committee, the Outagamie County Racial Disparity Committee, and the Outagamie County Evidence Based Decision Making Committee.
 
As a student at Marquette University Law School, I volunteered at the Family Law Clinic, Small Claims Clinic, and the Pro Bono Legal Clinic.
 
Prior to law school and while an employee at the Winnebago County Courthouse, I volunteered at the Legal Self Help Clinic and the Drunk Driving Victim Impact Panel.
 
Quotes:
Why I want to be a judge:
I want to serve the people of Wisconsin as a Judge because I believe in the need to have a fair and impartial judiciary. I believe that a fair and impartial judiciary must be made up of individuals who are educated, compassionate, and diverse.
I have practiced in the State of Wisconsin for over 9 years. I have approached every case and client with professionalism and respect. I have used my voice and position as an attorney as both learning and teachable moments. I have spent countless hours in the courtroom. I have practiced before Judges in over 12 different counties. I know that every person, is deserving of respect.
I want to serve the people of Wisconsin, as Circuit Court Judge, for the same reasons that I chose to become an attorney, and that is to have a lasting impact on people, regardless of the case, the litigant, or the party.
 
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.
Although, there are many cases that have had an impact, whether negative, on positive, on Wisconsin citizens, Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee greatly impacted the citizens of Wisconsin. The 5-4 decision by the United States Supreme Court, has allowed for a minute fraction of residents to have an overwhelming, bull-horn, influence in elections while essentially muting the microphone of Wisconsin citizens as it relates to local politics and issues specific to Wisconsin residents.
 
Two or three judges whom I admire and why:
One Judge that I admire is Retired Judge Thomas Gritton, Winnebago County. I had the pleasure to work for Judge Gritton as his court assistant. As a former prosecutor, Judge Gritton was committed to educating himself on all areas of the law to make an informed and impartial decision in every case before him.
 
I was able to witness firsthand the respect he gave every person, regardless of the case, that entered his courtroom. I had a front row seat to the decisions he had to make and the thought that he put into each case whether it was a civil matter, criminal, family, or a minor traffic offense. The cases and tough decisions were at times difficult for him, yet he never treated, even the simplest of cases, as though the parties were not impacted by the justice system and ultimately impacted by him.
 
Judge Gritton’s time on the bench was never about just getting cases through the system. I vividly recall walking through the doors of the Winnebago County Courthouse with Judge Gritton one afternoon when a woman walked up to him, calling out his name. She reminded him of her criminal case and sentence; it was a prison sentence and the first and only time she was sentenced to prison. To my surprise, she thanked him. She thanked him for the words at her hearing and thanked him for sending her to prison. She expressed that admittedly when he sentenced her, she was angry and upset. She went on to tell him that over time she thought about what he told her and was determined to turn her life.
 
In addition to Judge Gritton, there are many other Judges and Justices that I admire, but a true standout is Justice Sonia Sotomayor. As a Justice, even when she is not a part of the majority, she speaks up. Her dissents as it relates to race, gender, criminal justice reform and discrimination are powerful, moving, and educational. Her reputation of extending kindness and respect to parties is well known.
 
The proper role of a judge:
The proper role of a Judge is to be a courtroom administrator. A judge is to interpret the law while apply the laws to the facts of a case while remaining impartial. A judge must be fully prepared to rule on matters, listen intently, and do the necessary work to lead to an informed, educated, and impartial decision. A judge has a duty to every person that enters the courtroom to treat them with respect, show dignity, and rule according to the law.
 
A Judge must bring respect and dignity to the bench. A judge must learn and teach. I previously spoke of teachable moments, but it is clear that a judge has a duty to the community to teach and inform of those areas of the law that impacts the community.

Largest number of bail-jumping charges issued in a single case: 10
Number of felony bail-jumping charges issued: 155
​Number of misdemeanor bail-jumping charges issued: 60
​
*Felony cases can include felony or misdemeanor bail-jumping charges or both; misdemeanor cases can include only misdemeanor bail-jumping charges. Case counts reported as of January 2022. Criminal traffic cases are not included in this analysis.

Case File

Domestic disputes, anger, and threats of self-harm landed Keyan Watts with disorderly conduct and property damage charges plus three misdemeanor bail-jumping charges.

Watts had been acting strangely at work at the Brick Lot Bar and Grill the evening of January 20, 2021. A co-worker thought Watts was under the influence of something other than alcohol.

The friend accompanied Watts home around 12:40 a.m. Watt’s girlfriend thought Watts was drunk and belligerent, and she went to the garage to smoke a cigarette.  She was trying to avoid an argument because their children were sleeping. The two had been arguing off and on for several days.

Watts followed her to the garage and swore at her. When the girlfriend shut the door to the garage, Watts punched through a window in the door.

Watts and his friend left the house for the emergency room, where Watts received stitches and a splint for his hand. The friend wanted Watts to stay with him but Watts refused. The two returned to Watts’ house but Watts’ girlfriend had locked the doors.

Sturgeon Bay police responded after Watts called them to report being locked out. The officers thought Watts was intoxicated, as he slurred his speech and swayed.

After talking with the girlfriend, the officers tried to persuade Watts to go his friend’s house, but Watts started yelling at the officers to arrest him. After Watts walked away down the street yelling and swearing, the officers indeed arrested him.

Watts was charged later that day with domestic-abuse disorderly conduct and criminal damage to property, both as a repeater due to his prior drug-possession felony. Both charges were misdemeanors but the repeater allegation increased potential custody on each count to two years, with potential fines of $1,000 and $10,000.

Door County Circuit Judge David Weber set cash bail at $250 with several conditions. He ordered Watts to maintain absolute sobriety, not possess or consume alcohol, not possess controlled substances without a prescription, have no violent contact with his girlfriend, and not go to bars or taverns except for work.

Watts’ mother posted bail for him.

On March 27, 2021, Watts’ mother called Sturgeon Bay police to report that Watts was having a meltdown and threatening suicide over a dispute with his girlfriend about whether she was having an affair.

When officers arrived at the girlfriend’s house around 4 a.m., they could see and hear Watts and his girlfriend arguing in the garage.

Watts cooperated with the officers but was upset and crying. He smelled of intoxicants and slurred his speech.

While an officer talked with Watts, dispatch indicated that Watts had an open misdemeanor case with an absolute sobriety release condition.

Watts admitted to drinking alcohol and submitted to a preliminary breath test that registered 0.178%.

He was charged on April 21 with one count of misdemeanor bail jumping for violating the sobriety condition.

On April 27, 2021, Sturgeon Bay police were dispatched to Watts’ girlfriend’s house on a report from a woman on FaceTime with Watts’ girlfriend that Watts had a knife to his throat. The friend said there were children in the house and she thought both Watts and his girlfriend were intoxicated.

Officers responded with lights and sirens. When they arrived at the house they saw Watts through a bathroom window. Watts held a large knife in his hand but then dropped it in the sink and left the room.

Police announced their presence and entered through the side door. They passed the girlfriend and began clearing the house with guns drawn while making sure the children were safe.

They found Watts in bed in an upper-level room. They handcuffed him because they had seen him with a knife. Watts had bloodshot eyes, was slurring his speech, and smelled of intoxicants. He did not cooperate with the officers.

Watts’ girlfriend told officers that Watts had been caring for their children while she was at work. When she arrived home around 2:15 a.m. they began discussing their relationship. They each consumed shots of liquor while they talked.

Watts became angry and started yelling. His girlfriend recorded their encounter.

She played the recordings for one of the officers, who heard an argument become so loud that a child began screaming for it to stop. The girlfriend remained calm through most of the exchange.

The girlfriend told officers that a loud pounding noise in the recordings was Watts hitting the wall.

Officers heard Watts in the recordings say that his girlfriend needed to find a new father for the kids because he was going to be in a coffin. He several times mentioned being dead.

The girlfriend reported that Watts had walked to the children’s rooms and kissed them, telling them goodbye. He then picked up a kitchen knife and placed it against his neck. At that point the girlfriend contacted her friend by FaceTime so the friend could witness what was happening.

During questioning, Watts consented to a breath test, which registered 0.225%. He told officers that he would “’test dirty for marijuana’” as well.

Watts was transported to the Door County Medical Center for a crisis evaluation.

On April 28, 2021, Watts was charged with domestic-abuse disorderly conduct with use of a dangerous weapon as a repeater, exposing him to a fine of $1,000 and up to 30 months in custody. The complaint included two counts of misdemeanor bail jumping as a repeater, each with possible penalties of $10,000 and nine months in jail.

Door County Circuit Judge D. Todd Ehlers set cash bond at $250 in each case, with conditions of absolute sobriety, no possession or consumption of alcohol, no possession of drug paraphernalia or controlled substances without a prescription, no bars or taverns except for work, and no contact with the girlfriend except regarding placement of their children.

On December 9, 2021, Watts resolved all three cases by pleading no contest to domestic-abuse disorderly conduct in the first case and domestic-abuse disorderly conduct and a count of misdemeanor bail jumping in the third case. The state dropped the dangerous-weapon enhancement.

All other charges were dismissed but “read in.” Read-in charges are dismissed as part of a plea agreement, but the defendant agrees that the court can consider the charges at sentencing.

Weber sentenced Watts to 30 days on each of the three counts of conviction, consecutive, with work-release privileges.

Our methodology: WJI and Mastantuono Coffee & Thomas determined the number of felony and misdemeanor bail-jumping cases and charges in each county through court data. The total number of felony and misdemeanor cases filed in a county was obtained through the state's online court system. Cases selected for the "case file" section are chosen randomly through a random number-generator web site. Facts set forth in the case file section are allegations from criminal complaints.

The intent of the project is to show a variety of bail-jumping cases and the frequency with which such charges are made.
​

​Nationwide, 95% of incumbent district attorneys win reelection, and few even face an opponent. The bigger the district, the more money is generally spent on elections, and reform candidates bring in more money, including from out of state, says a researcher.

But according to some district attorneys, political party affiliation plays little to no role in performance of their jobs.

A national researcher and three current or former district attorneys spoke on a panel at the Marquette University Law School on Tuesday about how politics and prosecutors intersect. Marquette Law professor Michael O’Hear moderated.

Professor Carissa Byrne Hessick began the event describing research she and others are doing in the Prosecutors and Politics Project at the University of North Carolina School of Law. The project’s members gather data, analyze trends, and publish findings — and even op-eds — regarding prosecutors. Hessick is the project’s director.

After Hessick presented some of the project’s findings, Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, Marathon County District Attorney Theresa Wetzsteon, and former Winnebago County District Attorney Christian Gossett responded with their reactions and a discussion of issues facing prosecutors in Wisconsin.

Hessick indicated that more than 2300 district attorneys are elected across the country, with 45 states electing their local prosecutors for terms of between two and eight years. Within the election states, only five have nonpartisan district attorney offices, she said.  

Hessick and her fellow researches studied data on all 2016 prosecutor races across the country. The project has not yet analyzed 2020 election data.

The researchers found that 95% of all incumbent elected prosecutors won their 2016 reelection campaigns. That percentage confirmed the finding of another researcher’s smaller study a decade earlier, she said.

Both nationally and in Wisconsin, only 30% of prosecutors faced an opponent in either the primary or general election. The larger the district, the more likely an election was contested, the project found.

Even most open seats are uncontested, she said.

The project found that size of a district also corresponds to the amount of money spent on campaigns. With one aberration regarding Jefferson County District Attorney Susan Happ, the general rule applied in Wisconsin, with the most expensive races in Milwaukee, Dane, and Racine counties in that order, Hessick said. (The district attorneys on the panel suggested that Happ’s campaign numbers may have included money from her previous race for attorney general.)

Hessick noted that the project looked only at money raised by candidates themselves, not at “dark money” coming into the race from outside sources. Information on outside funding is too difficult to acquire, she said.

Hessick relayed the project’s additional research on prosecutors lobbying for legislation. The project looked at every criminal justice bill across the country from 2015 to 2017 to see who was lobbying for or against it.

The researchers found that prosecutors generally are more likely to see success in getting bills they support passed than in blocking bills they oppose, she said. Prosecutors were also found more successful in arguing for criminal justice reforms rather than for harsher legislation, she said.

Regarding legislation in Wisconsin, the project saw more written testimony or lobbying from the state attorney general’s office than from the district attorneys’ association.

The Wisconsin District Attorneys Association is a voluntary association of criminal prosecutors from across the state.

Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm explained that the prosecutors’ association primarily advocates for more staff and funding rather than for criminal law changes.

Compensation for district attorneys and their staff was a significant topic for the DAs on the panel.

Gossett and Chisholm noted how rules regarding DA pay have restricted compensation such that many city attorneys now make $30,000 more than their county's DA.

Even staff below the DAs can earn more. Gossett said he resigned his DA position and took the Deputy DA spot, thereby getting an immediate raise of $17,000. He indicated that 40 of 71 DAs would get a pay raise by stepping down, and nine have done so this year.

The pay rate and, for small counties, a lack of attorneys interested in the job could explain the dearth of contested elections. Wetzsteon described how in recent elections too few people showed interest in running for Marathon County judge; candidates had to be recruited.

Gossett and Wetzsteon pointed out how DA positions differ between large and smaller counties. Gossett noted that out of 71 DA offices across the state only four have more than 20 prosecutors.

In smaller counties, like Marathon and even Winnebago, the DA is a “working” DA still prosecuting cases in court, Wetzsteon and Gossett said.

In those counties, partisanship gets blown out of proportion and the DAs are just trying to run their offices to get the job done and keep the community safe, Gossett said. He indicated that he was a Republican DA, and Tony Evers appointed his replacement, but the office runs the same.

Regarding Hessick’s research on prosecutors influencing legislation, Wetzsteon indicated that records regarding lobbying on bills would not reflect times when legislators contacts DAs for advice about how certain proposed legislation would work. The DAs can be approached as experts and influence legislation that way, even if they do not seek out bills to weigh in on, she suggested.

When O’Hear asked what qualifications a prosecutor should have, Wetzsteon replied that for smaller counties, the DA must be able to actually try cases in court. Political parties looking for candidates may not take that into account, she had indicated earlier.

She added that prosecutors need to be able to make good decisions quickly and “need to know [their] stuff” when called in the middle of the night about a search warrant.

Chisholm had earlier referred to a managerial aspect of the DA job, indicating that during 16 years as DA he has hired 225 prosecutors. Gossett later echoed how the DA position is one of constant training.  

When hiring prosecutors, Chisholm looks for good people who “want to do justice.” Gossett said he looks for humility, as the job is to help solve problems and be a part of the community.

Chisholm added that DAs have to both protect the people who work for them and be transparent when “something goes sideways.” He noted the tremendous pressure on DAs “to do the right thing” rather than be political at those times.

​To study bail jumping in Wisconsin, WJI and the Mastantuono Coffee & Thomas law firm are looking county by county at 2021 bail-jumping charges. Which counties are charging bail jumping the most? Who are some of the defendants? What happens to those cases? We'll report the statistics from individual counties and tell you the stories from randomly chosen cases.

Case File

Despite being underage, Ty J. Thom frequently drank alcohol. And despite having no driver’s license, Ty J. Thom frequently drove — at high speeds and while under the influence.

His various traffic infractions landed him with seven charges for misdemeanor bail jumping.

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

A bail-jumping offense may not itself be a crime. Missing a court date, violating a local ordinance, having a drink, or driving without a valid license could all be bail-jumping offenses if bond conditions prohibit the activity.

Criminal complaints allege that Thom had at least five underage alcohol convictions between January and April 2020 and that by April 2021 his Department of Transportation driving record was 22 pages long.

Thom won’t turn 21 until 2023.

A string of criminal infractions started for Thom on August 19, 2020, at about 11:00 p.m., when he blew past a Dodge County sheriff’s deputy in the Town of Hustisford. Radar showed Thom’s Ford traveling at speeds from 93 to 96 mph.

When stopped by the deputy, Thom gave the deputy an identification card and admitted he didn’t have a license. Thom said he did not know how fast he was going because his speedometer stopped working after hitting 50 mph.

A check of Thom’s record showed a prior conviction for operating without a valid license.

On October 2, 2020, Thom was charged in a criminal traffic case with operating without a license (OWL) as a second offense within three years. The charge exposed Thom to 30 days in custody and a $300 fine.

Dodge County Commissioner Steven Seim released Thom a few days later on a $500 signature bond, with a condition that Thom not operate a motor vehicle without a valid Wisconsin driver’s license.

On November 2, 2020, Thom pleaded no contest to the charge. Dodge County Circuit Judge Martin De Vries approved a deferred prosecution agreement and withheld a finding of guilt. He continued the bond condition.

However, Thom did not stop driving without a valid license.

On January 8, 2021, a Ford F-250 pickup drove past two sheriff’s deputies who were handling a possibly impaired driver on a county road around 2:30 a.m.

After the truck passed by three times, with the occupants screaming, one of the deputies followed the truck and saw it had a defective brake light and crossed both the center line and white lane marker. Radar and the deputy’s speedometer showed the truck at 75 mph in a 55-mph zone.

The deputy conducted a traffic stop in the Town of Theresa. Thom, the driver, admitted he did not have a driver’s license.

The deputy thought Thom's speech was slurred, his eyes were glassy, and he smelled of alcohol.

When the deputy asked how much alcohol Thom drank that night and where he drank it, Thom said "enough" and "it's for me to know." He refused to complete field sobriety tests, but a preliminary breath test read .197. 

Thom consented to a blood draw after he was arrested. He was not charged right away. 

Meanwhile, Thom kept driving.

On January 13, 2021, a City of Beaver Dam police officer was monitoring traffic at 1:00 a.m. when he heard a loud engine revving and tires spinning against pavement. The officer then observed a Ford pickup traveling at high speed.

Dispatch had broadcast a prior complaint about a matching vehicle “doing ’burnouts’.” Dispatch indicated the plate number of the suspect vehicle and that it was recently purchased by Thom.

The officer knew Thom from previous police contacts and knew that Thom’s bond conditions restricted his operation of a motor vehicle.

The officer followed the truck and saw that the license plate matched the dispatch report. He saw a silver object like a beer can thrown from the passenger side of the truck.

The officer conducted a traffic stop and confirmed Thom was the driver. The officer saw an open beer can in the center console of the truck. None of the four passengers with Thom was age 21 or older.

The officer told Thom to step out of the car four times, but Thom did not comply. The officer then reached for Thom’s left wrist to gain control of him and direct him out of the truck, but Thom cocked his arm backwards.
The officer struck Thom to prevent being hit and to get Thom out of the truck.

Thom’s passengers told the officer that they had told Thom “not to ‘whip that donut’.”

Thom was taken to the Beaver Dam police station for sobriety tests, but he did not fully cooperate. He consented to a blood test.

Thom was charged criminally that same day with resisting an officer and misdemeanor bail jumping for violating the condition in the OWL case that he not operate a motor vehicle without a license.

The resisting charge and new bail-jumping charge each carried a maximum penalty of a $10,000 fine and nine months in jail.

Thom received municipal citations for first-offense operating while intoxicated (OWI-1st), operating with a suspended driver’s license, open intoxicants in a motor vehicle, and disorderly conduct with a motor vehicle.

On January 14, 2021, Seim again released Thom on a $500 signature bond with the condition that he not drive without a valid driver’s license.

Following the new charges, in February 2021 De Vries revoked the deferred prosecution agreement, found Thom guilty of the OWL charge, and imposed a $100 fine plus court costs.

Thom defaulted and was found guilty on the municipal citations on February 17, with a blood-alcohol finding of .169. On the OWI-1st conviction, the court revoked Thom’s license for eight months, ordered an ignition interlock device, and ordered him to pay $937.

Nevertheless, Thom kept driving.

On March 21, 2021, a Beaver Dam police officer was dispatched to Fleet Farm around 6:00 p.m. after a caller reported a Chevrolet Cobalt doing donuts in the parking lot. The caller provided a license plate number.

​"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: Tricia L. Walker
 
Appointed to: Fond du Lac County Circuit Court
 
Appointment date: Nov. 24, 2020 (elected to a six-year term in April 2022)
 
Education:
Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Platteville
High School – Northern Ozaukee High, Fredonia, Wisconsin
​
Recent legal employment:
July 2010-present – Attorney/owner, Law Office of Tricia L. Walker, LLC, Campbellsport, Wisconsin
January 2010-June 2014 – Adjunct professor, Bryant and Stratton College, Madison, Wisconsin
August 2010-January 2011 – Adjunct professor, Northeastern Wisconsin Technical College, Platteville, Wisconsin
August 2010-January 2011 – Adjunct professor, Fox Valley Technical College, Appleton, Wisconsin
February 2010-June 2010 – Associate attorney, Mum and Martin, SC, Waukesha, Wisconsin
September 2009-December 2009 – Attorney, Friends of Abused Families, West Bend, Wisconsin
June 2006-August 2009 – Associate attorney, Dahlberg Przybyla Law, Jackson, Wisconsin
 
Bar and Administrative Memberships:
State Bar of Wisconsin
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
 
General character of practice:
I am a solo practitioner. I handle the practice areas of criminal defense, family law, basic estate planning, CHIPS, restraining orders, guardianship, small claims, evictions and Guardian ad Litem. I have previously worked on matters including personal injury, contract, intentional torts, life insurance, business and LLC organization, general business law and pharmacuetical legal work.
 
Describe typical clients:
I work with a variety of people due to the diverse nature of my practice. My focus areas are criminal defense, CHIPS, family law and guardian ad. litem work. I work with everyone from children to prisoners. I am particularly well known as a guardian ad litem for Fond du Lac County due to my thorough work in this area.
 
Number of cases tried to verdict: 13 (approximate)
 
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:
The trial case that stands out to me is In RE the marriage of [redacted] (it is sealed on CCAP by order of the court) …. I became attorney of record on 10/10/2014 and my most recent appearance occurred in 2019. I remain attorney of record in this matter. The original trial was bifurcated; the issues surrounding the children were heard on April 9, 2015 and the issues surrounding finances were heard on June 24, 2015.
 
I became involved in this matter as a pro bono appointment through Legal Action of Wisconsin. I took this case on due to the husband's severe level of abuse towards both the wife and the minor children. My client was … a lovely person who is one of many people who have managed to escape an abusive marriage. Her bravery in facing a man who had beaten her and her children is both heartbreaking and inspiring. This case is significant because her case is the worst level of child abuse I have ever had to work on. I also handled it while pregnant and I had to fight to remain on the case due to a disagreement with the judge on how my pregnancy would affect the scheduling of the case.
 
Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies:
My primary experience with administrative work is as a defense counsel for revocation of probation matters and OWI administrative suspension. I have handled dozens of revocations, whether we go to a full hearing or if we manage to resolve prior to a hearing. I have handled a few OWI administrative suspension hearings. The limited amount of OWI administrative hearings is due to the short time limits on the same.
 
Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation):
I have participated in mediations as a family law attorney and a GAL for the minor children on multiple occassions. I represented parties in a number of mediations when I practiced personal injury law. I handled one case as an attorney mediator for a divorce.
 
Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: None
 
Previous runs for public office: None
 
All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years:
Michael Kenitz, Circuit Court judge, 2020
 
Professional or civic and charitable organizations:
Mahala’s Hope (substance abuse facility), board member, August 2020-present
Campbellsport Theater, board member, 2009-present
Campbellsport Library, board member and treasurer, 2011-2018
Peace United Church of Christ, member and service on committees, 2014-present at various points
 
Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service:
I volunteer at the family law legal clinic in Fond du Lac, which is a monthly clinic. I volunteer approximately three times per year. During this volunteer work, I give general advice and help direct pro se litigants to the correct paperwork for their matter. I have also worked with Legal Action through their referral service.
 
As a private attorney, I have viewed it as my duty to take lower financial value cases, such as State Public Defender appointments and participation in the modest means program through the Wisconsin State Bar.
 
Quotes:
 
Why I want to be a judge:
I wish to serve as a Fond du Lac County Circuit Court Judge because I bring a wide knowledge base due to my practice of law that will positively serve both the community and litigants. I also believe that my diversity in both life and legal experience brings a different viewpoint to the bench.
 
Our courts are currently filled with judges who have had very similar life experiences. This is even truer in rural Wisconsin. As an attorney, I know what it’s like to be the only person in the room that looks like me. I have been mistaken for a court reporter, client or interpreter over the years, despite carrying my briefcase filled with legal files and being appropriately attired at courthouse. I have spoken English to an attorney only to receive the short retort that he “does not speak Spanish” (which is probably weirder since I am Asian). I have experienced discrimination in its most blatant and insidious forms.
 
One might ask why does diversity matter on the bench? It matters in all the ways representation matters. When we help amplify voices for people from differing backgrounds, we help achieve justice through understanding and compassion. People from differing backgrounds bring a varied insight to the bench that can lead to a positive public enrichment. It means that I also recognize discrimination from my seat and that I would do my very best to make sure that our judicial system will not tolerate injustice. It means that I would want to make sure that every voice has an opportunity to be heard in the courtroom.
 
I wish to elevate to being a judge so I may run a fair bench with an academic approach to deciding matters. I am a former adjunct lecturer and the daughter of two educators who taught me to carefully explain and defend my positions. I will be the teacher’s child even on the bench. This means I will speak carefully and plainly to litigants without condescension or careless words. We have all had amazing educators in our lives and the best teachers rarely had to yell to get their point across. I would bring that type of academic approach to the bench. I would require litigants and attorneys to engage in respectful discourse. I would be properly prepared for court. I would remain open to learning new areas and expanding my knowledge base.
 
I want to be a judge who makes careful decisions based on the legal record. I want to continue the local drug court program, which is in jeopardy of being eliminated if the new judge will not continue it. I simply believe we cannot incarcerate addiction out of people and that if a person can endure the rigors of drug court then they have a better chance of success in sobriety.
 
I want to be a judge because I believe that I can do the job well.
 
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:
The case I feel that had the most positive affect on the people of Wisconsin is Obergefell vs. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). As the panel and Governor Evers will know, this is the case that determined that same sex marriage is legal in all fifty states.
 
Marriage equality has long reaching legal ramifications. Obergefell had the impact of legitimizing thousands of same sex unions. The majority decision noted that “[n]o union is more profound than marriage” and the litigants simply asked for “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.” The impact of this decision resonated in an immediate change of legal issues within family law, estate planning, adoption, foster care, and health care law. As an attorney who has addressed family law issues and estate planning, this had an obvious effect on my clients and their lives. It also had an effect on criminal matters where domestic violence victims in a same sex relationship were now mandated to be treated with equality instead of derision by some courts.
 
Prior to Obergefell, we were treating LGTBQ Americans as second-class citizens. It was the “separate but equal” for a new millennium with an appalling Plessy v. Ferguson sensation to it. With the patchwork quilt of states determining that a marriage will not be recognized in State A but recognized in State B and other states recognizing civil unions but not marriage, we created a shocking and dehumanizing standard in our country. Wisconsin was part of that legacy as we did not recognize same sex marriage. More than that, Obergefell is a case that amplified the holding in Loving v. Virginia. Without the holding in Loving, my own life would be very different. I would not be married to my husband and I would not be the mother of three biracial children. I see how Obergefell will affect my children’s generation through my own experience.
 
Obergefell is not safe from attack. As recently shown in the dissents by Justice Thomas and Alito in the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the Kim Davis appeal, there are justices that wish to scale back equality. As Americans and as people who should care for each other, we should be judged on how we treat people who hold different principles and life experiences. We should not view that our experiences are the only ones with value. It is only when we can recognize that all people deserve equality under the law that we are truly a country that lives up to the premise that all people are created equal.
 
Obergefell is a case that touches us all because equality in the law touches us all.
 
Two or three judges whom I admire and why:
The obvious answer is that we all stand on the shoulders of the notorious RBG. She helped women open the door to equality. I adore her ability to reach across the political aisle to befriend Antonin Scalia, which caused RBG to sharpen her own dissents. There are so many accolades that could be heaped upon her that I could not possibly stay within the word limit and therefore I shall simply state it is an honor to walk the path she helped forge for all people.
 
I also admire Judge Jean DiMotto, judge emeritus from Milwaukee County. When I was a young attorney, fresh out of law school, I had the privilege of being in her court. The hearing would now be a cake walk, but at the time I’m sure I was slightly terrified. When we were done with our hearing, she took me into chambers. She welcomed me to the profession and kindly engaged me in a lively discussion. She discussed her own experiences as both a woman and an attorney and how it affected her career. In short, she took the time to explain to a baby attorney that we have all been there. In her time on the bench, I saw the same person who brought a sense of warmth and understanding. Her character shone through both on and off the bench. I followed her blog when she was undergoing chemotherapy and her eloquence continued with a self-deprecating fighting spirit. I found her to be a wonderfully effective judge and a person who deserves my utmost respect. I am simply sad that I did not appear in front of her more often.
 
I have an enduring admiration for Justice Sonia Sotomayer. She’s a person who will never tone back her true self for policy or appearance. As the first Latina on the Supreme Court, she has adopted retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s pet project of civics education. She goes beyond the standard law school visits and takes the time to even visit elementary schools. This is a beautiful way to engage the average person in a discourse on important issues. Her background as an educator provides her with insight on direct engagement with the public and introduces these foundational ideas to possible future litigators and future decisionmakers. I prefer her “of the people touch” to an ivory tower mentality. I believe that judges best serve our public when they do not forget what the average person comprehends and would interpret the law. While I don’t always agree with the “hot bench” mentality she brings forth, I appreciate that the best judges ask insightful questions and forces the litigants and attorneys to be properly prepared. I think she has more than earned my respect through her rigorous defense of the Fourth Amendment. She and Justice Gorsuch often join forces to address Fourth Amendment issues. This is important because it shows that our Constitution is not for playing politics but for enforcing protections provided to all people within our borders.
 
The proper role of a judge:
A judge is to be physical manifestation of justice in a courtroom. It is his/her/their job to establish order, maintain procedure, determine evidentiary propriety and weigh the standards of each case.
 
A judge should take the time to be properly prepared. This can mean requiring information prior to hearings or at minimum reviewing the court record/filings prior to a hearing. No one should have to endure the judge who is first reading the filings while seated at the bench. A judge should not unreasonably delay decisions. People need finality and the legal process is expensive for most people.
 
A judge should be wary of even the appearance of impropriety. It is incumbent upon judges to enter the courtroom with an open mind and a listening ear. A judge should treat all with respect. A circuit court judge sets the tone for all following hearings and should be aware that the decisions of the court affect individuals directly and can bend the course of an individual’s life.
 
A judge should be compassionate. This is not to say lenient but rather to be conscious of the distress that a decision can render towards litigants. I have been in front of judges who can send a person to prison with compassion. I have been in front of judges who feel that screaming about a minor infraction is a worthwhile venture. I think a judge should reserve harsh words for the litigant who will not respond to any other method. I think a judge should remember that the strict rules and procedures still have a human element to it. I do not think that a judge should treat litigants or attorneys with disdain over human conditions.
 
A judge is bound by the laws and the precedents and should view cases through that lens. It is particularly important that a judge adheres to those requirements to make a proper record to avoid appellate congestion. A judge who disregards the law does no one any justice or civil service.
 
I believe that attorneys who have spent time doing litigation will best understand that a judge should take the time to explain the reasoning for each decision. It creates the best record but more importantly, it helps the litigants understand the decision and feel heard. Many litigants will never return to court and this is the only impression they will have of our justice system. A litigant should walk away from the court feeling that a judge understood the facts even if he/she/they disagreed on the application of those facts to the law. I believe that where a judge engages in this behavior, the litigants and attorneys walk away with a more thorough understanding of the experience.
 
In short, a judge will be the line of defense to prevent an unjust result. A judge should be mindful of this great honor and utilize his/her/their words carefully to provide for a proper functioning courtroom.

Recent Marquette Law School polls reflect voters’ contradictory positions on safety and crime.

Although 77% of respondents report feeling personally safe from crime when going about their daily activities, an even larger percentage of respondents nevertheless cite crime as a top concern and want increased police funding.

In the latest poll results, a whopping 85% of respondents are either “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about crime. Indeed, 57% of respondents said they are “very concerned” about crime. Only 14% reported little or no concern about crime.

Among those polled, crime ranks third overall among nine issues of concern, behind inflation and public schools.

With respondents sorted by political affiliation, 79% of Republicans and 55% of independents are very concerned about crime, but only 37% of Democrats are very concerned about crime.

Increased police funding is favored by a majority of respondents regardless of political affiliation.

Overall, 78% of all respondents favor increasing state funding for police. By political affiliation, 95% of Republicans, 80% of independents, and 58% of Democrats favor increased police funding.

Charles Franklin, director of the Marquette Law School Poll, announced the latest results at a presentation at the law school on Wednesday.

The poll measured opinions of 802 registered Wisconsin voters and was conducted between Oct. 24 and Nov. 1.

A prior recent Marquette Law School poll, released on Oct. 12, measured opinions on safety. When respondents were asked whether they felt safe from crime when going about their daily activities or whether they were worried about safety, 71% of Republicans, 76% of Independents, and 86% of Democrats responded that they felt safe.

Paru Shah, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, explains the conflicting data on personal safety versus concern about crime.

The significant concern about crime as an issue likely stems not from one’s own sense of safety but from political messaging of who is hard or soft on crime and how one affiliates with political parties, Shah said in an interview with the Wisconsin Justice Initiative.

Those who identify with political talk about being hard on crime will more likely identify crime as an issue to be addressed when asked, she indicated. It’s not about “the actual ‘what’s happening in your neighborhood,’” but rather the messages that people hear about crime happening, she said.

“Crime” can also be coded language for Milwaukee, Shah said. Even someone who does not live in Milwaukee can consider crime to be a problem if Milwaukee is seen as a drain on resources. “People in Wisconsin probably do feel pretty safe,” but the narrative of a “big city that is kind of scary, is out there,” she said.

“Issues matter, but partisanship is the lens in which we look at those issues,” Shah said.

As noted by both Franklin when presenting the latest poll results and Shah after she looked at the numbers, the top three issues cited by Republicans do not overlap with those cited by Democrats.

Republicans cite accurate vote counts, inflation, and crime as their top three issues, while Democrats cite abortion policy, gun violence, and public schools.
​
Four of those issues — accurate vote counts, crime, abortion policy, and gun violence — may be seen as related to the justice system and recent cases in the courts.

Wisconsin Justice Initiative today urged Milwaukee County voters to tell legislators what they think about marijuana legalization.

Milwaukee County voters will see a legalization referendum question on the November 8 ballot.

The question asks whether voters favor “allowing adults 21 years of age and older to engage in the personal use of marijuana, while also regulating commercial marijuana-related activities, and imposing a tax on the sale of marijuana.”

At the press conference, WJI President Craig Johnson discussed criminal justice-based reasons for legalization, including the need to end sanctions that are enforced disproportionately against people of color. Current felony sanctions for possession cause lifelong harm by serving as a gateway into the criminal justice system, he said.

Johnson was joined by Wisconsin Justice Initiative Action President Joseph Czarnezki. Czarnezki summarized the benefits of taxing revenue from marijuana sales. “Our neighboring states, Michigan and Illinois, have legalized it. Why should we be sending all our tax dollars to those states?” he said.

Czarnezki noted that in a similar referendum in Milwaukee County four years ago, voters overwhelmingly voted “yes” for legalization. The current referendum is necessary because of the “need to keep the pressure on the state Legislature,” he said.

Milwaukee County Supervisor Ryan Clancy, who sponsored the resolution putting the referendum on the ballot, highlighted how criminalization hampers hiring and employment efforts. “These things are not just locking people up, it’s not just putting people back in jail and giving more work to our Milwaukee County employees, but it’s keeping people from getting jobs in the first place.”

Wisconsin Sen. Melissa Agard talked of the legislative bills she has sponsored for a decade. Those bills have been blocked or stuck in the Legislature, and voters need to tell legislators to get them moving, she said.

Cannabis educator and researcher Brad Rowe discussed how legalization and licensing of marijuana create safer usage and the opportunity for open discussion about marijuana use. For instance, someone using marijuana could call for medical help without the response of police officers as well, he noted. He described how current law impedes research into the medical benefits of cannabis for treatment of chronic pain, nausea, or other conditions.

Andrew Hysell of Forever Wisconsin served as emcee of the press conference.
​
Similar referendums will be on the ballots in Dane and Eau Claire counties and in the cities of Stevens Point, Kenosha, Racine, Appleton, and Superior.

WJI supports the legalization of marijuana to avoid the disparate and severe impact on minority communities.

Listen to a recording of the press conference by clicking the arrow at the top of this story.