|
By Alexandria Staubach
Leaders from a coalition of Wisconsin anti-abortion advocacy organizations are calling on Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm and Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne to prosecute abortions. The activists held a press conference on Tuesday. Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin resumed abortion services in Milwaukee and Dane counties on Sept. 18 after a 15-month hiatus. Services resumed following a July ruling from Dane County Circuit Court Judge Diane Schlipper. Schlipper ruled in a case filed by Attorney General Josh Kaul seeking to repeal Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion ban. In denying a motion to dismiss by Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski, Schlipper said the 1849 ban does not use the word “abortion” and therefore does not apply to medical abortions. Rather, the 1849 ban only prohibits attacks on women to terminate pregnancy. No final ruling has been made in the case, nor has an injunction on the 1849 abortion ban been issued, causing some legal confusion. The case is ultimately expected to end up before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Representatives from Wisconsin Right to Life, Wisconsin Family Action and Pro-Life Wisconsin convened at the State Capitol to call out Chisholm and Ozanne for not bringing charges against Planned Parenthood one week and one day after services resumed. “Planned Parenthood is perpetrating this crime and they should be held accountable,” said Matt Sande, legislative and deputy state director for Pro-Life Wisconsin. Although no one stated how or that they knew abortions were actively taking place at either Planned Parenthood facility, Dan Miller, state director of Pro-Life Wisconsin, said “sidewalk counselors” present at both the Dane County and Milwaukee County Planned Parenthood clinics observed approximately 10 women go in for services daily since the June 2022 Dobbs decision and that this number was up to 25 per day at both facilities after Planned Parenthood announced it would resume abortion services last week. “If district attorneys pick and choose what law they enforce, where will that end," asked Julaine Appling, president of Wisconsin Family Action. When asked whether non-enforcement was simply a matter of ordinary prosecutorial discretion, she responded “prosecutorial discretion usually is very quiet.” All agreed they had not spoken with either district attorney.
0 Comments
By Amy Rabideau Silvers  Meta Berger in 1910. Photograph courtesy of the Wisconsin Historical Society. Image 52054. More than a decade before the 19th Amendment gave American women the right to vote, Meta Berger was elected as one of the first women to serve on the Milwaukee School Board. She came to politics through her famous husband, Victor Berger, a leader in the Socialist Party. That was not enough to prepare her when the party nominated her as a candidate in the 1909 school board race, just seven years after women in Wisconsin won the right to vote in school board elections. She was, in her own words, “surprised, shocked and frightened.” Meta wired her husband, asking him what to do. “Do nothing, except to accept the honor,” came the answer. “You won’t be elected anyway.” But win she did, part of a wave of Socialist victories that put her reform-minded party in control of local politics. She ran again despite her husband’s reservations. “When I am alone and thinking the matter over—then it always comes to me again that I don’t want either you or the children to take a prominent part in public life,” he once wrote. “You are not adapted to it at all … although (I am sorry to say) that you have acquired a little taste for it through your work on the school board. When your term is over I don’t want you to run again.” Meta ran and won reelection, going on to serve 30 years on the board, including as its president from 1915-1916. She also apparently won her husband’s acceptance of her political role, evident in a letter he wrote to one of their daughters. “Sometimes I wonder whether you girls sufficiently prize the fact that your mother is the first women in America who has ever achieved the honor of being elected president of a school board. And the first Socialist president at that … man or woman.” Through it all, Meta lived her Socialist values. “As a school director, Meta supported progressive measures such as playground construction, 'penny lunches,' free textbooks, and medical inspection of schoolchildren,” according to Kimberly Swanson in the introduction to a memoir written by Meta in the last year of her life. It was published as A Milwaukee Woman’s Life on the Left / The Autobiography of Meta Berger, edited by Swanson and published by the Wisconsin Historical Society Press in 2001. “She was also a teachers’ advocate and worked for their tenure, a firm salary schedule, and a pension system,” Swanson continued in her introduction. “Though she was not always successful in her efforts—she failed, for example, in her attempt to provide free textbooks—her fellow school directors nonetheless respected her ‘clear thinking, fresh interest and enthusiasm.’” One victory came at her very first school board meeting. “My fear left me even before the close of the meeting over a question which had aroused my interest and indignation,” Meta wrote in her memoir. “The board was going to discriminate against women by ruling that no woman, no matter how qualified, could become the head of a department in any high school course and was going to replace a woman who had served in such a capacity for a number of years. … “I forgot everything except that I must defend women and their rights, so made my first speech in the school board. It must have been pretty good for I won the fight and women there-after could hold positions equal in rank with men.” Early life—and a political awakening Meta was born in 1873 to a Milwaukee couple, Bernhard and Matilda Schlichting, who came to America from Germany as children. Her father briefly served as a Republican in the state Legislature and then in an appointed position with the Milwaukee schools. Perhaps most importantly in Meta’s life, he also hired a young immigrant, Victor Berger, to teach German classes. Victor proved a friend to the family after Bernhard’s death in 1883. The family struggled financially, with her mother taking in boarders. Meta graduated from the Wisconsin State Normal School, a forerunner to the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, in 1894. She taught for three years before resigning her position to marry Victor, 13 years her senior, in 1897. Their marriage proved a loving relationship but not without its struggles, emotional and otherwise. Victor was an opinionated, sometimes volatile man. The family’s finances were often precarious at best, including as Victor struggled to keep his newspapers afloat and accomplish the work of the Socialist Party. “Soon a change in my life took place,” Meta wrote in her memoir. “My husband came home saying he was to attend a Socialist national convention in Chicago (in 1904) within a few days. Again I felt I was left behind. … without saying a word I determined to attend that convention too. I didn’t know quite yet how it was to be managed, but go I would.” She managed to do just that, turning up much to her husband’s amazement. “The convention was a turning point in my life,” she wrote. “I was so interested, so excited, so fired with enthusiasm when I heard those scholarly speeches and arguments, some of which I understood and some I didn’t. But the general drift of the purpose of the convention slowly drifted into my consciousness.” Meta resolved to attend all conventions with her husband, becoming increasingly active, which led to her school board nomination. Other notable roles followed, including appointments to the Wisconsin State Board of Education (1917-1918), the Wisconsin Board of Regents of Normal Schools (1927-1928), and the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents (1928-1934). Meta grew in confidence, someone who would voice her own opinions in all kinds of settings, as she did at her first meeting as a normal schools regent. Budgets, she then said, were being figured too closely, schools allowed to deteriorate. The board was “trying to shield the poor legislators by not being too hard on them in our requests.” “I for one would go before them and put the responsibility squarely on their shoulder. If we maintain a fire-trap then the refusal for the money to repair such conditions must be theirs,” the new regent told her fellow board members. “I guess I threw a bomb alright enough. The whole board was up in arms at once and didn’t know just what to do with such an unruly member.” She was actively involved in the suffrage and peace movements, although she sometimes felt a level of scrutiny for her Socialist ways and found those activists to be “well meaning but not courageous.” “Socialist women—even those of middle-class origin, like Meta—identified with the working class and questioned economic arrangements … (and) social traditions,” Swanson said in her writing. “She demonstrated her commitment to expanding women’s roles through her educational and suffrage work, for example, by defending the right of married women to teach,” according to Swanson. “She once criticized a fellow Socialist for making a ‘purely moral’ argument in favor of woman suffrage, meaning that she disapproved of arguments for change based solely on supposed moral differences between men and women. A firm proponent of equal rights, Meta may have sensed that emphasizing differences hindered rather than furthered women’s integration into public life.” Washington and wartime politics In 1910, Victor Berger was elected to the U.S. Congress on the Socialist ticket, necessitating the family’s move to Washington, D.C. “My husband had to resign as alderman in order to represent the Fifth District of Wisconsin in Washington,” according to Meta. “Now not only local problems but national problems were brought into the home. … Naturally everyone in the whole country wanted to know who this lone Socialist congressman elect was and what he was like.” He served until 1913 but was elected again in 1918. Nothing about that victory proved simple. Victor was elected after his indictment under the Espionage Act of 1917, passed soon after the U.S. entered what is now called World War I. His fellow congressmen refused to allow him to take his seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Victor and four other defendants were tried in federal court in Chicago. Victor was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Then they learned the conditions for bail pending an appeal. Each man would be released only on $100,000 bond, secured by unencumbered real estate in Illinois. The bail would have to be raised within hours, by the end of the day, or they would be taken to prison. Meta and their Socialist Party friends began raising money. “We began at once to telephone friends and known liberals,” Meta wrote. “I had to call up perfect strangers and say something like this … ‘I am the wife of Victor Berger who was sentenced to serve twenty years in the penitentiary. My husband and the four other defendants must go to prison tonight unless we can raise the sum of $500,000 in unencumbered real-estate. I am told that possibly you would be willing to sign for part of the bond. Will you? Will you keep five men out of prison, pending an appeal of the case?’” The effort worked, with supporters helping to raise more than the $500,000 needed. “We finally got back to the office of the bonding clerk to discover the room filled with people, the legal looking deeds to their property held in their hands or protruding from their pockets,” she said in her writing. A few quick postscripts are in order here. Congress declared Victor’s seat open, necessitating a special election late in 1919. He won with even more votes, but again Congress refused to seat him. Yet another election followed, and Milwaukee voters finally choose a non-Berger candidate to be represented in Washington. In 1921, the conviction was voided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which found that the judge, who had publicly made anti-German and anti-Socialist remarks, should not have heard the case. Victor ran again for Congress, serving from 1923 to 1929.  Meta Berger circa 1925. Photograph courtesy of the Wisconsin Historical Society. Image 123868. The final chapters Meta became a widow during the summer of 1929. Her husband was struck by a streetcar while crossing the street outside his newspaper office. He died of his injuries three weeks later. Victor Berger’s body lay in state at Milwaukee City Hall, and 75,000 people came to pay their respects. In the following decade, Meta did not hew to the official Socialist Party lines. She explored Communist affiliations and friendships, even traveling to Russia, though she never joined the Communist Party. While the Socialist Party had long had its own philosophies and factions, Meta’s actions were no longer acceptable. In 1940, after she was asked to withdraw from “communist-front” organizations, she instead chose to resign from her longtime party. She died in 1944 at a family home in Thiensville. “Meta Schlichting Berger served her community and her country, as well as her husband and family, by helping to shape her century for the better,” wrote historian Genevieve G. McBride in the forward to Meta’s memoir. “There is no better testament to a life lived well, nor to the lessons she left for the next generation.”  This project is supported by grants from   "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: Anderson M. Gansner
Appointed to: Milwaukee County Circuit Court Appointment date: May 25, 2023 (term ends July 31, 2024) Education: Law School – Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois Undergraduate – Pomona College, Claremont, California High School – Madison West High, Madison, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: November 2013-present – Associate federal defender, Federal Defender Services of Wisconsin, Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin October 2010-October 2013 – Associate, Gass Turek LLC, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Colorado State Bar (currently inactive) Illinois State Bar (currently inactive) General character of practice: I serve as an associate federal defender, representing indigent people in federal criminal cases. My organization does not have divisions, so I handle all types of cases at all levels. I defend clients in many drug, gun, and robbery cases, but also work on child pornography, human trafficking, arson, criminal immigration, postal theft, and mail, wire, and bank fraud cases. To give a few examples, I defended a businessman who lied to his bank about the collateral for a loan, a brain-damaged young woman who robbed several taxi drivers and faced a 31-year mandatory minimum prison sentence, and a married father of two who shined a laser pointer at an FBI surveillance plane. Substantively, I build relationships with my clients and their families, analyze discovery, investigate cases, research case law and my clients' backgrounds, study relevant current events and social science, negotiate with prosecutors, litigate pretrial motions, argue at sentencing and detention hearings, try cases, write appellate briefs and sentencing memos, assist clients in revocation proceedings, and seek post-sentencing relief. Describe typical clients: My typical clients are young, low-income men of color from urban Milwaukee. Most do not have a high school education and struggle with substance abuse, mental illness, developmental disorders, or trauma history. I have developed expertise in firearms and fraud cases, sentencing advocacy, and post-sentencing litigation. In 2019, I began helping clients convicted of crack cocaine offenses in the 1990s and 2000s and medically vulnerable clients seek early release from prison. Number of cases tried to verdict: 5 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: United States v. Randy Johnson, Case No. 14-cr-25 (E.D. Wis. 2014; Randa, J.). Along with my colleague Juval Scott, I defended Randy Johnson from February 2014 until October 2018. … Mr. Johnson had been sitting in an SUV with four family members and friends outside a liquor store. The SUV was running with its lights on, and the driver, Mr. Johnson's older sister, had just gone inside the store. But she had stopped the SUV a few feet too close to the nearest crosswalk, a loading zone under state law. Four police officers in two cars drove by, saw the SUV for a few seconds, then blocked it in with their squad cars. All four officers ran to the car, opened its doors, shined flashlights in the occupants' faces, and ordered them to put their hands in the air. The officers claimed they did all this to investigate a possible parking infraction. After officers found a gun on the floor of the SUV, Mr. Johnson was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. We moved to suppress, alleging that the police didn't watch the SUV long enough to reasonably suspect that it was illegally parked instead of properly loading or unloading. In addition, we argued that a parking violation is too trivial an offense to justify such a forceful seizure. We lost in the district court and again on appeal, but the Seventh Circuit granted rehearing en banc, which it hardly ever does. At the en banc argument, we thought we had enough votes to prevail. But after Judge Posner retired, the Seventh Circuit ruled against us, again. We filed for certiorari in the Supreme Court, but the petition was ultimately denied. I filed the pretrial motions, examined the officers at a pretrial hearing, represented Mr. Johnson at sentencing, wrote his appellate briefs and the petition for rehearing en banc, argued his case on appeal, and worked on his cert. petition. As far as its significance, we have all stopped in loading zones. No one should be forcefully seized by multiple officers simply for doing that. The stop also occurred in Milwaukee's 53206 neighborhood. Everyone in the car was Black; none of the police officers were. Thus the dissenting Seventh Circuit judges noted that police would never act this way in a wealthier, Whiter area. The case received some media attention, with commentators calling it a case of "parking while black." Although I remain disappointed in the result, I haven't seen a case since where officers conducted similar stops for parking infractions. I hope that the case helped discourage that behavior. United States v. Trulunda Stenson, Case No. 16-cr-48 (E.D. Wis.; Pepper, J.). I represented Ms. Stenson from March 2016 to November 2017. … The government claimed my client had filed false tax returns: some for paying clients and others using stolen personal information. Trial lasted a week. We showed that other people had used Ms. Stenson's home to file and prepare false tax returns, and that no one had seen her prepare or submit the majority of the charged returns. Yet the jury found Ms. Stenson guilty on all counts. At her two-hour sentencing, the government asked for 54 months in prison, we asked for 25, and the court imposed 30, just six over the 24-month minimum. I was lead counsel at trial and sentencing. Ms. Stenson has since been released from prison. The case is significant because of the length of the trial, the complexity of the trial and sentencing issues, the impact the case had on me (showing how imperfect our legal system can be), and the impact it had on my client. United States v. Dexter Anderson, Case No. 03-cr-261 (E.D. Wis.; Griesbach, J.). I represented Mr. Anderson from March to June of 2019. … Mr. Anderson was convicted of running a crack cocaine conspiracy in 2003 and 2004. By the time I met him, he had been in custody for 15 years. [Details redacted] I came in to help him with requesting a reduced sentence under the First Step Act: a December 2018 criminal justice reform bill. One of the Act's provisions allows for some defendants who were convicted of crack offenses to return to court and ask for lower sentences. Mr. Anderson had a long history as a pro se litigant, felt that his original case had gone poorly, and didn't trust me at first. At a hearing in Green Bay, where over a dozen of his family members drove up from Milwaukee, the court reduced his sentence from 25 years to time served, cutting several years off of his sentence. A few days later, his sisters threw him a birthday party at the Benihana in downtown Milwaukee. . . . This case was significant because of the impact it had on Mr. Anderson and his family and because it was the first contested First Step Act resentencing hearing in my district. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: While in private practice, I represented pro bono a single mother sued by the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families (DCF). DCF claimed that my client had received excess childcare benefits—money that had gone directly to her children's daycare providers—and was demanding that she pay back tens of thousands of dollars, more than twice her annual income, even though the overpayment was not my client’s fault. Rather, DCF had misclassified her job. I met with my client several times, filed motions to dismiss DCF’s case, and represented her at a hearing before an administrative law judge where I presented her and several other witnesses. The ALJ ruled against us, we appealed, and the state dropped the case, due to a legal issue that I had raised in one of our motions to dismiss. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). While in civil practice, I participated in several mediations, with each one ultimately leading to a settlement. These included a contractual dispute between a health insurer and a subcontractor, and the negotiated buyout of a local small business. I have also worked on several commercial arbitration cases—in commercial construction disputes and a financial services matter—taking depositions, reviewing discovery, and drafting pleadings. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Volunteer for Deb Andraca and Emily Siegrist state assembly campaigns, 2020 Volunteer for Biden/Harris presidential campaign, 2020 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: Menasha Corporation Foundation, board member, 2010-2015 Eastern District of Wisconsin Bar Association, member, 2013-present Milwaukee Bar Association, member, 2014-present Friends of Estabrook Park, member, 2019-present Friends of the Shorewood Public Library, member, 2019-present National Association for the Public Defense, member, 2020-present Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: Beyond the DCF case described above, while in private practice I represented pro bono a young woman in a direct appeal of a robbery conviction where we challenged her sentence. While in law school, I voluntereed at the Bluhm Legal Clinic in Chicago, where I helped draft a civil complaint on behalf of a wrongfully convicted man who had been tortured into confessing by Chicago police. That case later settled for $5.5 million. Also working at the Bluhm Legal Clinic, I drafted and argued a successful motion to suppress that led to the dismissal of charges against a mentally ill man who was being retried for robbery. He had been convicted of stealing 50 cents and an adult bookstore token from a homeless man, and had already spent a decade in prison. See Brown v. Stemes, 304 F.3d 677 (7th Cir. 2002). Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: Because I care about the people in my community. I became a lawyer and a federal defender because I knew that our legal system doesn’t always live up to its ideals. The wealthy get one type of justice, while the poor get another; cases take years to resolve, leaving defendants, victims, and the injured unheard and confused; and judges regularly impose long prison sentences without considering their efficacy and their personal and financial toll. Many see the system as rigged and broken. They believe that the court system doesn’t care about and can’t address their problems. As a public defender in the federal courts, I fight this perception by giving my clients the best defense possible. I do this by listening to and learning from them, showing them that I care about their lives and problems, and doing whatever I can to help them. But at the end of the day, I am just a defense attorney. So I am applying to serve as a judge because I want to do more. I want to bring the same attention, care, and consideration that I strive to bring as a federal defender to judging. Although judges can’t pass budget bills or make charging decisions, they do have enormous discretion. As a judge I will use that discretion to help my community. In criminal matters, Wisconsin, and Milwaukee in particular, lies at the center of our country’s mass incarceration problem. So our judges have to do things differently. I will sentence defendants in the most cost-effective, sensible, and humane way. I will move cases forward to give victims certainty and to stop defendants from pleading guilty because they can’t get a trial date or make bail. I will fight against unnecessary revocations by keeping probationers in my court. And I will work to create meaningful interactions between victims and defendants, in effort to foster peace, closure, and understanding. In civil matters, I will offer to mediate my cases, hold early discovery conferences to prevent abusive practices, and move cases forward promptly to reduce the parties’ costs. My overarching goal will be to show the people who come to my court that someone cares about them and their problems. I will do that by issuing timely, thoughtful, and accessible rulings, of course. But I will also show that by treating everyone in my courtroom with compassion and courtesy. As this question suggests, judges are public servants. I want to spend the rest of my life in service to the community, helping make it safer, fairer, and more unified. And I believe that I can do that best by serving as a judge. 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. In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court issued National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), upholding most of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The decision’s main holding—that the individual mandate qualified as a tax and was thus constitutional—grabbed most of the headlines. But a second portion, dealing with Medicaid, was just as important. The ACA expanded Medicaid to millions, by making more people eligible and covering almost all of the expansion’s cost. Each state operates their own Medicaid program, and the law gave states an easy choice. They could either accept the additional funding and cover more people as required, or they could reject the new funding and lose all federal Medicaid funding. But several states wished to keep their current Medicaid funding while turning down the expansion. So they sued, claiming that this choice was impermissibly coercive. And the Supreme Court agreed. Legally, this was unprecedented. In prior decisions, like South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), the Court had discussed whether an optional federal program might come with such strong incentives that it interfered with the powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. But the Court had never found a program meeting these criteria. What’s more, Congress has always attached strings to money it gives to states. And Congress certainly had the power to repeal Medicaid and then replace it with an entirely new program. Nonetheless, since Medicaid comprises a large chunk of every state’s budget, the Court held that the expansion provision was too impactful and thus too coercive. This decision has had serious consequences. Given the ability to refuse the Medicaid expansion, many states did. Studies estimate that nearly two million Americans don’t have health insurance as a result. Prior to the pandemic, more than 100,000 Wisconsin residents did not have access to Badgercare because the state rejected the Medicaid expansion. See Louise Norris, Wisconsin and the ACA's Medicaid expansion, Healthinsurance.org (June 14, 2020). The state instead gives money to help these residents buy insurance on the state’s ACA exchange. Id. Yet this has driven up the cost of all plans sold on the exchange. See Aditi P. Sen & Thomas DeLeire, Medicaid Expansion In Wisconsin Would Lower Premiums For Those With Private Insurance, Health Affairs (June 6, 2019). And not all of the affected residents ultimately buy insurance on the exchange, meaning that this policy choice, enabled by the Supreme Court’s decision, has resulted in thousands of low-income Wisconsin residents not having health insurance. These uninsured residents may not seek treatment when they should. This leads to worse health outcomes. To be blunt, the uninsured live less healthy, more painful lives and die sooner. When they do seek treatment, they typically can’t afford it, so hospitals pass along or swallow those costs. This leads to higher bills for those with insurance and to hospitals closing or cutting back in poor areas. Plus, since the federal government would pay more of the state’s Medicaid costs if Wisconsin accepted the expansion, not doing so costs the state hundreds of millions of dollars a year. A recent estimate noted that expanding Medicaid would bring in $1.6 billion in federal funding over the next two years. Refusing this funding leads to higher taxes and takes money away from other state functions. In short, the Medicaid portion of the Sebelius decision has had an enormous negative impact on the people in our state. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Many judges reach the right results. But the judges I admire most reach the right results and do so in the right way. They are unerringly careful with the facts, go out of their way to treat the parties and their arguments with respect, and issue clear, timely, thoughtful decisions. One judge who embodies this is the Seventh Circuit’s Ilana Rovner. She is a career public servant and a legal pioneer. Judge Rovner was the first female supervisor in the Chicago U.S. Attorney’s Office, just the second female federal judge in Illinois, and the first woman on the Seventh Circuit. She and her parents were Jewish refugees who fled Latvia shortly before the Nazis invaded. Many of her relatives who stayed behind died in the Holocaust. But beyond her inspiring life, Judge Rovner is always kind and thoughtful and has a generous sense of humor. She asks questions respectfully, sincerely thanks the parties, and issues careful, thorough decisions. Judge Rovner has explained that she values the work that attorneys do and that she has “a lot of love” for her colleagues and for everyone in her courtroom. That comes through. Another judge I deeply respect is Pamela Pepper of the Eastern District of Wisconsin. I have appeared in front of her dozens of times and had a week-long trial in her court. While I would run my courtroom differently and I don’t always agree with her decisions, Judge Pepper goes out of her way to explain herself, to treat attorneys with courtesy, and to connect with my clients. Judge Pepper is also willing to take risks. For instance, she is perhaps the only federal judge in Milwaukee who will impose a sentence below the parties’ joint recommendation. She has a tremendous work ethic, is eager to listen and to learn, and has no problem admitting that she doesn’t understand an argument and asking for clarification. These are traits that one must have to be an outstanding judge. Because Judge Pepper is so humble and considerate, jurors, attorneys, and parties appreciate and respect her. Like Judge Rovner, she broke glass ceilings as the district’s first female district judge and first female chief judge. Finally, I went to several trainings on trauma before the pandemic. Presenters explained how prevalent trauma is, especially in Milwaukee, and how going to court can trigger a person with a trauma history, preventing them from understanding and participating in court. The presenters then listed some ways that attorneys and judges can help de-stress traumatized individuals. As I listened to these suggestions, I realized that Judge Pepper already followed them. This shows how much thought and care she puts into her work. I can’t be a trailblazer like Judge Rovner and Judge Pepper, at least not in the same way. But in terms of how I will act in court and how I will treat others, they are exactly the type of judges I will emulate. The proper role of a judge: As far as a judge’s core duties, a judge has to effectively learn, reason, and explain. Learning requires curiosity and diligence in each case, the crucial skill of listening—to the parties’ arguments, to witnesses—and the willingness to ask questions. Next, a judge has to reason fairly and effectively: applying the law to the facts without bias or prejudice. Then a judge has to explain decisions in a clear and accessible way. This allows the parties, the public, and any reviewing court to understand why a judge made a particular decision. On top of this, a judge must have courage. Sometimes the just result is not what the parties want or what might play well in the newspaper. A judge must be willing to stick their neck out in order to do what’s right. But the job is not just about getting and explaining the right result. What the judge does along the way matters. Interacting with a judge in court is likely the closest anyone ever gets to an elected official. And people come to court because they have problems they can’t resolve, often ones that are humiliating or intensely stressful. The way a judge treats people shows either that our government cares about people and their problems, or that it doesn’t. So to do the job well, a judge has to model concern, consideration, and empathy. This doesn’t mean giving the parties or attorneys free rein. Being considerate means respecting the time of everyone in court. A judge must be an efficient and creative courtroom manager, finding ways to maximize meaningful interactions and minimize delays and unneeded process. Also, judges should always search for ways to improve themselves and the court system. This requires questioning established customs and for judges to take hard, regular looks at themselves. A judge has to fight against complacency, has to stay up on changes in the law and procedure, and has to be willing to try new approaches. Finally, a judge must be accountable and accessible to the community outside of court. A judge should meet regularly with community groups and bar organizations, as well as the attorneys who practice in the judge’s court, not just to answer questions, but to learn and to understand how the judge can improve. This exposes a judge to new facts and ideas, helps the community understand the law and the legal system, and builds trust. By: Alexandria Staubach Last week the Senate passed SB 86/AB 57 erasing prosecutorial discretion to dismiss or amend certain criminal charges without prior authorization from the court and prohibiting deferred prosecution sentences for certain crimes. The new law would bar a prosecutor from dismissing or amending any of the included offenses without approval of the court. The bill does not define the criteria for a request for court approval. A judge granting such an application would be required to submit an annual report to a standing committee of the legislature detailing each application approved, and how each application was consistent with the public’s interest and the legislature’s intent “to encourage the vigorous prosecution of persons who commit offenses that are covered crimes.” Covered crimes are
The Milwaukee Police Association, Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, Wisconsin State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police, and National Insurance Crime Bureau registered in support. Neither the Wisconsin District Attorneys Association nor the Wisconsin State Public Defender registered for or against either bill. Republicans call the legislation “commonsense,” but some disagree. At a hearing before the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety on August 22nd, Rep. Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee) expressed concern over increased costs for the entire criminal justice system and a lack of funding in the legislation to address those costs, especially in the face of current court backlogs. The legislation was “piling on” without giving the courts and criminal-justice system the added resources necessary to implement the legislation, she said. The ACLU strongly urged committee members to reject the bill, citing several reasons why a charge may be dismissed or amended, including “the innocence of an individual charged with a crime, insufficient evidence for a charge to stand, or constitutional concerns with police action.” “(P)rocedural justice, fairness, and upholding the constitutional rights of the accused are foundational principals of the criminal legal system,” the ACLU said. The bill quietly passed in the Senate on Sept. 14, without comment from Republicans or Democrats. It heads to Gov. Tony Evers’ desk for signature. Sponsors of the bill are shown in the following chart.  As we await opinions from the Supreme Court of Wisconsin's new term, we will go back to a few decisions from last term and crunch them down to size. Note: The rule for this is that no justice gets more than 10 paragraphs as written in the actual decision. The “upshot” and “background” sections do not count as part of the 10 paragraphs because of their summary and necessary nature. We’ve also removed citations from the opinion for ease of reading but have linked to important cases cited or information about them. Italics indicate WJI insertions except for case names, which are also italicized. The case: Rachel Slabey v. Dunn County, Wisconsin, et. al Majority: Chief Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler (30 pages) Dissent: Justice Jill J. Karofsky (25 pages), joined by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley  Ziegler The upshot Slabey argues that her § 1983 claim against Dunn County survives summary judgment because she presented evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Dunn County violated her rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution when then-Dunn County Correctional Officer Ryan Boigenzahn sexually assaulted her. According to Slabey, Dunn County is liable because the "County was deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to Slabey by failing to thoroughly investigate, appropriately discipline, and adequately supervise Boigenzahn." Slabey argues that the circuit court erroneously granted Dunn County summary judgment and that the court of appeals erred in affirming that result. We conclude that Slabey's § 1983 claim against Dunn County fails because, under Monell v. Department of Social Services, no reasonable fact finder could conclude that Dunn County was the causal, moving force behind the sexual assault. . . . Background Ryan Boigenzahn began working as a correctional officer ("CO") at the Dunn County Jail in April 2011. As part of his training, Dunn County required Boigenzahn to attend the Jail Academy at Nicolet College. There, Boigenzahn took a month-long, 160-hour course where, according to Boigenzahn, he learned "what it is to be a corrections officer in the state of Wisconsin." Boigenzahn was also required to participate in the course's Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 ("PREA") training. Boigenzahn admitted during his deposition that he "learn[ed] through that training . . . that sexual contact between inmates and prisoners was" prohibited by law. He passed the training course, and he received his certification from the Law Enforcement Standards Board in June 2012. . . . Dunn County also required Boigenzahn to review and certify that he reviewed all Dunn County policies, including the County's fraternization, sexual misconduct, and PREA policies. Boigenzahn signed these policies, stating, "I certify that I have read, understand, and will comply with the policies . . . ." The sexual misconduct/PREA policy prohibits all staff, including COs like Boigenzahn, from engaging in sexual misconduct, which the policy defines as follows: "Sexual Misconduct is any behavior or act of a sexual nature directed toward an inmate, detainee, victim, witness, or complainant by any employee, volunteer, vendor, contractor, visitor or agency representative. . . ." According to Boigenzahn's training log, he completed at least eight reviews of the County's fraternization, sexual misconduct, or PREA policies. After each policy review, Boigenzahn certified that he read and understood the policy. On July 31, 2015, a CO informed Sergeant Michael Owens that inmate J.W.B. expressed that staff needed to "keep a close eye on [the] 'male COs.'" Sergeant Owens immediately began investigating. . . . He discovered no evidence of misconduct and determined "[t]he allegation [was] not supported on a factual basis." Sergeant Owens recorded the results of his investigation in a report and, according to County policy, forwarded that report to his supervisor. On August 6, 2015, a different inmate, B.M., said to Sergeant Douglas Ormson that "she actually had a lot of respect for the staff at the Jail, except for one person who she felt was in danger of 'crossing the line.'" Sergeant Ormson asked B.M. who she was referring to and to elaborate. B.M. identified Boigenzahn and said he "was too chummy with some of the females." . . . The next day, Sergeant Ormson discussed this matter with Sergeant Owens, who stated he heard similar allegations, and Sergeant Rachel Vold. The three decided that Sergeant Vold would review surveillance footage to investigate the allegations. Sergeant Vold reviewed two weeks of surveillance footage and found two concerning instances. On July 29, 2015, while delivering medications to inmates, Boigenzahn "playfully reach[ed] out his foot to step on [A.D.]'s foot." On August 6, 2015, again while delivering medications, Boigenzahn "gesture[d] with his head as if motioning someone to come in his direction, and also with his right arm. [A.D.] then [came] running over to him. . . . [A]s she walk[ed] away she brush[ed] him with her hand on his shoulder/chest area." Pursuant to Dunn County policy, Sergeant Vold forwarded this information to the Jail Captain on August 10, 2015. . . . . . . . Boigenzahn initially denied passing notes between inmates, but he admitted to doing so once the Jail Captain and Chief Deputy reminded Boigenzahn that he could be terminated for lying. Boigenzahn said he made a "dumb mistake passing (a) note and it w[ould] not happen again." They also showed Boigenzahn the videos of him and A.D., but he denied that there was any inappropriate conduct. . . . Pursuant to Dunn County policy, the matter was then brought to the Dunn County Sheriff. Based on the results of the investigation, the Sheriff decided that Boigenzahn violated Dunn County's policies which prohibited fraternization and unbecoming conduct. The Sheriff decided to impose discipline. Boigenzahn was suspended without pay for 3 days. About nine months later, in May 2016, inmate A.D. reported to Sergeant Vold that Boigenzahn again acted inappropriately. She stated that Boigenzahn frequently contacted inmate B.S. A.D. stated that on one occasion Boigenzahn accepted a note that was sexual in nature from B.S. Surveillance footage showed that on April 17, 2016, at 2:32 a.m., Boigenzahn spent 12 minutes out of camera view and near B.S.'s bunk. Boigenzahn later admitted that he did receive the note from B.S. On May 19, 2016, the County placed Boigenzahn on administrative leave, and on May 31, 2016, he was terminated. About one month after Dunn County terminated Boigenzahn, on June 27, 2016, inmate Slabey was heard saying, "[Boigenzahn] must have stuck his hand down somebody else's pants, too." According to Slabey, she said this "jokingly." Pursuant to County policy, the Jail Captain called her supervisor, the Chief Deputy, and the matter was reported to the Sheriff. The Sheriff requested that an outside agency investigate Slabey's allegations. The Menomonie Police Department then investigated the allegations against Boigenzahn. The criminal investigation regarding Slabey's statement revealed that on March 25, 2016, about seven months after Boigenzahn was first disciplined by the County, he sexually assaulted Slabey. . . . Notably, it was just two days prior to the sexual assault that, pursuant to Dunn County policy, Boigenzahn had attended a legal update session that included PREA training. Boigenzahn admitted that, at the time of the sexual assault, he knew it was against state law, against County policy, and against PREA. The guts The parties do not dispute that Slabey suffered a constitutional deprivation because she was sexually assaulted by Boigenzahn. The issue in this case is not whether Boigenzahn committed a sexual assault. He did, and what he did to Slabey was terribly wrong. But a claim against Boigenzahn is not the claim we analyze today. Whether Dunn County is liable to Slabey under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is an altogether separate legal inquiry. . . . In short, Slabey asserts that "Dunn County was deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to Slabey by failing to thoroughly investigate, appropriately discipline, and adequately supervise Boigenzahn." *** In the Monell case, the Supreme Court explained that "Congress did not intend municipalities to be held liable unless action pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort." "Instead, it is when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983." . . . To prevail in her claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dunn County, Slabey must demonstrate that the County caused her constitutional deprivation. Slabey argues that causation is satisfied because (1) "Dunn County failed to thoroughly investigate claims that Boigenzahn's conduct would cross a line"; (2) "Dunn County failed to appropriately discipline Boigenzahn in light of the clear risk of harm that his conduct posed to inmates generally and Rachel Slabey specifically"; and (3) Dunn County "failed to properly supervise Boigenzahn to prevent any further escalation of his misconduct." Slabey argues that these acts of the County caused her constitutional deprivation because they "caused Boigenzahn's conduct to escalate to Slabey's assault." "Where a plaintiff claims that the municipality has not directly inflicted an injury, but nonetheless has caused an employee to do so, rigorous standards of . . . causation must be applied to ensure that the municipality is not held liable solely for the actions of its employee." Monell requires plaintiffs to "demonstrate a direct causal link between the municipal action and the deprivation of federal rights." . . . A plaintiff bringing a § 1983 claim under Monell must demonstrate that a municipality was not just a cause, but the "moving force" behind the constitutional deprivation. . . . . The requirement is "applied with especial rigor when the municipal policy or practice is itself not unconstitutional, for example, when the municipal liability claim is based upon inadequate training, supervision, and deficiencies in hiring." In such cases, a § 1983 plaintiff "must" prove causation by showing "that the municipal action was taken with 'deliberate indifference' as to its known or obvious consequences. A showing of simple or even heightened negligence will not suffice." Evidence of a "pattern of tortious conduct" is typically necessary to establish that the municipal action "rather than a one-time negligent administration of the program or factors peculiar to the officer involved in a particular incident, is the 'moving force' behind the plaintiff's injury." Slabey acknowledges that hers is a "single incident" case because of the "absence of prior sexual assaults of female inmates by male guards." She argues that, although the single incident theory governs her claim, she nonetheless prevails under that theory because "Dunn County acted with deliberate indifference to a significant, obvious risk of sexual violence to all female inmates." *** . . . . Dunn County thoroughly investigated the August 2015 complaint and acted in a timely manner to impose unpaid leave on the officer. Boigenzahn was sternly warned for the policy violations, which were passing notes between inmates and non-sexual physical contact with an inmate. He was warned that his behavior would not be tolerated and that he could be terminated. Leave without pay was one of the most severe options of discipline, just short of termination. When Boigenzahn returned to duty, he was required to continue training and monthly policy reviews. Nine months had gone by with Boigenzahn working as a CO, and there was no indication of his noncompliance. The very next time the County learned that Boigenzahn was noncompliant because he had received a note from an inmate, he was terminated. . . . Slabey argues Dunn County acted with deliberate indifference to a known or obvious consequence that Boigenzahn would sexually assault an inmate when it "failed to thoroughly investigate claims that Boigenzahn's conduct would cross a line," "failed to appropriately discipline Boigenzahn in light of the clear risk of harm that his conduct posed to inmates generally and Rachel Slabey specifically," and when it "failed to properly supervise Boigenzahn to prevent any further escalation of his misconduct." However, this allegation in the August 2015 complaint was thoroughly investigated. The County officials reviewed two weeks of surveillance video, interviewed inmates, and concluded that Boigenzahn committed a serious violation of County policy. The evidence demonstrated that Boigenzahn passed notes between inmates and had inmate nonsexual contact. The County acted within a month from allegation to discipline. The matter did not languish. Despite several less severe options, Boigenzahn was suspended for three days without pay and sternly warned, "If you fail to [correct your improper conduct], you will subject yourself to further disciplinary action, including discharge and termination of your employment with the County." He was also given additional PREA training two days before the assault. For about nine months after Boigenzahn returned, Dunn County had no reason to believe he was noncompliant. *** In short, Dunn County is entitled to summary judgment because there is insufficient evidence for a reasonable fact finder to conclude that Dunn County was the moving force behind her being sexually assaulted. Boigenzahn sexually assaulting Slabey was the result of his action, which was completely forbidden by Dunn County and the criminal law. It is hindsight alone that underlies Slabey's causation theory. . . . Taken together, these facts do not demonstrate that the known or obvious consequence of the County's action or inaction was that Boigenzahn would sexually assault an inmate. Here, there is insufficient evidence that Dunn County acted with deliberate indifference to a known or obvious consequence that Boigenzahn would sexually assault Slabey. The circuit court was correct to grant Dunn County summary judgment on Slabey's § 1983 constitutional deprivation claim. We affirm the court of appeals.  Karofsky The dissent
While the standards for establishing municipal liability under § 1983 are rigorous, "they are not insurmountable." In order to establish liability and survive summary judgment on her claim against Dunn County, Slabey must bring sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably find that Dunn County (1) had an official policy, custom, or decision, (2) that demonstrated the requisite level of culpability, and (3) caused her injury. . . . First, Slabey must identify an official Dunn County policy or custom that caused her injury. The Supreme Court has recognized that a decision by an official with final policy-making authority meets this requirement—that is, municipal liability attaches when "a deliberate choice to follow a course of action is made from among various alternatives by the official or officials responsible for establishing final policy with respect to the subject matter in question." Inaction, as well as action, may serve as the basis for municipal liability, depending on the circumstances. Second, Slabey must establish Dunn County's culpability, which under Monell means that she must provide sufficient evidence for a jury to find that the county's actions demonstrated a "deliberate indifference" to the "known or obvious" consequence that a constitutional violation would occur. While a pattern of constitutional violations is "ordinarily necessary" to establish the requisite notice that an official course of conduct is inadequate, the risk of a constitutional violation may be so obvious that the municipality's actions could demonstrate deliberate indifference to that risk. The Supreme Court in City of Canton v. Harris provided the following example of deliberate indifference: if city policymakers, having armed their police officers with firearms, fail to train those officers on the constitutional limitations on deadly force, that failure could be characterized as deliberate indifference. . . . And in J.K.J. v. Polk County the Seventh Circuit provided another, one relevant to this case: the failure to institute more robust policies to prevent the sexual assault of female inmates in the face of a guard's escalating behavior can demonstrate deliberate indifference to the known or obvious risk of sexual assault. Third, Slabey must establish sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Dunn County's actions caused her injury. That is, the official actions must be the "moving force" behind the constitutional violation. . . . Slabey established sufficient evidence for a jury to find for her on each of these three requirements by: (1) identifying a course of action by a final policy-maker—namely, the Sheriff's choice to return Boigenzahn to his standard shift with no additional supervision; (2) alleging sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the risk of sexual assault was so predictable that the Sheriff's course of action constituted deliberate indifference; and (3) alleging sufficient evidence to show that the Sheriff's course of action caused the sexual assault. Her § 1983 claim against Dunn County should therefore survive summary judgment. . . . . . . . As Slabey points out, and Dunn County does not dispute, the Sheriff was the final policy-maker for staffing and disciplinary decisions at the Dunn County Jail. And he, as that final policy-maker, deliberately chose to adopt a particular course of action—to retain Boigenzahn and send him back to guard female inmates alone, on the lightest-staffed shift, with no additional supervision, investigation, or follow up. The Sheriff had "various alternatives" to his course of action. One of those alternatives was to terminate Boigenzahn. Termination was not just an option, but (as the Sheriff acknowledged), the typical disciplinary response for violations of the fraternization policy. Another alternative was to adjust Boigenzahn's schedule to accommodate increased supervision and monitoring of his behavior. The Sheriff considered these alternatives, but instead chose the one course of action that would allow Boigenzahn to spend significant time alone and unmonitored with female inmates. *** Slabey also met the culpability requirement because she presented enough evidence for a jury to reasonably find that the Sheriff's official course of action was taken with deliberate indifference to the known or obvious risk that a sexual assault would occur. Whether the risks were known or obvious and whether the Sheriff acted with deliberate indifference are questions of fact. . . . (A) jury, assessing the facts of this case, could reasonably conclude that: (1) Boigenzahn’s prior behavior created a known or obvious risk that he would sexually assault an inmate and (2) the Sheriff's decision to send Boigenzahn back to guard female inmates reflected deliberate indifference to that risk. *** . . . . (E)vidence of an obvious risk of sexual assault can support both a finding of "deliberate indifference" and "an inference of causation—that the municipality's indifference led directly to the very consequence that was so predictable." If a jury could reasonably conclude that the risk of sexual assault was obvious enough that the failure to take action constituted deliberate indifference, it may take "but a small inferential step" for a jury to find that the failure to take action caused the injury. Causation, like culpability, is a fact question for a jury—"finding causation is not a mechanical exercise like working a math problem and getting an answer, but instead requires jurors to view evidence in its totality, draw on their life experiences and common sense, and then reach reasonable conclusions about the effects of particular action and inaction" (emphasis in original). Here, Slabey established enough evidence for a jury to do so. *** Based on the evidence Slabey provided, a jury could find that Dunn County Sheriff's Department officials ignored the clear warning signs that Boigenzahn had already engaged in inappropriate and escalating behavior with female inmates and then created the circumstances that allowed Boigenzahn to sexually assault Slabey. The Sheriff's deliberate course of action enabled Boigenzahn to escape detection for 45 minutes as he was working alone, unsupervised, and unmonitored in the Huber dorm on the night he sexually assaulted Slabey. Slabey provided sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably find that the Sheriff's course of action both demonstrated deliberate indifference and was the causal "moving force" behind the sexual assault. Slabey's § 1983 claim against Dunn County should therefore survive summary judgment. When municipalities take inmates into custody, they assume a responsibility to protect them from sexual assault. But this responsibility means little if the justice system is unwilling to hold municipalities accountable when they fail to protect their inmates. When municipalities are not held to account, measures like PREA, enacted to eliminate sexual assault in jails and prisons, are reduced to little more than a perfunctory policy for correctional staff to sign, then freely disregard. Dunn County threw a match into the tinderbox when it sent Boigenzahn back to guard female inmates. The majority's failure to hold Dunn County accountable is akin to standing idly by as the fire burns. By Alexandria Staubach Just two days after Assembly Speaker Robin Vos announced a new bill to move Wisconsin toward a nonpartisan redistricting process, the Assembly approved the bill. On Tuesday, Vos (R-Rochester) announced AB 415 to adopt what he termed a nonpartisan redistricting process styled after the process used in Iowa. In a move that Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) called “slapdash,” Vos placed AB 415 on the agenda for a vote during Thursday’s Assembly floor session, bypassing public hearing and comment. The bill was voted on late Thursday, just before midnight. It passed largely along party lines with one Democrat, Rep. LaKeshia Myers (D-Milwaukee), also voting in favor. AB 415 comes in the wake of a petition filed by Law Forward and co-counsel on August 2 asking the Supreme Court to take jurisdiction of an original action challenging Wisconsin’s “severally and politically gerrymandered maps.” Vos offered no salient reason why AB 415 could not proceed through the normal legislative process, nor did he explain the urgency with which his majority is now moving. He said Tuesday, “Hopefully it means that we will take all of the money that has been wasted by the liberal interests suing us over the maps and instead we get to say we don’t need to waste those taxpayer dollars because we can adapt the process that has been used flawlessly in Iowa.” Iowa State Auditor Rob Sand commented on AB 415 ahead of Thursday’s vote, saying, “This is not the Iowa model. It’s also just impossible to expect Iowa-style fair results when you still have the capacity to gerrymander at the end of the day, which is what this bill allows for. They can reject, and reject, and draw their own. You can’t do that in Iowa, that’s why the Iowa system works.” Moreover, the Iowa method is not without fault. In Iowa, Republicans hold a majority in both the House and Senate, empowering them to accept or reject maps drawn by their nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency. In October 2021, Iowa's Republican legislators did just that, rejecting the agency’s first map proposal because it all but doomed Republican U.S. Rep. Ashley Hinson’s seat. Iowa subsequently adopted maps that preserved Hinson’s seat. For years Democrats have asked that Republicans redraw maps in a nonpartisan way, yet Vos’ proposal was met with derision and skepticism. Gov. Tony Evers said Republicans are “making a last-ditch effort to retain legislative control by having someone Legislature-picked and Legislature-approved draw Wisconsin’s maps.” During the floor session Vos chided Democrats for failing to meaningfully critique the content of the bill (introduced just two days before). He accused them of relying on the Law Forward lawsuit and a favorable vote from Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz, whom he said Democrats “bought and paid for.” Republican lawmakers may be feeling the heat from a multimillion-dollar opposition campaign that targets their threats to impeach Protasiewicz if she fails to recuse herself from the Law Forward case after criticizing Wisconsin’s legislative maps on the campaign trail. Democrats largely focused their objections to the legislation on an insufficient opportunity to vet the bill, which could change the face of Wisconsin legislative map drawing into the foreseeable future. It is a “clear red flag that this bill skipped the entire legislative process,” said Rep. Alex Joers (D-Middleton). “If this is about anything more than diverting the public’s attention from your plan to impeach Judge Protasiewicz, put your money where your mouth is and vote to refer this to the committee on campaigns and elections where it can have fair hearing where we can do the work,” said Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison). “This is about distracting the public from your folly of impeachment,” she added. Not all Democrats toed the party line at last night’s session. Myers criticized Republicans and Democrats alike for a failure to communicate about the legislation. She pointed out that across Wisconsin, more than politics is on the line for Black and Brown people. She told her caucus members, “Maybe you get the luxury of toeing the company line, but not everybody does.” The bill calls for maps to be drawn by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau. The LRB would report to a five-member advisory commission. The commission would include two Democrats, two Republicans and a fifth commissioner chosen by the first four. The LRB would send the maps it draws to the Legislature for approval. Changes would be prohibited. If the first drafts are rejected, the LRB would get a second opportunity to draw maps and the process would repeat itself. If the second set is rejected, the Legislature would then be able to amend the maps or draft its own, which would ultimately need approval from the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Having passed in the Assembly, the bill moves to the Senate, where Republicans hold a 22-11 majority. Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) has been equivocal on whether the Senate would act on the legislation. Evers has threatened to veto the measure.  "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: Amber Raffeet August
Appointed to: Milwaukee County Circuit Court Appointment date: May 25, 2023 (term ends July 31, 2024) Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Madison High School – Dominican High School, Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: August 2022-present – Assistant Family Court commissioner, Milwaukee County February 2018-July 2022 – Staff attorney, Guardian ad Litem Division, Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee May 2015-February 2018 – Immigration and family law attorney, RISE Law Center, project of End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin May 2013-May 2015 – Associate attorney, Grzeca Law Group, S.C., Madison office for Milwaukee firm Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) General character of practice: I am currently an Assistant Family Court Commissioner in Milwaukee County. Prior to my appointment, as a staff attorney in the guardian ad litem division of the Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee, I represented the legal best interest of children from indigent families in Milwaukee County in family law proceedings such as divorce, paternity and child abuse restraining orders. As a guardian ad litem, I performed investigations for the Court and made recommendations as to legal custody and physical placement or in the context of a restraining order, recommendations related to its granting or not. My position required me to interact with many different individuals such as parents, grandparents, teachers etc. and also many different agencies, such as Child Protective Services (CPS), law enforcement and therapists' offices. This position required me to wear many different hats and to be extremely responsive to the Court and the families I worked with, versatile and creative in solutions that lead to the best outcome for the children whose interest I represented. Prior to my position at the Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee, I was an immigration and family law attorney at RISE Law Center. At RISE, I provided pro bono and low bono representation to survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence in family court proceedings, immigration cases and restraining order hearings throughout the State of Wisconsin. Because I was both an immigration and family law attorney, I had a special focus on cases that involved an overlap of immigration proceedings and processes and Family Court. RISE Law Center is a project of End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin which also allowed me to include policy and other initiatives related to domestic violence in my practice. Describe typical clients: Currently, I am an Assistant Family Court Commissioner. Prior to my appointment, I was a staff attorney in the guardian ad litem division at the Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee where I represented the legal best interest of children from indigent families in Milwaukee County. As such, I did not have "clients" per se, but rather represented the children's best interest in family law proceedings, including restraining orders. The children in the cases where I was a guardian ad litem were very diverse culturally, racially and ethnically. They came from all different parts of Milwaukee County and had different needs such as special educational needs or mental health service needs. I saw each child as unique and worked diligently to represent their interests and assisted the Court officials in making orders related to legal custody and physical placement that supported the children's safety and well-being. The parties in my guardian ad litem cases were also indigent and typically one or both of the parties was a self-represented litigant. Through my practice, I became very adept at communicating and working with self-represented members of the community. In my previous position at RISE Law Center, I represented survivors of violence in their family law and immigration proceedings. These clients were women and men typically leaving abusive relationships or situations who were from all over the world and from all different walks of life. In terms of specialized areas, I specialized in guardian ad litem/family law practice, immigration law with a special emphasis on humanitarian immigration cases, cases that have both family law and immigration law implications and issues related to domestic violence. I also am fluent in written and spoken Spanish and was able to communicate with parents, clients, and children in both English and Spanish. Many of my cases involved Spanish speaking individuals. Number of cases tried to verdict: Approximately 30 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: All of the approximately 30 cases that I tried to verdict as an attorney were bench trials in family law proceedings in Milwaukee County Circuit Court such as contested paternity actions, divorces or child abuse restraining orders. I am extremely proud of the work that I completed in these cases as a guardian ad litem and believe that through my dedication, positive results have occurred in the wellbeing and best interest of the children I served and represented. I am also proud of the work I continue to do as an Assistant Family Court Commissioner presiding over family actions and domestic abuse and harassment injunction hearings. The Court decisions in these cases have all had a significant impact on the individual families and children involved. I would be more than happy to discuss more about these proceedings verbally, however, I want to make sure that I protect the confidentiality and interest of the minor children that I served as guardian ad litem and individuals I continue to serve as an Assistant Family Court Commissioner and because of that am only providing the few details listed above in written form. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: As an immigration attorney, I mostly focused on family based immigration cases and humanitarian immigration cases; however, I did also assist in cases in Immigration Court. When the federal government opened the family detention facilities in Artesia, New Mexico in 2014, I traveled with a group of volunteer attorneys from Madison to provide pro bono representation to women and children who were detained at the facilities. While there, I mostly represented the families in bond proceedings where I was arguing to the immigration judges who were being broadcast in remotely from other states such as Colorado, why the families should be released and trying to obtain a reasonable bond for them to post. These were adversary proceedings where the assistant chief counsels were arguing very strenuously for the families to remain detained. I was able to successfully argue multiple bond cases and help families be released from detention to continue to process their asylum cases and claims outside of ICE custody. Beyond that trip, I also assisted in immigration cases at both Grzeca Law Group and RISE Law Center that had administrative agency components and aspects that involved immigration court proceedings. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). In April of 2018, I received my certification in Family Mediation from the University of WisconsinMilwaukee School of Continuing Education. In my current role, I cannot formally lead mediations; however, I use the skills from that mediation certification in conjunction with multiple years of working with individuals in high stress situations to resolve many contentious family law cases in front of me as an Assistant Family Court Commissioner. I am proud to say that I excel at helping parties to reach resolutions that allow me to fulfill my duties as a Court official, while at the same time helping to preserve the overall fair functioning of the Family Court system for all interested parties. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Volunteer for Judge Danielle Shelton’s campaign for Milwaukee County judge, 2019 Previous runs for public office: Not Applicable All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Danielle Shelton, Circuit Court Judicial Position, 2019 Brittany Grayson, Circuit Court Judicial Position, 2019, 2020 Kori Ashley, Circuit Court Judicial Position, 2021 Ana Berrios-Schroeder, Circuit Court Judicial Position, 2022 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Wisconsin Association of African-American Lawyers (WAAL), member and roles including president, 2014-present. Wisconsin Law Foundation, fellow, Spring 2022-present Wisconsin Family Court Commissioners' Association, member, Fall 2022-present Leander J. Foley Jr. Society of Family Lawyers, member, Fall 2022-present State Bar of Wisconsin, Board of Governors, Executive Committee member and other roles, July 2021-July 2022 Women In Focus, Inc., member, Fall 2014-Spring 2021 Community Immigration Law Center, board of directors, 2015-2018 State Bar of Wisconsin, G. Lane Ware Leadership Academy, 2016-2017 Dane County Bar Association, Law for the Public Committee, 2013-2018 Latino Professionals Association of Greater Madison, member, 2014-2018 Latino Chamber of Commerce of Dane County, member, 2014-2018 American Immigration Lawyers Association, member, 2013-2018 Milwaukee Bar Association, member, February 2018-December 2018; September 2021-present Law Alliance, 2017-2018 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: Wisconsin Association of African-American Lawyers (WAAL) Through the Wisconsin Association of African-American Lawyers (WAAL), I established and volunteered with the WAAL Pathfinders Legal Clinic where volunteer attorneys met with at risk youth at Pathfinders Milwaukee to provide pro bono limited legal services. I also established and continue to run WAAL's annual Halloween costume drive where WAAL in conjunction with other Dane County organizations provide requested costumes to the homeless children at the YWCA Madison in their shelter, Third Street program (mothers and children under the age of 5) and Empower Home program (mothers and children escaping domestic violence). Since I joined the board of directors of WAAL in 2017, I have assisted in the planning and execution of our annual VelanDale Scholarship Event where AfricanAmerican students from the University of Wisconsin Law School and Marquette University Law School are awarded scholarships to further their law school education. WAAL held its 30th Annual VelanDale Scholarship event virtually on September 23, 2021, and as President-Elect I served as the chair of the event. This event is named after the civil rights icons Vel and Dale Phillips. Women In Focus. Inc. While in Women In Focus, Inc., I frequently participated in the group's literacy program that provided monthly activities and books for the mothers and children at the YWCA Madison. I also established a series of Little Free Libraries throughout the North Side of Madison to encourage children's reading. I was the literacy committee chair from 2016-2018 for Women In Focus. Lastly, Women In Focus' largest annual event is the "I Have a Dream Ball" where the organization raises money for scholarships for students of color in Dane County to pursue a college education. I participated.in the planning and organizing of that event from 2014 to 2021. To date, Women In Focus, Inc. has awarded over $500,000 in scholarships to students of color in Dane County. Community Immigration Law Center I was a member of the Community Immigration Law Center's board of directors from 2015-2018. Even before joining the board, I was an active volunteer providing pro bono legal services to individuals at CILC's weekly immigration clinics starting in 2014. I also assisted in grant writing, scheduling and recruiting volunteers for the clinics and any other assistance the organization needed. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge; I have dedicated my law career to helping to better the lives of others in my community. Being a Circuit Court Judge would be an extension of that work because so many in the Milwaukee community struggle with poverty and other systemic challenges that bring them into contact with the court system. As an Assistant Family Court Commissioner, strive to treat everyone in my courtroom as someone who deserves dignity and respect regardless of their circumstances as they seek access to justice. I would continue this approach as a Circuit Court Judge. These values were instilled in me early in my life growing up in the city of Milwaukee and I believe it is important to remember that the people in our courtrooms are not just names on a docket sheet; they are our neighbors, coworkers, and fellow citizens. While those of us who work at the courthouse may be used to seeing these individuals on their worst day, I think it is important to remember that we cannot know their whole story—their struggles (such as mental illness or drug addiction or just a series of rough breaks) and their successes. I believe that this viewpoint—which I have honed through years of public interest practice and through my current position as a Court Commissioner—is vital to being a good judge. While I know it may not always be possible, it is my goal in every case to try to see each individual as their whole person. This would include the good and the bad, the strengths and the weaknesses. I think it is important that judicial officials continue to take a holistic view of individuals in cases and my experiences leading up to this point make me extremely good at this task. Through my work representing survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault at RISE Law Center, I saw people at their most vulnerable and scared. I was able to support them and recognize that they were more than just their most traumatic experiences. This is similar to decisions I make as a Court Commissioner and would make as a Circuit Court Judge when deciding how to best protect members of the community or victims of crimes. Judges must be willing to try and see the whole person, to discern what is needed and to have the courage to act decisively. In my previous position as a staff attorney in the guardian ad litem division at the Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee, I honed my ability to connect with diverse clientele and to make them feel comfortable while they are going through difficult circumstances in the Court system. Finally, as the Immediate past president of the Wisconsin Association of African-American Lawyers (WAAL), I think it is vitally important that our community members of color have decision makers that look like them—not only because it enhances the fairness and legitimacy of our judicial proceedings, but also because it can inspire others to see pathways toward access and opportunity they may not have previously imagined. 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. I cannot think of a single case that has had more of an immediate impact—in terms of moving us closer to a more fair and just society—than United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013). In this case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional. This is the landmark ruling that legalized same sex marriage throughout the United States, ending decades of contentious and often hate-filled debates over the humanity of fellow LGBTQ+ citizens. This historic ruling impacted many people in Wisconsin and elsewhere in the United States in a positive way. Countless individuals, who were previously denied the ability to marry and receive the same protections as heterosexual couples, were now able to celebrate their relationships and their unions the same way as everyone else. That summer, we were all provided tangible proof of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous line—that while the arc of the universe is long, it bends inexorably towards justice. Wisconsinites everywhere were treated to beautiful scenes of long-delayed weddings—now safely removed from the threat of legal annulment—at courthouses, churches and, in true Wisconsin fashion, at barns and tailgate parties, throughout our state. Beyond the impact on the LGBTQ+ community in our state generally, this case is of particular importance to me as an ally because I have several family and friends that were then able to access marriage and I was able to witness their joy and happiness on the day this decision came down and afterwards. In addition, this decision also is important to me personally because it reminds me of the legal authority which affirms my family’s blended history—the Loving v. Virginia decision in 1967. I am bi-racial. My father is African-American and my mother is Caucasian, and they began their relationship in 1970—only a few short years after their type of union was legalized throughout the United States (although, in credit to Wisconsin, we were one of the minority of states to not have so-called anti-miscegenation laws on our books). Cases like Loving and Windsor remind me of the tremendous impact that each judge and justice can have on everyone else in the community and just how important it is to allow others the ability to live their true lives and be their true selves regardless of who they love. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: As a woman of color and the first person in my family to become a lawyer, the judge and justice I admire both demonstrate a series of “firsts.” They are powerful icons for women and women of color specifically. The first Judge that I admire is Vel Phillips. Judge Phillips was the first in so many areas in Wisconsin. She was the first African-American woman to graduate from the University of Wisconsin Law School, the first African-American judge in the State of Wisconsin and the first female judge in Milwaukee County. Beyond her trailblazing “firsts,” I also greatly admire her dedication to the law and to social justice and civil rights. While on the bench and off, Vel Phillips dedicated her life to civil rights causes and uplifting the community. I admire her dedication despite her frequent challenges—such as when she was appointed as a Judge in Milwaukee County but then lost her election afterwards. I also draw inspiration from her willingness to fight structural forces, such as her fight for fair housing and civil rights in Milwaukee. She believed wholeheartedly in the pursuit of equal rights and the use of the law to assist in that fight. I also admire her because she understood that as someone moves ahead in life, it is important to continue to lift others. Even with all her successes, she remained dedicated to her community, in particular the community of color in Wisconsin, and continued to support the public through her various roles and by assisting in providing opportunities to others. One of those opportunities where her legacy lives on is through the establishment of the VelanDale Scholarship Program through the Wisconsin Association of African-American Lawyers (WAAL), a scholarship for which I served as program chair in 2021 and continue to support through my role as immediate past president of the WAAL board. I also greatly admire Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Just like Vel Phillips, Justice Sotomayor is a trailblazer. She is the first Latina United States Supreme Court Justice and was, at the time she was confirmed, only the 3rd female attorney since our nation’s founding to rise to the level of the Supreme Court. She is not afraid to be open and honest about her own biography and the inevitable influence of her identity and her history in how she looks at and contextualizes the world around her. Despite harsh criticism during her confirmation process, Justice Sotomayor refused to back down from a vision of judging which acknowledges that judges are people first and foremost. She clearly believes that both the law and those who administer it should be approachable and accountable to other members in our society and is unafraid to use her voice, influence and decision making to support those beliefs. She has become revered in legal circles and the broader culture for her impassioned dissents, proving that she is unafraid to courageously follow through on her understanding of this country’s fundamental legal guarantees, especially its obligation to do justice to all citizens, regardless of identity. The proper role of a judge: Being a judge is a difficult role that requires the trier of fact to address many things in order to accomplish their goals. A judge must be fair and scrupulously monitor for any personal biases, even unconscious ones, they may be bringing to the bench. This allows a judge to ensure that their rulings are meeting the high ideals set by our system, which demands unbiased justice. By rigorously self-policing and doing everything possible to demonstrate fairness and integrity, the ideal judge gives the essential appearance of neutrality and fairness to other actors in the judicial system. A judge’s role is also to work diligently to process each case and continue to support the larger judicial system to promote judicial efficiency and allow individuals their days in Court as efficiently as possible. Especially in counties like Milwaukee County where each judicial calendar is extremely full, it can be difficult to accomplish the goal of efficiency while also providing sufficient attention to each individual case. Despite that difficulty, it is the role of a judge to make sure those who are coming in front of them all receive the same level of attention and care for their cases and each case’s unique set of facts. In this role, a judge must make decisions that not only help the individual litigants in front of them reach a just resolution in their case, but also instill confidence in the judicial system for the general public as a whole. Our system guarantees the right of public access to judicial proceedings, consistent with our overall democratic ideals. As a result, judges must act consistent with the trust they have been given. Finally, the role of a judge is to acknowledge that the individuals in front of them are people. They are more than their faults and failings; they are individuals who are often struggling with navigating the often complex and daunting legal system. A judge must treat all those that come in front of them with dignity and respect. By Amy Rabideau Silvers  Photograph of Mabel Raimey from the 1919 Badger yearbook. University of Wisconsin–Madison Libraries and Archives, local indicator no. 2017s00539. No doubt Mabel Watson Raimey could identify with the Negro College Fund’s famous slogan declaring that “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.” The iconic slogan first appeared in 1972. In the early decades of her life, Raimey was repeatedly told that women and Black people could not do the kinds of things she wanted to do. She finally became a lawyer, establishing her own legal practice proudly serving both Black and white clients in probate and business matters. She grew up in Milwaukee, the daughter of Nellie Cora Watson Raimey and Anthony Van Leer Raimey, with roots to one of the first African American families in the city. Her great-grandparents, Sully and Susanna Watson, freed slaves who fled pre-Civil War Virginia, settled in Milwaukee and bought property by 1851. Mabel was born in 1895 and graduated from West Division High School at age 14. When she told the family physician that she wanted to be a doctor, that early diploma apparently meant little. As Raimey later recalled, he told her that “medicine would be too hard” and “women couldn’t handle the studies.” Young Mabel instead began preparing for the more traditional profession of teacher, first attending the Milwaukee Normal School, a forerunner of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, before transferring to the University of Wisconsin in Madison. She graduated in 1918—believed to be the first African American woman to graduate from the university—and soon accepted a teaching position with the Milwaukee schools. The job lasted three days. Raimey, who was very light-skinned, was called into the principal’s office and asked if she was a Negro. She was summarily dismissed by an administrator who seemed more amused than apologetic about the hiring “mistake.” If that was not enough of an insult, Raimey heard a secretary giggle and turned to find the principal making a face behind her back, something she would never forget. She found new employment as a legal secretary for a downtown lawyer. In 1922, Raimey enrolled in night classes at Marquette University Law School, but continued to work her day job. While historians now believe that she was the first Black woman to complete law school in Wisconsin, she later acknowledged keeping her silence on the subject of race. “Nobody asked me,” she said. “I never told.” “Thus, we have the potential law student, Mabel Raimey—discouraged from medicine because of sexism—prevented from teaching because of racism,” wrote Phoebe Weaver Williams, Marquette University emerita law professor, in a piece about Raimey. “Upon entering law school, she had already experienced the double jeopardy faced by women of color.” For Raimey, gender may have proved a more obvious and formidable barrier than race. She continued working as a legal secretary before beginning to practice law in that office. She was admitted to the Wisconsin Bar in 1927 and, over time, developed her own practice. (A quick historical note: It would be decades before the second black woman was admitted to the Wisconsin Bar. That was Vel Phillips, who graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1951.) Nothing about that career path was easy to navigate in Raimey’s time. “When she entered law school, there were few white women practicing law in the state,” according to a State Bar of Wisconsin legal history, “Pioneers in the Law: The First 150 Women.” “There were fewer, if any, African American male lawyers, and there were no African American female lawyers,” it continued. “In 1911 the American Bar Association had barred Blacks from membership, a barrier it would not remove until 1943.” Wrote Williams: “During interviews and speeches she repeatedly admonished younger women to set high goals, and ‘never [use] sex or race as an excuse not to attain these goals.’” Raimey also served as a leader in the community, including as a founding member and longtime board member of the Milwaukee Urban League. She served on the YWCA board and was a founder of the Milwaukee Northside YWCA. She became a charter member of the Epsilon Kappa Omega Chapter of the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority. In more recent decades, Raimey’s role in Wisconsin legal history has been recognized in public and permanent ways. A historic marker stands on the Marquette University campus.  Photograph by Margo Kirchner “Professionally, it was always my intention to serve all people, regardless of race, color, creed, or economic ability, in a fair and just manner,” Raimey said, as she accepted an award from the Black Law Students Association at Marquette. “If my acceptance and completion of law school at Marquette University in the 1920s has inspired or encouraged anyone to enter the field of law, I am pleased. If any accomplishment that I may have made has had any influence on any young people, I am pleased more.” She continued working until suffering a stroke in 1972. It happened while she was bathing, alone in her apartment. Friends found her after five long days that she survived by drinking water from the tub. She died in 1986. In September 2022, members of the sorority chapter gathered for a special ceremony at Raimey’s grave at Forest Home Cemetery. She was the last surviving member of her family, and the burial site had never been graced with a headstone. Her sorority sisters, dressed in white, dedicated a two-sided monument complete with her portrait and accomplishments. “As Alpha Kappa Alpha women, our chapter considers today a true honor to pause and place an exclamation point on Raimey’s service, community impact, and trailblazing legacy,” declared Debra Brown-Wallace, chapter president. “Now with a proper headstone, Raimey can be an inspiration of future generations to come.”
This project is supported by grants from  Graham By Gretchen Schuldt
An appeals court threw out the drug conviction of a man who incriminated himself when he was questioned by police after saying he wanted a lawyer and before he was given his Miranda warnings. His conviction for violating the terms of his bail in the invalidated drug case, however, stands. Defendant Kale K. Keding did not "explain how his challenge to an order in the possession case could result in reversal of his conviction for bail jumping, nor does he make any other argument about the propriety of the judgment in that case," District IV Court of Appeals Judge Rachel A. Graham wrote in her one-judge decision. Keding was one of two passengers in a car stopped by police for having a nonfunctioning brake light. Marshfield Police Officer Libby Abel eventually called for a K9 unit, and a police dog alerted to drugs in the vehicle. Police searched the car and found a small amount of cocaine in the front passenger-side door. Keding was arrested after admitting to having substance abuse issues in the past and to snorting Adderall earlier that evening. At the station, Abel started to read Keding his Miranda rights, but Keding said he needed a lawyer and said he would remain silent. Abel testified later she never finished reading him his rights. A short time later, Keding threw something in the garbage and Officer Mark Scheppler asked him what it was. Keding responded that it was a Kleenex and might have residue on it. Scheppler asked again about it and Keding said, "There's going to be a little cocaine in there." "Some cocaine?" Schlepper asked. "Yeah, I did some at the bar," Keding said. "I forgot about it because I like had drinks and like drinking impairs your — so that’s all I’m going to give you." Keding was eventually charged with misdemeanor cocaine possession and was released on a $2,500 signature bond, according to online court records. One of the conditions of bond was that he maintain absolute sobriety. He was later arrested in a bar after apparently having some drinks and was charged with misdemeanor bail jumping. In the cocaine case, Keding sought to suppress the statements he made at the time of arrest and at the station, but Circuit Judge Nicholas J. Brazeau Jr. said but the ones he made at the station could be admitted. As part of a plea agreement, Keding pleaded no contest to possession of a controlled substance and misdemeanor bail jumping. Brazeau sentenced him to a year of probation. Keding appealed both convictions, arguing that the stationhouse statements should have been suppressed. Schlepper's question about what Keding threw in the garbage was "a reasonable and obvious one, and had I been in Scheppler’s position, I would have likely asked the same question," Graham wrote. "Even so, the State is prohibited from using Keding’s response — which was the product of a custodial interrogation that occurred without Miranda warnings — against him at trial." Schlepper's follow-up questions about what Keding meant by "residue" and responding “Some cocaine?” also were problematic, Graham said. "Even if Scheppler’s remarks were not inflected with a question mark, an objective reasonable observer would conclude that Scheppler’s inquiries were reasonably likely to elicit a response from Keding that the state might seek to introduce at his trial," she said. "Indeed, although an officer’s subjective intent is not dispositive in this inquiry, Scheppler testified that in 'repeating' Keding’s responses back to him, he was attempting to have a conversation with Keding about the cocaine." "The State has not attempted to prove that the error was harmless, and I accept the State’s silence on this point as a concession that it was not," she said. "The circuit court erred by declining to suppress the statements Keding made to Scheppler in the police station," she wrote, remanding the case back to circuit court. By Gretchen Schuldt Guns are on the agenda for the state Legislature, with Democratic proposals for a new "red flag" law and tightened restrictions on firearm transfers pending. A chart showing the sponsors of the bills is at the bottom of this post. SB352/AB350 – Red flag bill People found dangerous by a court could be banned from possessing guns, under a bill pending in the Legislature. The latest version of a proposed "red flag law" would create an "extreme risk" category of temporary restraining order and injunction prohibiting a person from having a firearm. Under the proposal, a member of law enforcement or a member of the person's family or household could ask a court to file the injunction. The petition would have to show that the person at issue is substantially likely to hurt themselves or others if the person possesses a firearm. The requester also would be able to ask the court to first issue a temporary restraining order (TRO). The petitioner would be required to include evidence that there is an immediate and present danger of harm to the person or to another if the person possesses a firearm. If a TRO, which could be issued based on testimony or affidavits, is granted, the judge must hold a hearing on the full injunction within 14 days of issuing the TRO. A full injunction, if granted, would be valid for up to a year and could be renewed. The firearms could not be returned until a the TRO or injunction expires or is vacated. Possession of a firearm in defiance of a TRO or injunction would be punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $25,000 fine. Lying in a request for a TRO or injunction would be punishable by six years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Registering in favor of the bill thus far are Children's Hospital of Wisconsin; End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin: the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence; National Association of Social Workers – Wisconsin Chapter; WAVE Educational Fund; and Wisconsin Council of Churches. Registering in opposition are Wisconsin Firearm Owners Inc. and Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc. "Trumps due process and opens the door to abuse by disgruntled persons seeking to use law enforcement as a weapon," the Gun Owners said in a position statement, the only one filed thus far. SB372/AB368 – Gun transfer restrictions Only federally licensed firearms dealers would be allowed, with a few exceptions, to complete a transfer of firearms, under this bill. Currently, federally licensed firearms dealers may not transfer handguns until the dealer completes a background check on the person receiving the gun. The bill would require most transfers of any type of firearm to go through licensed dealers. It also would require background checks of the transferees. Exemptions to the proposed requirements would be transfers to a firearms dealer; law enforcement or armed services agencies; transfers of guns classified as antiques; and transfers by gift or inheritance to a family member. Violations would be considered misdemeanors and be punishable by fines of $500 to $10,000 and up to nine months of incarceration. Offenders also could be prohibited from possessing guns for up to two years. Registering in favor of the bill are Children's Hospital of Wisconsin, WAVE Educational Fund, and Wisconsin Council of Churches. Registering in opposition are Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association, Wisconsin Firearm Owners Inc. and Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc.  |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed