|
"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: Diane L. Meulemans
Appointed to: Waupaca County Circuit Court Appointment date: Feb. 5, 2026, to a term ending July 31, 2027 Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Master’s – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse High School – West Bend East, West Bend, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: April 2014-present – Corporation counsel, Waupaca County July 2013-April 2014 – Corporation counsel, Green Lake County February 2007-July 2013 – Deputy corporation counsel, Marathon County December 2003-February 2007 – Assistant corporation counsel, Marathon County Bar and administrative memberships: Supreme Court of the United States State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin General character of practice: Since 2003, my practice has been dedicated to providing legal representation to the County, its elected officials, and departments and to the public interest in service through the Office of Corporation Counsel. As Waupaca County Corporation Counsel, I provide legal services to the County Board of Supervisors on matters of governance, legislation, administrative home rule powers, and ethics. I serve as the Board's Parliamentarian. I provide legal guidance to the County’s Standing Committees. I respond to any legal matter that is required for the County’s successful functioning as a corporate body and a local government unit. Although there are constant themes, Counties require a breadth of legal knowledge across a wide variety of substantive legal areas: business aspects such as contracts and leases; real estate transactions including right-of-way acquisition; public records and open meetings laws; intergovernmental agreements; governance and legislative actions; and competitive bidding for procurement and public works to name a few. As a government attorney, I must also demonstrate the ability to communicate complex legal opinions in a manner that is understandable to the intended audience and relevant to the issue presented in order for sound decisions to be made. I provide written and oral legal opinions to my professional colleagues, including elected officials such as the Sheriff, Treasurer, Clerk of Court, Register of Deeds, and County Clerk. I provide legal services for a County Board of Supervisors consisting of twenty-seven Supervisors. Legal services for the County Board include written opinions upon request of the County Board Chair, ethics guidance for individual Supervisors, and “real time” answers and information when legal or procedural questions arise during County Board or Standing Committee meetings. In addition, the Office of Corporation Counsel represents the County as Plaintiff in ordinance enforcement through citations and complex forfeiture actions, as Petitioner's Counsel to the Department of Human Services in Chapter 54 guardianship and Chapter 55 protective placement matters, and the interests of the public in Chapter 48 child welfare matters and Chapter 51 involuntary commitment matters. In Marathon and Green Lake County, I have also served as the Child Support Agency’s attorney focusing on matters under Chapter 767 Family Code to establish child support and non-financial orders, adjudicate paternity, review orders when appropriate, and enforce orders when payers are non-compliant. In Waupaca County, I am the Child Support Agency Administrator and must stay current with state policies and legislative changes and case law affecting Chapter 767. I have a wide substantive legal knowledge in civil matters affecting individuals and families in Waupaca County. As a prosecutor, I must adhere to the civil rules of procedure, discovery and pre-trial motions, and the rules of evidence as set forth in Wisconsin Statutes. In all of my years in the Office of Corporation Counsel, I have maintained a successful working relationship with the District Attorney’s Office. The Corporation Counsel and the District Attorney often work in tandem with criminal law for Child Support Agency referrals for felony non-support criminal charges, in criminal mental health order to treat being converted to civil commitment orders, and in child welfare cases that have a parent also charged with the crime of child neglect or abuse. I have also developed positive working relationships with Waupaca County’s law enforcement jurisdictions. City and Village Police Department Officers and Sheriff’s Office Deputies frequently serve as fact witnesses in mental commitment and child welfare cases. I have appeared at countless “in custody” hearings where individuals make their initial appearance on criminal complaints or to quash a civil child support warrant or to have an allocution hearing on a Commitment Order for a contempt sanction. My day-to-day practice in Circuit Court has significant overlap with the criminal justice system. I am confident that I will be able to quickly expand my knowledge of the criminal code, and to properly ensure the rules of criminal procedure have been followed by the State and the Defendant as set forth in Wisconsin Statutes. My knowledge of the rules of evidence will be foundational in this endeavor. A successful Corporation Counsel is well versed in civil and criminal law as the two areas frequently overlap and are engaged with legal partners, including the District Attorney and law enforcement personnel. I have accomplished both. Waupaca County does not have a County Administrator or Executive. Therefore, I am involved in county projects and decision making that are not fundamentally legal in nature. For example, I have been involved in a multi-year $35 million Courthouse remodel project that started in 2021. Construction is underway and the substantial completion date is July 2027. I have been fully involved in all aspects of the project, from the development of the Request for Proposals; managing competitive bidding awards; AIA contract negotiations with the architect and the construction management firm; and continued engagement with the project professionals to make sure the project is on time and on budget. At each stage of the project, legal services were provided and communicated to the County Board of Supervisors and the relevant Standing Committees for educated decisions to be made. On June 19, 2024, Waupaca County also endured a Network Interruption that affected county-wide systems and service delivery. I was called upon to lead the County through the cyber incident, working closely with outside counsel and its technical advisors, to guide the County Board in decision making regarding the possible compromise of County data, the resolution of the incident, and the restoration of County services. The County was back online on July 5, 2024 and required data breach notices met necessary federal and state timelines in December 2024 and January 2025. This incident demonstrates that although I can be prepared for the routine aspects of my legal duties and responsibilities, I must also demonstrate leadership, clear thinking, reasoned decision making, and an ability to communicate complex facts to others in a manner that is understandable and guides proper decision making in times of crisis and for which I had no prior experience. Throughout all of my practice experience, starting at Wisconsin Judicare in 2000, I have been asked to make legal decisions, at times in writing, but frequently orally and contemporaneously, when presented with a particular set of facts or situations. I am able to apply the situation presented to the appropriate law, make reasoned decisions founded in the law, and communicate the legal decision to the intended audience. The wealth of substantive legal knowledge I have gained over the course of my career has provided me with an excellent foundation to serve as a judge. The decision making and communication skills I have developed over my career are exactly the type of skills that will make me an effective judge. Describe typical clients: My clients are the citizens of Waupaca County, the County Board, its elected officials, and its Departments. Representing a body as a client can be challenging as individuals who are a part of the body may have competing interests or differing goals. It is always critical to effectively communicate the facts and the relevant law to be able to advise the body and to not be swayed by a particular point of view or outcome. As the Corporation Counsel, representing the County Board, I have undertaken significant legislative legal writing in Waupaca County through ordinance revisions, including repealing and replacing entire Chapters of the Code of Ordinances. I provide legal advice to the County’s elected officials and Department Heads regarding the Wisconsin Public Records and Open Meetings laws. I have experience in areas of the law that are frequently on the Circuit Court docket. My experience as a practitioner in these substantive areas is advantageous when called upon as a judge to make findings, rulings, and orders in these substantive areas. In these cases, I represent the interests of the public (Chapters 48 and 51), the Department of Human Services (Chapters 54 and 55), and the State of Wisconsin (Chapter 767). Most of these case types also have stringent timelines and notice requirements to uphold due process rights of individuals as liberty interests are affected. As a practitioner, I am principled in affording individuals all the process that the law provides both to maintain the integrity of the proceeding and to protect the individual’s rights. I will do the same as a judge. I also understand that a family law case will be “open” throughout a child’s minority and beyond. The judge may be called upon to enter orders affecting the family as facts and circumstances change for the case participants over time. It is critical for a judge to understand that families are dynamic and their need for court involvement may also evolve over time. I specialize in Chapter 54 guardianships, Chapter 55 protective placements, and Chapter 51 involuntary commitments. I have handled these matters for over twenty years. I have prosecuted child welfare cases and termination of parental rights cases under Chapter 48 for almost twenty years. I have expertise in sections of Chapter 767 Family Law that apply to the child support program, including Wis. Admin. Code DCF 150 Child Support Standard, because of my involvement with County Child Support Agencies since 2003. I am routinely in Circuit Court for these cases, requiring me to be prepared to present my case both factually and through legal argument. After over a decade in the position of Corporation Counsel, I can honestly say no one day is the same as any other, and I am always challenged to expand my practice areas to make certain the legal needs of the County are met. As a judge, I will be called upon to do the same to judiciously manage the proceedings before me. As a judge, I will not control the types of proceedings that come before me. However, my substantive legal experience and the routine work of the Corporation Counsel that constantly involves the challenge to provide legal answers for new legal questions presented will serve me well when in making decisions as a judge. Number of cases tried to verdict: 6 List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: I have selected two cases that I have participated in to demonstrate the breadth of the legal skills in my service as Corporation Counsel. There is a case of state-wide significance and one of evolution of a case to ensure individual rights fit evolving circumstances. Waupaca County v. K.E.K., 2021 WI 9, 395 Wis.2d 460, 954 N.W.2d 366. This case is significant in the common law evolution of Chapter 51 recommitment hearings under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(am), a process that continues to the present day. Since the time K.E.K was in the trial court in 2018, Chapter 51 recommitment hearings, also called extension hearings, have been in both the Court of Appeals and the Wisconsin Supreme Court on multiple issues related to the burden of proof required as to dangerousness of a person presently receiving treatment for mental health, the notice requirements to the individual, the ability to enter default orders, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the competency of the court to proceed if mandatory timelines are not followed. K.E.K. was in individual who was committed to a sixth month involuntary commitment order with an order for involuntary medication and treatment in 2017 after a jury trial under what is known colloquially as “the 5th Standard” in Waupaca County Case No. 17ME44. As the initial commitment period was set to expire, the County, representing the public interest pursuant Wis. Stat. sec. 51.20(4), petitioned for both orders to be extended on May 18, 2018. After a bench trial, K.E.K.’s commitment order and order for involuntary medication and treatment was extended for an additional twelve months. K.E.K. appealed the trial court’s order, arguing that the recommitment statute was unconstitutional on its face and as applied and violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. Waupaca County was represented by my office, including Assistant Corporation Counsel David G. Been. The presiding trial court judge was Judge Vicki L. Clussman. This case then went to the Court of Appeals (Waupaca County v. K.E.K., 389 Wis.2d 104, 2019 WI App 58) and the Wisconsin Supreme Court (Waupaca County v. K.E.K., 2021 WI 9, 395 Wis.2d 460, 954 N.W.2d 366). K.E.K. was represented in the trial court by Assistant State Public Defender Kate Drury and on appeal by Appellate Public Defender Colleen G. Ball. I was involved in this process in trial preparation, reviewing and editing briefs, providing secondary legal research, and preparing for oral argument. The Supreme Court ruled in the County’s favor and upheld the constitutionality of the recommitment statute both facially and as applied. K.E.K. filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in the United States Supreme Court again alleging the statute was unconstitutional on its face and applied. See 142 S. Ct. 594. After being served notice of the Petition for Review in July 2021, I brought this case to its ultimate conclusion. First, I responded by notifying the United States Supreme Court that Waupaca County would not be filing a Brief in Opposition. The United States Supreme Court, however, directed Waupaca County to do so. I was admitted to the Supreme Court of the United States bar. I was assisted in assembling the Brief in Opposition by Kearney Law Office who also provided guidance on the procedures of filing in the Supreme Court and the internal workings of the Supreme Court. I contributed the fundamental legal knowledge of the practical and legal requirements of Chapter 51 recommitments cases and the individuals with mental illness who have exhibited dangerous behaviors in the community triggering the intervention of the court process, including applying the law to the facts and the stringent due process protections within the law, including strict timelines. Together we worked on the County’s legal analysis and argument. On October 27, 2021, I filed the Brief in Opposition in the Supreme Court of the United States. On December 6, 2021, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States. 142 S. Ct. 594 (Mem), 211 L.Ed.2d 369. The utilization of the recommitment statute as an integral tool to ensure individuals with mental illness whose condition places himself of herself in danger to self or others while residing in the community receive necessary treatment and medication to regain stability and safety in their lives. The legal work by the Waupaca County Office of Corporation Counsel has upheld the constitutionality of the statute that is significant in maintaining personal and community safety. To date, Waupaca County v. K.E.K., has a total of forty-six citing references on Westlaw, including twenty-two cases demonstrating its impact on jurisprudence related to Chapter 51 recommitment standard, but the standard of review required in finding a statute unconstitutional both facially and applied. Waupaca County’s Brief in Opposition is submitted as one of my writing samples. In the Matter of [redacted], Waupaca County Case No. 16-GN-15 I have been involved as Petitioner’s Counsel in this case since the filing of the guardianship petition on June 18, 2016, by Adult Protective Services Social Worker. The ward in this case is a young adult, born in 1996, who suffered a traumatic brain injury after a motorcycle accident. Presently the individual has a guardian of the person and a guardian of the estate first ordered in August 2016 and in October 2016 was ordered protectively placed. The case is assigned to Waupaca County Judge Troy L. Nielsen. The ward has had four different attorneys appointed as his Guardian ad Litem: Attorneys Eric D. Hendrickson, Sean P. Donahue, Thomas J. Hart, and David William Franker. The ward has had four different attorneys appointed as Adversary Counsel: Attorneys Joseph M. Norby, Karen L. Marone, Thomas W. Johnson, Theodore C. Johnson, Richard E. Bender, and Steven Edward Hendrix. This case is significant as it demonstrates the Court’s involvement in ensuring that an individual’s rights are retained and exercised with his then current capacities. It is not surprising that an individual recovers physically and cognitively from a traumatic brain injury. This ward’s recovery has been progressive, and the County has petitioned to have his rights restored as he has regained mental capacity to engage in decisions about his medical needs and his personal situation. The Determination and Order on Petition for Permanent Guardianship Due to Incompetency has been amended multiple times as warranted by the ward’s recovery. In April 2017, his right to obtain a fishing license was restored in full. In September 2018, his right to independently handle $100 per month at the discretion of the guardian was restored. In May 2019, a Petition was filed to restore rights that he may exercise with the consent of the guardian of the person: consent to marriage; apply for a license under Ch. 29, Wis. Stat. other than fishing; consent to sterilization; and consent to organ, tissue, or bone marrow donation. In addition, Petition requested that rights regarding his health decisions, educational and social services decisions, and educational and vocational placements, among other rights, be partially restored to the ward to exercise with approval of his guardian of the person. At this time, the ward stated he wanted to have a girlfriend and have an intimate relationship, intending to hopefully be married. The County arranged for the ward to be evaluated by a psychologist regarding the restoration of the above rights, and the ward’s cognitive ability related to the issue of sexual consent, both in consenting to his own actions and in recognizing his partner’s consent or lack of consent and making appropriate sexual intimacy decisions. The goal throughout this process was to have this ward experience life in a manner that was consistent with his cognitive abilities. In April 2020, the Order was amended to reflect the restoration of rights in the Petition for Modification. The psychologist offered his professional opinion that the ward did not have sufficient cognition and executive functioning regarding consent for sexual intimacy; however, the ward retains the right to marry if his guardian of the person also consents to the marriage granting him hope that he may marry in the future. The Order for Protective Placement continues to be reviewed on an annual basis as is required by statute. The ward most recently was evaluated again by an examiner of his choice on the continuing need for a guardian and the appropriateness of his current group home placement as the least restrictive setting. This case is significant to the ward and others under guardianship as it demonstrates that a case will have its own progression to mirror the recovery of the ward, who is the subject of the case. As Petitioner’s counsel, it is imperative to request the court to intervene in the least restrictive manner in the ward’s decision making. This case also demonstrates each Circuit Court decision and order has an impact on those who seek relief from the Court. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have represented the respective County Department of Human Services or Social Services in child welfare substantiation appeals under Chapter 48 in various State of Wisconsin Department of Administration hearings. I have represented the Waupaca County Planning and Zoning Office in appeals to the Waupaca County Board of Adjustment, a quasi-judicial body created by Wis. Stat. sec. 59.694. I have handled appeals to the Social Security Administration as a Civil Unit Staff Attorney at Wisconsin Judicare. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). As a Judicial Intern for Justice Prosser in 1999, I wrote three briefs for questions presented in cases pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. As a Civil Unit Staff Attorney at Wisconsin Judicare, I staffed a monthly walk-in free legal services clinic at the Wausau Salvation Army. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: n/a Previous runs for public office: n/a All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Hon. Scott M. Corbett, Marathon County Circuit Court, Branch 6, 2021 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Waupaca County Bar Association, 2015-present Green Lake County Bar Association, president, 2014 Marathon County Bar Association, 2003-2013 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: The three internships identified in Question 10 generated tangible resources for use in pro bono or volunteer legal services situations. The Goldmark Internship award included a stipend; however, the others did not. Each internship provided an opportunity to establish templates and other foundational resources to assist and engage other attorneys that are providing pro bono legal services. These include the following deliverables: -Developed administrative, screening and procedural forms for the Family Law Assistance Center, a volunteer-based weekly walk-in clinic serving pro se family law litigants as a legal intern at the Center for Public Representation; -Wrote Constructing a Family Law Trial Level Brief When Domestic Violence is in the Record, a 130 page "template" brief for use by legal services attorneys, family law clinical programs, and pro bono attorneys state-wide for direct representation to low-income clients as a Goldmark Intern; and -Wrote a landlord-tenant resource guide with information, procedures, and contact persons to resolve untenantability issues in a seven-county region as an intern at Western Wisconsin Legal Services. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I want to serve the people of Wisconsin as a judge as it is noble work worth doing. I will continue to serve the people of Wisconsin by using the foundational legal knowledge I have gained over the last twenty-two years in matters that affect individuals, families, and children and most significantly in issues related to the protection of children, the safety of our most vulnerable adults, and the resolution of family law matters. I want to work to enhance the safety of the people of Wisconsin by approaching criminal cases with a focus on offender accountability and victims’ rights. I will serve the people of Waupaca County by fairly responding to the judicial remedies requested by all who seek the circuit court to resolve matters affecting their lives, their livelihoods, and their communities. One of my fundamental truths is that each person in the courtroom has a significant role in the adversarial judicial system established by Wisconsin law and common law. I will serve the people of Waupaca County by providing respect to all who enter my courtroom until that individual engages in words or actions that as a consequence deprive her or him of my respect. Even so, all will be treated with diplomacy and decorum. I will demand the same of others who appear before me. For twenty-two years, I have spent nearly every working day engaged in the functioning of the county courthouse. I have a valuable understanding of the Courts’ partners, namely the Clerk of Courts and the Probate Office. I appreciate, support, and understand the important work of the District Attorney’s Office and her staff. I have lived the work of the Office of Corporation Counsel. I have a wealth of knowledge regarding Waupaca County’s operations, including the annual budget process and its implications on funding and personnel decisions that may impact the circuit court. I will use this knowledge to ensure the people of Wisconsin are served by a Circuit Court that is sound and able to perform the essential delivery of court services to those who seek it. I want to serve the people of Wisconsin as Waupaca County Circuit Court Branch III because I want to stand up for the people of Wisconsin. 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. On behalf of the people of Wisconsin, I am troubled by the legal cases that have been filed to restrict voting rights. Therefore, I believe that one of several voter registration cases had a significant positive impact on the people of Wisconsin: State ex. rel. Zignego v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, 2021 WI 32, 396 Wi.2d 391, 957 N.W.2d 208. The case was intended to force the Wisconsin Elections Commission to purge voter registration records based on demographic information provided through the ERIC voter database. The Circuit Court used both its power of Mandamus and Contempt of Court to force Wisconsin Elections Commission to purge the voter registration rolls. However, the holding in the case clarifies the responsibilities under Wis. Stat. § 6.50(3) to change the registration of electors who may have moved out of their municipality is solely given to the municipal clerk or board of election commissioners. The municipal clerk or board of election commissioners has a duty to act when they receive reliable and credible information that a registered elector has changed his or her residence to a location outside of the municipality. The case provided guidance that it is the responsibility of the municipal clerk or board of election commissioners must send a letter regarding the move to the elector, and if the register elector does not respond within 30 days, the clerk of board of election commissioners shall change the elector’s registration form eligible to ineligible status. The Court held that the Wisconsin Elections Commission has no mandatory duties under Wis. Stat. § 6.50(3) regarding updating elector status based on change of residency information. As the Wisconsin Elections Commission has no mandatory duty to update elector status, the lower court’s use of the writ of mandamus and contempt of court powers was misplaced. The case is significant as it demonstrates the Wisconsin Supreme Court using the plain language analysis of the actual words in the statute and applying the canon of statutory construction. In 2021, the decision provided a clear analytical approach to how the Court may examine the case cases brought before it. It is also significant that it demonstrates the power of the Wisconsin Supreme Court to withdraw language from the lower Court of Appeals decision where it declined to decide an issue that the Court of Appeals had decided, namely the writ of mandamus compelling the Wisconsin Election Commission to comply with § 6.50(3) and reversed the contempt order against the Wisconsin Election Commission. The case is positive because it prevented approximately 234,000 electors from being disenfranchised to vote, supports Wisconsin’s unique system of election administration based on local municipal control and oversight, and takes a broad step in ending voter suppression in the present day where elections are won by slim margins. The decision fundamentally supports the statutory duties of local officials in the electoral process. This provides legitimacy to the elections process for all who engage in the civic duty of voting. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: I admire Justice Ann Walsh Bradley because she has been a steadfast, consistent presence in her time on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In addition, she is consistent in interactions with others when she is not on the bench and in the community for various events and engagements. I did not practice in Marathon County when Justice Bradley was in Circuit Court, Branch 3. I met her for the first time as a Judicial Intern for Justice David T. Prosser in 1999. Justice Bradley has consistently emphasized non-partisanship in the role of the judiciary, demonstrating independence and steadfastly applying the rule of law. She has advocated for transparency in governance, which as a Corporation Counsel has informed and directed the legal advice I provide to Waupaca County’s elected officials. Her opinions on open governance constantly serve as a polestar for me in my role as Corporation Counsel. Waupaca County was able to meet Justice Bradley and the entire Supreme Court in its Justice on Wheels visit to Waupaca County on October 10, 2022. Justice Bradley was, as always, engaging and effervescent in her love of the law and her work as a Justice. I also admire Judge Greg Grau (Reserve), former Marathon County Circuit Court, Branch 4. On December 18, 2003, at 8:30 AM, I was administered the oath to serve as Assistant Corporation Counsel for Marathon County. At 8:40 AM, Corporation Counsel Thomas P. Finley told me I was going to handle the child support cases in Branch 4, said that I would be “just fine,” and we walked to court together. I had not been inside a courtroom for two years, having worked at the Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups Elder Law Center from November 2001 to December 2003. In that moment, I was struggling to get a grasp on the facts of the cases and trying to be calm as I represented the State of Wisconsin by Marathon County Child Support Agency in ten different cases. As Judge Grau later told me at my “going away” party in Marathon County almost ten years later, I was “shaking like a leaf.” Then he laughed heartily. It was the only time he mentioned that day to me. Judge Grau was even in his temperament on the bench, and consistent in his findings and holdings. He was measured and thoughtful in entering his rulings. He also offered quips or sarcasm when he found humor or irony in a situation, showing his humanity. I admire Judge Grau as he demonstrated that it is possible to make tough decisions with empathy and humility. Finally, I admire Judge Grau as he made me want to be a better attorney by challenging me subtly and with support and guidance. The proper role of a judge: The proper role of a judge is to walk the tightrope between expressing her humanity in the management of the daily docket and in understanding the gravity of the decisions and orders she makes. A judge is independent in her decision making, applying the rule of law with equity and fairness. It is not the job of the judge to re-write the law but to interpret the law as the Legislature enacted it. A judge is neutral in her approach to each case, listening carefully to all of the evidence and fairly deciding the proper weight it should be given if she is the trier of fact. A judge is responsible for the decorum of the courtroom, setting and demonstrating a high standard for all to follow; and to direct an end to behaviors that are unacceptable in the courtroom. A judge must stay current in the law, striving to continually educate herself on pending legislation, statutory amendments, and newly released cases. A judge must strive to have her decisions affirmed if they are appealed. A judge must not be complacent in her understanding of the law but constantly strive to enhance her understanding of the law and improve her skills in legal analysis. A judge is a role model for others, including supporting new attorneys as they develop their skills and advocacy in representing their clients with integrity. A judge is willing to share her knowledge and love of the law with community members, including children, who are interested in the courts and court procedures. Simply stated, a judge allows all voices to be heard. In my career in public service, I have demonstrated the actions and attributes required to fulfill the role of a proper judge. I am able to listen to the question presented, receive complete factual information on the issue at hand, apply a thorough understanding of relevant statutes and case law, and offer a legal conclusion. I have practiced in a manner that is attentive to the situations before me, and that delivers sound legal advice to all those who have sought my counsel.
0 Comments
"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: David O. Hughes
Appointed to: Kenosha County Circuit Court Appointment date: Dec. 23, 2025, to term ending July 31, 2027 Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan High School – Forest Hills Central, Forest Hills, Michigan Recent legal employment: June 2021-present – Supplemental court commissioner, Kenosha County Circuit Court July 2012-present – Attorney, Puntillo Camilli & Hughes, Kenosha, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin General character of practice: I maintain a general civil practice that does not include family law or criminal law. My practice includes both litigation and transactional matters. In addition, I serve as a supplemental court commissioner for the Kenosha County Circuit Court. In that capacity, I cover proceedings in criminal intake court, family court, juvenile court, traffic court, and small claims court. Describe typical clients: My typical clients are individuals, families, small to medium businesses, local colleges, and regional financial institutions. I have focused on estate planning, probate administration, trust administration, commercial litigation, higher education, commercial and residential real property, and providing outside general counsel services. Number of cases tried to verdict: 3, not including small claims matters 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: From 2018 through 2020, I represented a married couple as lead counsel in a property damage claim against their neighbors and their neighbors' insurer in Kenosha County, Wisconsin. … The matter was significant both because it proceeded to a full jury trial and because private nuisance was the central claim. Public and private nuisance are notoriously complex legal questions. From 2020 through 2023, I defended a former homeowner as lead counsel against misrepresentation claims arising from my client's sale of a home in Kenosha County, Wisconsin. … The matter was significant because of its procedural complexity, which involved a plaintiff, defendant, and two intervening insurers, each of whom had a different interest in the action. It also entailed multiple summary judgment motions, one of which decisively resolved a complex question about the purchaser plaintiff’s insurer's subrogation rights in my client's favor. And while outside the seven-year scope of this question, I also defended a trio of beneficiaries as second counsel from 2012 through 2016 against claims that they improperly received assets that should have been distributed to the plaintiff beneficiaries in Racine County, Wisconsin. … The matter was significant because it represented my earliest exposure to probate, probate-adjacent litigation, and appeals. The court ultimately dismissed all of the claims against my clients for failing to state a claim and on summary judgment. I undertook the legal research and wrote the briefs that supported those dispositive motions. The plaintiff beneficiaries appealed both decisions. The court of appeals upheld both decisions on appeal. I undertook the legal research and wrote the briefs that defended those decisions on appeal. I also find this matter to be significant because it substantially informed the advice I would give to future estate planning. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have successfully represented clients in adversary proceedings before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Equal Rights Division of the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, as well as investigations by the Division of Animal Health at the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and the Division of Industry Services at the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). I regularly represent clients in mediation, usually as ordered by a court in the context of ongoing litigation. In many instances, my clients have been able to resolve and settle their disputes as a result of mediation. I have also successfully represented a homeowner in a claim against a construction firm in binding arbitration before the Metropolitan Builders Association Construction Arbitration Board. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: I volunteered in support of Angelina Gabriele's campaign for election to the Kenosha County Circuit Court in 2021. I was a member of Heather Iverson's campaign committee when she sought election to the Kenosha County Circuit Court in 2024. I was a member of Carli McNeill's campaign committee when she sought election as the Kenosha County District Attorney in 2024. Previous runs for public office: Not applicable All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Judge Angelina Gabriele, Kenosha County Circuit Court - Branch 3, 2021 Judge Heather Iverson, Kenosha County Circuit Court - Branch 6, 2024 Carli McNeill, Kenosha County District Attorney, 2024 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Kenosha County Bar Association, including as president and director, February 2014-present Friends of the Kenosha Public Museum, including as president and director, May 2013-present Kenosha Public Museum Foundation, secretary and director, February 2015-present Visit Pleasant Prairie, director, February 2025-present Kenosha Housing Authority, treasurer and commissioner, July 2019-present Kenosha Courthouse Restoration Project. Blue Ribbon committee, July 2023-October 2024 Leadership Kenosha, participant, September 2012-May 2013 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: I have provided substantial volunteer service to Kenosha County since moving here after graduating from law school. As detailed in my answer to question 28, I have served on the boards of many different civic and charitable organizations. In that capacity, I have contributed countless volunteer hours. For example, I have organized and then volunteered at events sponsored by the Friends of the Kenosha Public Museums in support of the Kenosha Public Museums. I perform a similar function for almost every event sponsored by the Kenosha County Bar Association since I joined its board in 2014. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: Despite (or perhaps because of) being the child and grandchild of attorneys who later became judges, I never wanted to be an attorney or a judge myself. When faced with the inevitable questions about my plans after college, I always answered that I planned to do anything but attend law school. A summer internship put flight to that answer. I spent a summer providing technical support to local law firm, where I found myself fascinated by the actual work that attorneys do. After graduating from law school, I still maintained that I had no interest in crossing the bar and taking the bench. I went to law school to be an attorney. That meant a career of examining, analyzing, and solving problems for clients. I have had the good fortune to develop a practice that has allowed me to grapple with those challenges. But an unexpected opportunity has tested and overwhelmed my professed judicial disinterest. In 2021, the Honorable Angelina Gabriele asked me to serve as a supplemental court commissioner in Kenosha County. I accepted her offer because I wanted to push myself to learn and apply law outside my normal civil practice. While presiding in family, juvenile, and criminal intake court has broadened my experience, I also discovered that I enjoy the freedom that accompanies the responsibility of presiding over the matters before me. When sitting on the bench, I do not have to build a legal argument in service of my client's interests. Instead, I survey and construct the available law according to my best interpretation of the applicable statutes, decisions, and legal principles. When sitting on the bench, I do not have to probe for support for any particular party's position. Instead, I sift through the facts presented, find the most important to the questions before me, then apply those facts to my interpretation of the applicable law. The process liberates me from the compromises that accompany advocacy. I want to serve as a judge because it will allow me to use that intellectual freedom to the benefit of the people of Wisconsin. But more important than any intellectual freedom is the opportunity to do justice by listening to the people of Wisconsin. When I sit on the bench, I do not see plaintiffs, defendants, petitioners, respondents, victims, or witnesses, but people who often find themselves enmeshed in a complex and unfamiliar system. Each has complaints, frustrations, and problems that bring them to court. Justice is not just a decision; justice is a process. That process requires more than the clinical application of law. No matter the decision, the people before me should know that I heard them and considered their case. I want to serve the people of Wisconsin because I can do justice by listening to them. 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 believe two recent cases have had a significant impact on the people of Wisconsin. The first is Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). In Carpenter, the FBI obtained cell site records from wireless carriers for a number of defendants accused of orchestrating robberies across Michigan and Ohio. The cell site records connected one particular defendant to the times and locations of several of the charged robberies. However, the FBI obtained the defendant's cell site records without a search warrant. The defendant argued that the warrantless seizure of their cell site records violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court's decision overturned the lower court decisions that the Fourth Amendment did not apply to the defendant's cell site records and, in turn, held that acquiring those records required a warrant. While I applaud Carpenter’s holding, I find its reasoning to be even more important for the people of Wisconsin. First, the Court's decision bolstered the privacy-based interpretation of the Fourth Amendment as a protection against otherwise overwhelming and unavoidable surveillance. Second, and more importantly, Carpenter reexamined and narrowed the third-party doctrine. In doing so, the Court functionally recognized that modern life requires people to provide their data and records to third parties. Its decision allows the people of Wisconsin to participate in that life without forfeiting their right to be free from arbitrary searches and seizures. The second is Banuelos v. University of Wisconsin Hospitals & Clinics Authority, 2023 WI 25, 406 Wis. 2d 439, 988 N.W.2d 627. In Banuelos, the plaintiff requested electronic copies of her medical records from the defendant pursuant to section 146.83 of the Wisconsin Statutes. That section describes the process by which health care providers must provide patients with access to their medical records and also allows health care providers to levy certain charges for providing copies of medical records. The defendant charged the plaintiff for her medical records and the plaintiff filed suit to challenge those charges. The defendant argued that the statute did not explicitly prohibit charging patients for electronic copies of their medical records, which meant that it could impose such charges. The plaintiff offered the opposite interpretation: the statute did not specifically allow health care providers to charge for electronic copies of patients' medical records, so the defendant had no authority to demand copying or production fees. The Court held that the statute's silence did not equal permission. Once again, I believe the specific holding of Banuelos matters less than its larger context. In Banuelos, the Court untangled an underappreciated corner of the Wisconsin Statutes, which accrued to the benefit of the people of Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Statutes have lots of other underappreciated and unexamined corners that the people of Wisconsin regularly encounter. The Court's examination and interpretation of those statutes often provides the greatest practical and beneficial impact for the people of Wisconsin. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: The first justice that I admire is Justice Elena Kagan, of the U.S. Supreme Court. I usually find common cause with her jurisprudence, especially her approach to statutory construction and her perspective on the necessity and benefits of the administrative state. But more importantly, Justice Kagan has a well-deserved reputation as the best legal writer on the Court. Her opinions eloquently distill intricate legal concepts into accessible explanations. And she does so without sacrificing nuance or eroding their inherent complexities. When I write to or speak with clients, I aspire to make myself as clear and as coherent as Justice Kagan's explanation of the fiendishly complex application of time to principal beneficiaries and derivative beneficiaries during the visa application process in Scialabba v. de Osorio, 573 U.S. 41, 46-56 (2014). The second judge that I admire is Judge David P. Wilk of the Kenosha County Circuit Court. Much of my litigation practice has occurred in the civil divisions of the Kenosha County. Judge Wilk has spent much of his tenure presiding over one of the two branches assigned to civil actions in Kenosha County. As such, I have had many opportunities to watch Judge Wilk manage his courtroom. Those observations have led me to admire Judge Wilk's temperament and composure. While he has high expectations of the attorneys that appear before him, he treats them as colleagues, not combatants. Judge Wilk allows attorneys the opportunity to advocate for their clients, while respectfully probing the strength of their arguments. As importantly, he accepts challenges to his initial impressions without rancor. When pro se parties appear before Judge Wilk, he keeps them to the narrow path where they can present evidence, argue their position, and tell their story while also abiding by the applicable rules of civil procedure and evidence, all without arousing their ire. And while just outside the scope of this question, I also admire both Professor Orin Kerr and Radley Balko. Professor Kerr, of Stanford Law School, focuses his much of his scholarship on the Fourth Amendment. In particular, he has frequently written about the Fourth Amendment's collision with emerging digital phenomena like GPS location data and cloud-based records. I do not agree with all of Professor Kerr's answers, but his writing asks important questions that the Fourth Amendment's text and case law do not immediately answer. Mr. Balko, formerly of the Washington Post, frequently writes about areas of the criminal justice system that are particularly susceptible to institutional abuse. His reporting has exposed me to the often unseen limitations of many criminal forensic techniques and the unintended consequences that can accompany the militarization of law enforcement. The proper role of a judge: During his confirmation hearings, future Chief Justice John Roberts famously quipped that "I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat." While I understand why Judge Roberts downplayed the judiciary's role in making law, I fundamentally disagree with his characterization. To extend Justice Robert's analogy, judges do not just call balls and strikes. They also decide the strike zone. I identified Banuelos v. University of Wisconsin Hospitals & Clinics Authority, 2023 WI 25, 406 Wis. 2d 439, 988 N.W.2d 627, as a decision that has significantly benefited the people of Wisconsin because it illustrates this function. That case did not turn on a narrow reading of the statute, but on the Court's decision about how to read that statute. Expanding its gaze to examine the statute's context and legislative history allowed the Court to conclude that the statute's text did not license the defendant to charge additional fees. A judge's proper role is to interpret the law as enacted in statute and decided by precedent. But a judge must also recognize how their framing of the law can push their decision in a particular direction and use that framing as an opportunity to do justice. Second, a judge's role is to manage their courtroom with respect for the parties appearing before them. That respect takes two forms. First, a judge must remain humble and aware of their own limitations. Donning a black robe does not convey an unimpeachable knowledge of the law and relevant. A judge must know the law and understand the facts, but accept the possibility of their own error. Whether pro se or represented by an attorney, every party should have an opportunity to state their case and have their argument honestly considered. Second, a judge must balance that opportunity with regards for the time and burdens of the other parties in that matter or other matters on the calendar. A judge's role is also to oversee an efficient courtroom. Finally, I believe that the most underappreciated, but perhaps most important, role of a judge is to listen to the parties. In serving as a court commissioner, I have found that most parties, whether represented by counsel or pro se, want to know that someone has recognized the facts, feelings, and frustrations that brought them to court. It can be tempting to tune out the parties' emotions and focus on the outcome. But a judge should make the parties aware that they heard what they said and took it into account when rendering a decision. As importantly, a judge should do their best to help the parties understand the reasons for their decision and why it did, or did not, go in their favor. By listening to and acknowledging the parties, a judge helps preserve the legitimacy of their court and the legal system at large. "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: Owen Piotrowski
Appointed to: Milwaukee County Circuit Court Appointment date: Jan. 7, 2026, (effective Feb. 1, 2026) to term ending July 31, 2027. (Piotrowski was earlier appointed to a planned retirement vacancy in Branch 38 and then named to Branch 31 to fill the immediate vacancy created by resignation of Judge Hannah Dugan.) Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Eau Clarie High School – Pacelli High, Stevens Point, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: September 2014-present – Assistant district attorney, Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin General character of practice: I am an Assistant District Attorney in Milwaukee County. My practice is exclusively in the area of criminal prosecution. For the past several years, I have supervised a team of four Assistant District Attorneys and two Assistant Attorney Generals who are responsible for the prosecution of non-fatal shooting in Milwaukee County. Describe typical clients: I serve the people of Milwaukee County. Given the size of the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office, I have served in a number of units prosecuting specific kinds of offenses: the domestic violence unit, the sensitive crimes unit, and the violent crimes unit. Number of cases tried to verdict: 63 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: State v. Xavier Sevilla, Milwaukee County case 22CF2693 This was a serious case that received significant media attention. As a 15 year old, Mr. Sevilla fired a gun during an ongoing dispute with another group of young people inside Mayfair Mall. Ultimately he shot 8 people inside the mall, four of whom had nothing to do with the ongoing dispute. The case began as a juvenile case and was waived into adult court only after the juvenile proceeding was appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I inherited this case shortly before the sentencing hearing when the prior ADA left my office for different employment. I had one week to familiarize myself with the case, communicate with victims, and make an appropriate sentencing argument. I succeeded in making an persuasive sentencing argument for an appropriate sentence without demonizing a defendant who was only 15 at the time he committed a mass shooting. State v. Kendall Love (22CF1689 and 22CF2000) and State v. Marvin Johnson (22CF1690 and 22CF1999) These cases involved two individuals who, acting together, shot two people around three hours apart in Milwaukee. In a nutshell, each defendant found a person they had a previous dispute with, hunted them down, ran up behind them, and repeatedly shot at their intended target. I charged the case, litigated the pretrial issues, and tried each defendant separately. Both defendants were convicted of a number of charges, including Attempted First Degree Intentional Homicide. Both defendants had significant criminal records. In each case the Judge followed my recommendation for an appropriately significant sentence of 40 years of initial confinement. State v. Sanchez Wilson, Milwaukee County case 19CF1411 This was a horrific case in which Mr. Wilson sexually assaulted a young girl in the morning and then, during a shootout with her uncle later that day, shot the same girl he had assaulted. This was my case from the beginning: I met with the family at charging, handled the pretrial litigation, tried the case (securing convictions on all counts), handled the sentencing, and consulted with the Wisconsin DOJ on the appeal. This case sticks out to me as significant because of the severity and variety of the crimes committed. It involved a wide variety of evidence: forensic interviews of children, DNA evidence, ballistic evidence, and many others. Ultimately during cross examination the defendant admitted to shooting the young victim. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: My career has been spent prosecuting cases in Circuit Court, so I have never practiced before an administrative agency or commission. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). My career has been spent litigating criminal cases, so I do not have significant experience with arbitration or mediation. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: I have never held an official position in a political campaign, partisan or otherwise. I was publicly involved in and did some campaign work on a State Senate campaign in 2020. My father ran as the Democratic candidate for the 24th Senate District. I made some public appearances as part of the campaign and engaged in some fundraising. 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: Historic Brewers Hill Association, April 2025-present Public office to which you were appointed or elected: Kenosha Housing Authority, appointed, July 2019-present Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: As an attorney for the State of Wisconsin I cannot provide pro bono legal services. A few years ago I joined the Milwaukee Curling Club. The MCC is run mostly by club members volunteering their time, and I regularly volunteer at these events. My wife and I co-chaired/ chaired the MCC's end of year event for club members in the Spring of 2024 and 2025. I have also volunteered at Polish Fest for the last couple of years. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I have served the people of Milwaukee County as a prosecutor for over eleven years, and I believe that I can best continue to positively impact my community as a Circuit Court Judge. I have the courtroom experience, professional judgment, and empathy necessary to be a judge in a trial court. Circuit Court Judges are uniquely situated to positively affect their community. The Court system, whether in the criminal or civil context, is where we as a people resolve our disputes. Both parties advocate their positions, but ultimately the Judge makes the tough decisions. I have spent my time in the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office seeing how judges make those tough decisions every day. I have the courtroom experience to make the appropriate calls regarding evidence and the willingness to listen to the parties and make the right decision for the community. As a prosecutor I have served not only as a zealous advocate, but more importantly as a minister of justice. Acting in that role in Milwaukee County criminal courts presents unique challenges because of the volume of cases and the amount of information that needs to be processed. Throughout my career I have developed the ability to handle that volume without losing sight of the most important question in every case: is what I am doing the best thing for the community in this situation? Simply put, I love Milwaukee County. I am a lifelong Wisconsin resident who grew up in Stevens Point, then went to college in Eau Claire, and law school in Madison. But Milwaukee is where I have made my home. There's no place else I would rather be. and there is no better way I can serve my community than as a Circuit Court 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. I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court decision that had the biggest negative impact on the people of Wisconsin, and people across the United States, in my lifetime is Citizens United v. F.E.C., 558 U.S. 310 (2010). For more than 100 years before that case was decided, there were some limits on independent expenditures by people and corporations. The U.S. Supreme Court obliterated those long held limits in Citizens United. The only potential beneficiaries of that decision are large corporations and extremely wealthy individuals. Every Wisconsin resident has experienced firsthand the consequences of that decision. As a traditional political battleground State, Wisconsin residents are subjected, election after election, to ads run by Political Action Committees. These ads, as long as they aren't formally coordinated with a candidate, are entirely legal after Citizens United. This has changed the entire tenor of political discourse for the worse. As a Political Science student at the University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire between 2007 and 2011, I remember many debates about the effectiveness and appropriateness of attack ads in political campaigns. Those debates feel like ancient history. Citizens United has turned political campaigns into a series of increasingly dishonest and vitriolic attacks on candidates, which has shunted actual political discussion to the side. Possibly worse, because PACs are allowed to run these ads technically "independently" of candidates and campaigns, it's unclear to people watching just who is responsible for spewing the lies and hatred common in ads these days. Virtually everyone in Wisconsin seems to agree that political discourse has degraded over the past ten years or so. Every dinner table at every family gathering across the State seems to include a lament about the way politics used to be. Citizens United is directly responsible for that degradation by allowing PACs to spend virtually unlimited amounts on blatantly dishonest and hateful advertising. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: I have been fortunate throughout my career to practice in front of many excellent Circuit Court Judges, two of whom have now been elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Justice Rebecca Dallet is the current Judge or Justice who I admire most. Early in my career, while she was the Judge in Br. 40 of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, I was primarily assigned to her courtroom. At the time, she was assigned to a calendar of domestic violence cases. I was able to see firsthand how Justice Dallet conducted her courtroom. I was consistently struck by her ability to maintain firm control over her courtroom (and as anyone who has practiced in Milwaukee County in the domestic violence courts can attest, maintaining control over those chaotic calendars is one of the most difficult tasks a judge can face) while treating everyone with respect and dignity. I remember trying one particularly difficult case in Justice Dallet's court with a particularly difficult pro se defendant. She demonstrated tremendous patience with the defendant while holding me to a high standard. I have been impressed with Justice Dallet's work on the Supreme Court. She always held me to a high standard as a young lawyer, and she continued the hold prosecutors statewide to that same high standard in State v. Wayerski, 385 Wis. 2d 344 (2011). That case, arguably, expanded a prosecutor's obligation to uncover and disclose exculpatory information to the defense. I believe that prosecutors should be held to the highest standards, and I admire Justice Dallet's willingness to enforce that standard. As a historical figure, I have always admired former Chief Justice Earl Warren. I don't think that the impact of the decisions made by the Supreme Court can be overstated. The landmark Brown v. Board of Education Decision that abolished segregation in public schools may be the most significant civil rights decision in the history of the United States. It is also indicative of two things this I admire about Justice Warren. First, this was the controversial topic of the day, and Justice Warren managed to author a unanimous opinion on the topic. Obtaining that unanimity, rather than showing the public a divided judiciary, I believe contributes to the lasting impact of that decision. Second, Justice Warren considered social science research about the effects of segregation in reaching this decision. I believe that the most important quality that a Judge or Justice can display is a willingness to listen. Justice Warren, by engaging with and considering social science, opened the door for courts to consider a wider variety of information and reach better decisions. The proper role of a judge: I believe that a good judge serves three main functions. First, a good judge listens to the parties. Second, a good judge properly administers the rules of procedure. Third, a good judge makes substantive decisions on a case with the good of the community in mind. A judge needs to really listen to and engage with the parties in a case. When a party states their positions, I believe that a good judge considers it, and asks follow-up questions as needed. Listening is not a passive activity. This also means carefully considering the written submissions of the parties. This active listening is one of the things that I believe separates a lawyer's functions from a judge's function. A lawyer will zealously advocate for their positions. The judge must listen to the positions of both parties, sifts through the self-serving statements by both parties, and reach the appropriate legal decision. Second, a judge must accurately administer the rules of procedure. We have a justice system that runs on an adversarial model. The rules of evidence, rules of civil procedure, and rules of criminal procedure set the expectations of the parties. A judge must have a mastery of those rules so that the parties have a basis from which to litigate a case. I firmly believe that this does not involve splitting the proverbial baby; if a call on an evidentiary or procedural issue is close, a good judge considers all of the available information and makes a tough decision. Ultimately the system falls apart and becomes unpredictable if procedural rules are not applied accurately and consistently. "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: Emily Nolan-Plutchak
Appointed to: Wood County Circuit Court Appointment date: July 9, 2025, to term ending July 31, 2026 Education: Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Madison High School – Madison West High, Madison, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: April 2023-present – Local attorney manager for Wood and Adams counties, Wisconsin State Public Defender, Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin May 2007-present – Assistant state public defender, Wisconsin State Public Defenders, Stevens Point, Wisconsin November 2006-May 2007 – Assistant public defender attorney, Missouri State Public Defender, St. Joseph, Missouri June 2005-November 2006 – Attorney, private practice, Madison, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin General character of practice: I am an Assistant State Public Defender Attorney, representing indigent adult and juvenile clients in criminal and civil cases.in Wood County. Since April of 2023, I have been the Local Attorney Manager in the Wisconsin Rapids Office, managing five attorneys, two support staff and one investigator. I handle misdemeanor and felony trial cases. I handle administrative hearings for probation revocation. I handle civil matters including guardianships, termination of parental rights cases and mental health commitments. I also represent juveniles in delinquency cases. Additionally, serve as adversary counsel for children in Children in Need of Protection and Services cases. In addition to hearings and depositions, my practice includes significant trial work. During my career I have handled over 2,500 cases. Describe typical clients: My clients, typically, are rural community members living in poverty many of whom have mental health issues and/or substance use disorders. My experience with their cases has been one of the reasons I have worked so diligently and collaboratively to create drug treatment programs, expand treatment options, and improve access to mental health services in the communities I serve. Number of cases tried to verdict: 18 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: Adams County Case 24TP2 I represented the mother in a termination of parental rights and then represented her at jury trial (January 29 and January 30, 2025), I successfully argued that Adams County Health and Human Services did not make reasonable efforts to reunify my client with her child and did not make appropriate accommodations in working with my client. I successfully showed at trial that my client wasn't able to read, yet no one at Adams County Health and Human Services (HHS) read to her any of the-documents in her case. The jury found that HHS did not make reasonable efforts to reunify my client with her child so there were no grounds to terminate her rights. This case was significant because my client was a teenage mother who had been failed by human services and the criminal justice system her entire life. Health and Human Services presumed because my client was incarcerated, young, and poor with a cognitive delay that she was not capable of parenting her child. The verdict forced Health and Human Services to actually provide services to my client so she has a chance at reunification with her child even though she is currently incarcerated. My client is now having visits with her child and is working with Health and Human Services to get the services that she needs to be successful. HHS is required to make appropriate accommodations so that she can be successful. She is looking forward to being released from prison and taking part in a year long Department of Corrections (DOC) program that helps people with mental health issues successfully transition in to society. Wood County Case 22CF388 My client was an 18 year old brown child, who was charged with attempted 1st degree intentional homicide for allegedly shooting a person in the head. This case contained a lot of video surveillance from the hotel where the incident happened. However, when the State provided me with the video, it was all in 30 second snippets. We had to piece together all the video in order to get an accurate picture of what happened in the middle of 'the night in that parking lot. Once we pieced all the video together, we discovered that there were witnesses present whom law enforcement never talked to. There was no indication on the video that the gun had been fired. Furthermore, the alleged victim did not speak English and law enforcement never utilized a translator when speaking to him. We had the video translated and the alleged victim told police that he had been hit, not shot. We then were able to hire an expert who opined that the alleged victim was never shot but rather it was likely he had been hit in the head with a beer bottle. This was a significant case because law enforcement clearly had tunnel vision. They saw a brown young man with a gun and made inferences that they could not back up with evidence. My client thought his life was over because he was brown and accused of attempted 1st degree intentional homicide. I was able to show him that even though the criminal justice system is often broken, that there are still people who will ensure that his rights are protected and there are people that will fight for him. On January 30, 2024 the case was dismissed by the District Attorney. Wood County Case 18CF191 My client was charged with possession with intent of heroin (10 to 50 grams) party to a crime, possession with intent of cocaine (15 to 40·grams) party to a crime, and maintaining a drug trafficking place. My client had been using heroin since high school. She had post traumatic stress disorder due to being present when her friend was killed while attempting to buy drugs in Milwaukee. My client felt an immense amount of guilt about that and stayed perpetually high on opiates. My client had been allowing drug dealers to live in her home because they gave her free drugs as payment. My client was also sexually assaulted many times during this period. Her house had become a drug haven where people came to buy and use drugs. Law enforcement believed my client was the root of the problem. I was able to convince law enforcement that due to the trauma in her past life, she was being taken advantage of by drug dealers in the community and was, in actuality, not the problem. Because I was able to convince law enforcement that she had significant trauma law enforcement supported her getting in to drug treatment court. I was then able to convince the assistant district attorney that even though she had very significant charges that she should be given a chance. Law enforcement was skeptical that she was going to be able to complete the program but I believed if she got the proper treatment she could be successful. During drug treatment court she received the proper treatment for her dual mental health and substance use disorder diagnosis. She started taking classes at the local technical college, she had a drug free baby and was able to fix relationships that she had with her family that had been destroyed due to her substance use. She graduated from drug treatment court on December 15, 2021. The felonies that had been diverted in to drug court were dismissed upon her graduation from drug court. Because of that, she has no felony convictions. She now lives in Waukesha, is raising her daughter and has received a diploma from technical college in cosmetology. She has been sober for 5 years. She has had no further interaction with the criminal justice system. This case was significant in Wood County because I was able to convince stakeholders involved in her case to look at her as a complete person and not just the crimes that she was charged with. She was then able to show them through her success that people with very serious traumatic pasts and very serious substance use disorders can be successful if given the proper tools and treatment. Her success opened the door to the treatment court to many people who may have not been considered in the past due to the severity of their charges. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have worked for the State Public Defender for 18 years. During this time I have represented countless clients at probation revocation hearings. These hearings utilize administrative codes and procedures. I defend people who are alleged to have violated their rules of supervision while on probation or extended supervision. I advocate for alternatives to revocation that the Department of Corrections may have overlooked. I also help find resources for my client so they can be successful on supervision. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). While I have not engaged in formal arbitration or mediation cases, I have worked closely in my revocation matters with the DOC to find alternatives to revocation. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: College Democrats at UWSP - 1999-2000, member College Democrats at UW-Madison - 2000-2002, member Tammy Baldwin for House of Representatives - 1999, volunteer Al Gore for President - 2000, volunteer Jim Doyle for Governor - 2003, volunteer Jim Doyle for Governor - 2008, volunteer Barack Obama for President - 2008, volunteer Barack Obama for President - 2012, volunteer Tammy Baldwin for Senate - 2013, volunteer Hillary Clinton for President - 2016, volunteer Joe Biden for President - 2020 & 2024, volunteer Kamala Harris for President - 2024, volunteer Previous runs for public office: None listed All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: None listed Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Portage County Bar Association, 2007-present Wood County Bar Association, 2007-present Wisconsin Association of Treatment Court Professionals, board member, 2012-2023; other roles including president, 2017-2019 Wood County Adult Drug Treatment Court, team member, 2007-present Wood County Drug Task Force, chair of Harm Reduction, 2017-2020 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: Wisconsin Rapids Raptor's Youth Football League – Board Member of Wisconsin Rapids youth tackle football and cheerleading program. As a board member I helped with outreach, registration, planning, fundraising, scholarship, practice, games and planning of banquets. The league has been able to maintain low costs by parent participation, minimal registration costs, fundraising and providing scholarships for children who cannot afford the registration costs so that every child who wants to participate is able to participate. Grove Parent Group – Member of the Grove Elementary parent group which was dedicated to focusing on disparities in learning due to socio-economic, racial and cultural differences at Grove Elementary School. A focus of the group was providing support to parents who struggled at engagement with the school because of past negative experiences with the educational system. Three Bridges Recovery – Board member for recovery coach non-profit organization. Three Bridges started as a grass roots non-profit in Wood County and now has contracts for recovery coach services all over the state, Preemie Mom’s Group – Leader, and founder, of a group dedicated to supporting moms who gave birth prematurely, at 32 weeks or less. A focus of the group was moms supporting moms through the unique experience of parenting babies in the NICU. I have mentored numerous attorneys and several law school interns while I have been a State Public Defender. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: My desire to serve the people of Wood County and Wisconsin as a judge arises from my longstanding commitment to being part of collaborative efforts to improve the criminal justice system and my knowledge of the impact judges can have within the courthouse and throughout the larger community. During my 18 years as a public defender, I have seen individuals and families on some of the worst days of their lives. The vast majority of the people I represent struggle with addiction and/or mental health issues. Many of them have been victims of crimes and/or abuse themselves. The trauma they carry is another huge factor in why they end up in the criminal justice system. I am an optimist. I can imagine a world—although we are not there yet—in which people’s interaction with the criminal justice system leaves them in a better place than when they entered it. My extensive involvement in the treatment courts in Wood County and throughout the state gives me optimism. Judges have traditionally seen their role as limited in addressing addiction or other issues that bring people into court. To improve the system and the outcomes for the people who find themselves caught up in it, Judges must embrace ways to move from a reactive, non-collaborative way of doing things. Judges are crucial to a Treatment Court’s success. They must offer leadership, support, and work as part of a team to make treatment court as effective as possible. I have seen Judges do that. The difference that approach can make in an individual’s life and future inspires me to serve. My desire to serve also stems from my deep professional and personal connections to Wood County. I am actively engaged in the Wood County legal community, fostering and embracing opportunities to create partnerships among law enforcement, public defenders, prosecutors, non-profits, and schools. On a personal level, Wood County is where I have chosen to raise my bi-racial twin boys, who are now in middle school. I am involved in community, parent, school, and sports booster clubs, including starting a “Preemie Mom Group,” which is dedicated to supporting moms who have had babies in the NICU and the unique experience of parenting preemies. Judges must be connected to their local communities. They are seen as leaders in the legal community and as the public face of the justice system. As a Judge, I will be committed to serving the people of Wood County with the same integrity, compassion, professionalism, humility, focus on collaboration, and dedication to justice I have brought to my work as a public defender. 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. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) The U.S. Supreme court case Crawford v Washington is a decision that had a huge impact In Wisconsin, and across the nation. In Crawford, the Supreme Court guaranteed individuals accused of a crime the right to confront their accusers. The Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford marked a watershed moment in Confrontation Clause jurisprudence. Crawford established that the admission of testimonial hearsay against a criminal defendant violates the Sixth Amendment unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Crawford is an important decision because domestic violence prosecutions in the 1990s had worn away the rights of defendants to confront their accuser. In domestic violence prosecutions prosecutors were able to utilize hearsay testimony that had a mere “indicia of reliability” rather than requiring direct testimony that could be tested. In Crawford, the Court rejected the reliability-based standard set forth previously in Ohio v. Roberts, holding that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the procedural right of confrontation rather than a substantive reliability assessment. The Supreme Court noted that the reliability standard was vague and therefore could be manipulated to strip the defendants of their constitutional rights. This new standard limited prosecutorial reliance on out-of-court testimonial evidence. Importantly, it refocused Confrontation Clause analysis on procedural safeguards rather than judicial discretion, thereby reinforcing the adversarial process and due process protections. While Crawford applies nationally, its relevance is particularly acute in Wisconsin following the enactment of Marsy’s Law in 2020. The intersection of Crawford and Marsy’s Law underscores a conflict between protecting the rights of crime victims and preserving the due process rights of the accused. Marsy’s Law amended Wisconsin’s Constitution. It gave victims’ rights standing in criminal proceedings, including the right to refuse pretrial interviews or discovery requests to the defense. While the intent of Marsy’s Law is commendable, its broad and sometimes ambiguous language has generated significant legal uncertainty. Specifically, by granting victims the right to refuse to be interviewed or subject to discovery, the amendment intrudes on a defense’s access to exculpatory evidence and obstructs vigorous and effective pretrial investigation. In sum, for defense counsel in Wisconsin, Crawford has remained a powerful tool in safeguarding the integrity of the trial process and ensuring that testimonial evidence is subjected to adversarial testing. However, the expanded rights under Marsy’s Law have imposed new limits on traditional pretrial investigative avenues, thereby impeding the ability to effectively investigate and represent clients. As courts, prosecutors, and defense attorneys work to navigate this evolving terrain, Crawford will continue to serve as a necessary constitutional check ensuring that even in a victim-centered system, the fundamental rights of the accused remain protected. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Judge James Mason, Wood County Circuit Court Judge Mason was widely respected not only for his legal acumen but also for his unwavering commitment to fairness, community service, and integrity on the bench. I admired Judge Mason’s professionalism and the care he took when making decisions. Judge Mason always explained to defendants why he was making the decisions he was which ensured both my clients and I felt heard by him. His courtroom was a place where litigants—whether represented or pro se—could feel confident that their case had been judged fairly. Beyond his work on the bench, Judge Mason served as a mentor to many younger attorneys and court officials in Wood County. His guidance extended beyond legal knowledge. He modeled how to uphold ethics, serve the public, and maintain humility in a position of authority. His leadership within the courthouse helped foster a culture of respect, learning, and dedication to public service Judge Mason leaves a legacy of thoughtful jurisprudence, professional humility, and genuine compassion for the people affected by the legal system. These qualities make him a figure worthy of lasting admiration. Judge Barbara Crabb, Western District of Wisconsin Judge Crabb was the first woman to serve as a federal judge in Wisconsin and she ruled in significant cases for equality, civil rights, and liberty. I admire her for her commitment to justice, constitutional integrity, and public service. I admire the tough cases that Judge Crabb made decisions on and her willingness to always follow the law and do the right thing, even when the decision would be a controversial one. Judge Crabb made decisions in many cases that were very impactful in Wisconsin. Judge Crabb struck down Wisconsin's ban on same-sex marriage, declaring it unconstitutional and affirming the fundamental right to marry for all individuals. Judge Crabb also played a pivotal role in affirming the treaty rights of Native American tribes in Wisconsin. These decisions were instrumental in addressing historical injustices and promoting reconciliation. Additionally, Judge Crabb was instrumental in causing change at the notorious and horrific Supermax prison in Boscobel, WI. Judge Crabb is known for being clear and having a balanced and thorough analysis of the law. Her decisions often reflect a deep concern for civil liberties. Judge Crabb has often shown courage in her decisions based on the law, even when her decisions were unpopular or controversial. Judge Crabb is worthy of admiration for her lasting impact on Wisconsin. The proper role of a judge: Judges must decide cases based solely on the law and the facts presented, without bias, prejudice, or outside influence. They must be impartial. Over the course of my legal career, I have had the opportunity to observe and appear in front of many judges. All good judges share traits in common. They know the law. They maintain a professional courtroom environment where respect is extended to all participants, regardless of status. They work hard, with integrity and humility. Judges must respect due process and fairness. They must ensure that all parties receive a fair opportunity to be heard and that proceedings are conducted with respect for legal rights and procedures. Judges bring their values and experiences with them to their work as a judge. For example, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who worked as a federal public defender, has highlighted the need for judges to make sure they are understood by all parties in a proceeding. Justice Jackson said, “One of the things I discovered very early on was how few of my clients really understood what had happened to them in the trial process. And so when I became a judge, I really focused on being clear." A judge’s decisions should be reasoned and articulated clearly, providing a basis for understanding and, if necessary, appeal. Judges are protectors of constitutional rights and the guardians of constitutional liberties. Judges must ensure that government power is exercised within legal bounds. And finally, by embodying integrity, competence, fairness, fealty to the rule of law, and respect for all who come before them, judges uphold public confidence in the judicial system. "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: Benjamin R. Jones
Appointed to: Dane County Circuit Court Appointment date: May 23, 2025, to a term ending July 31, 2026 Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Madison High School – John F. Kennedy High School, Bloomington, Minnesota Recent legal employment: April 2017-present – Chief legal counsel, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Madison, Wisconsin June 2012-April 2017 – Associate attorney, Weld Riley, S.C., Eau Claire, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin General character of practice: I currently serve as chief legal counsel for the Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and Department of Public Instruction (DPI). In that role, I supervise a staff of attorneys, investigators, and support staff within the DPI Office of Legal Services. I provide legal advice to the State Superintendent, appointed officers, directors and staff in all areas of the law applicable to a large state agency. I appear for and represent the DPI in administrative hearings and, when necessary, circuit and appellate court. I draft, review, and interpret proposed legislation and administrative rules. I also review and adjudicate appeals submitted to the SPI, including expulsion decisions, pupil discrimination appeals, School District Boundary Appeal Board decisions, statutory waiver requests, and all other administrative appeals. Describe typical clients: My client is the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, led by the Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction. In private practice, I specialized in school law and labor and employment law. My typical clients were local government agencies, including school districts, counties and municipalities, as well as large private employers. Number of cases tried to verdict: Numerous administrative hearings in private practice and on behalf of DPI. 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: Koschkee v. Evers, 2018 WI 82; Koschkee v. Taylor, 2019 WI 76 Petitioners, represented by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, filed an original action petition with the Wisconsin Supreme Court seeking a declaratory judgment that the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) and the Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers (SPI) were required to comply with 2017 Wisconsin Act 57, known as the "REINS Act." The Act requires the governor to approve all administrative rules proposed by the SPI before promulgation. The SPI argued that Article X of the Wisconsin Constitution prohibits any other officer from being in a superior position of authority in the supervision of public instruction, so that the governor cannot have veto authority over the SPI's proposed rules. I was primary counsel for the SPI and DPI from the time the original action petition was filed in November 2017 until the court's decision in 2019. After the petition was filed, Governor Scott Walker ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) to represent the SPI and DPI. The SPI and DPI intended to argue the REINS Act was unconstitutional as applied to the SPI. But the DOJ disagreed and informed the SPI and DPI that the DOJ would advance the opinion of the Attorney General, arguing that the REINS Act was constitutional as applied. The DPI and SPI filed a motion to deny substitution of counsel and to disqualify the attorney general from appearing on behalf of the DPI and SPI. The DOJ filed a cross-motion to strike myself and then Chief Legal Counsel Ryan Nilsestuen from the case. I drafted the brief in support of the motion and represented the SPI and DPI at oral argument before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The court held that the SPI and DPI must be allowed counsel that would represent their position, recognizing there were ethical implications for attorneys that fail to represent the position of their client, and that the Attorney General did not have power to act as a gatekeeper as to whether a constitutional officer could defend their authority in court. Following the court's decision, I continued as primary counsel as the case proceeded to a decision on the merits. In first accepting the original action petition, the court implied it was likely to overturn its prior case decided on identical facts in Coyne v. Walker, 2016 WI 38 . . . . However, while the court ultimately determined rulemaking authority was a legislative power that the legislature could constrain as it saw fit, the court upheld the superiority of the SPI's vested constitutional executive authority. As determined in Thompson v. Craney, 199 Wis. 2d 674 . . . the SPI remains in a superior position to all other officers in the supervision of public instruction. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have represented clients in front of the Equal Rights and Unemployment Insurance Divisions of the Department of Workforce Development, the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, and in front of administrative law judges for appeals filed under Wis. Stat. s. 227.42. I have also represented clients under investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). In private practice, I represented local governmental units in collective bargaining and all areas of employment, municipal, and administrative law. I have represented clients in multiple mediations involving discrimination complaints, wage and insurance disputes, and contractual disputes. I currently advise the Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Department of Public Instruction on all areas of law applicable to a state educational agency. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: None listed Previous runs for public office: None listed All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: None listed Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Wisconsin School Attorneys Association, 2012-present National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification, 2017-present National Council of State Education Attorneys, 2017-present Chippewa Valley Society for Human Resource Management, director of Legal and Legislative Affairs, 2014-2017 American Red Cross Northwest Wisconsin, board member, 2014-2017 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: In law school, I volunteered with the IRS Volunteer Tax Assistance program to offer free basic tax return preparation for low income tax filers. I also tutored middle school students in the Goodman Community Center while in law school. In private practice, I volunteered as the Director of Legal and Legislative Affairs for the Chippewa Valley Society for Human Resource Management and as a board member of the American Red Cross Northwest Wisconsin Chapter. Why I want to be a judge: I have committed my professional life to public service. As a judge, with the skills I have demonstrated and refined during my legal career, I will advance equity and justice for the people of Dane County and Wisconsin. I first realized how highly I value public service while representing school districts in private practice. Almost universally, every individual I interacted with in my representation of schools wanted to do their best to improve the lives of children and the broader community. By extension, I knew that my work to counsel schools served a greater public good. That focus on the public good drew me to leave private practice to represent the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and the Department of Public Instruction (DPI). When I began working for then Superintendent Tony Evers in 2017, Wisconsin public education had been under assault for years. Superintendent Evers stood firm in his defense of Wisconsin public schools, the importance of advancing equity in education, and his belief that government played a necessary role in improving peoples’ lives. The legal issues that arose in that environment were novel, complex, and often high stakes. At one point, I successfully argued in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court that Superintendent Evers must be able to pick his own attorney to defend his office’s constitutional authority. Under these difficult circumstances, my work was and continues to be meaningful and rewarding knowing that the focus is on what is best for children and Wisconsin. As my commitment to public service has grown, so has my understanding of my strengths and competencies as an attorney. In my work as chief legal counsel, I advise the SPI and DPI on all areas of the law and within a broad range of contexts. On any given day, I may meet with our licensing team to discuss a teacher accused of sexual misconduct with a student, discuss with the deputy superintendent whether a school district provided a student with due process, strategize with the school voucher team to defend against accusations of improper rulemaking, or any number of unique legal issues. Each task requires diligent preparation, an ability to quickly identify relevant facts, a nuanced understanding of how the relevant law applies, an understanding of the SPI’s vision, and the anticipation of political ramifications. Above all other considerations, my work requires a deep understanding that my legal advice will have real-life impact on students, families, and their communities. To make sure that impact is equitable and positive, I am constantly vigilant for any prejudice or bias in my own work or the work of the DPI. For example, I have reformed the DPI’s teacher licensing and pupil nondiscrimination appeal processes to incorporate data, reduce subjectivity, and ensure these processes serve all children. My ability to quickly and completely distill relevant information and apply the law while actively working to eliminate bias and incorporate all relevant context into my decision making will make me an effective and impactful 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. The case that had the most significant impact on the people of Wisconsin is Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 213 L. Ed. 2d 545, 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022). This case illustrates the negative outcomes that result when justices adjudicate in a self-imposed vacuum, stripping out the nuance necessary to render reasoned and just decisions. A majority of the Court in Dobbs decided to eliminate the constitutional protections recognized in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973). The Court in Roe recognized that a state can regulate abortion in many ways, but a women’s right to choose prior to viability is where the Constitution limits state interference. The Roe Court came to that conclusion in large part because it considered the context of the procedure, how it impacts women’s lives and freedoms, how interference in the decision involves an extreme invasion of privacy, and that ultimately what is at stake is a woman’s control over her own body and medical care. The Court’s analysis in Dobbs simply disregards that context in favor of what white men thought was proper in the 1800s. That willful ignorance leads to the predictable consequences women across the country now experience. A state can impose its own choice on a woman whose doctor detects severe birth defects in a not-yet-viable fetus, a woman who does not have the financial security to care for a child, a woman whose rape caused her pregnancy, or a woman who simply does not want to have a child. And the impacts are disproportionately severe on historically marginalized communities, particularly women of color. The impact of this Court’s opinion will not stop at women’s reproductive rights. The Dobbs majority attempts to isolate the issue of abortion because it involves a “profound moral question.” In his concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas reveals how thin the majority opinion’s assurance is by concluding the Due Process Clause does not secure “any substantive rights.” This threatens constitutional protections for privacy, marriage, and consensual relationships, protections the public may no longer be able to take for granted. Dobbs also weakens stare decisis. The Roe decision stood for fifty years. Though the circumstances and rationale articulated by the Roe court remain as relevant today, Dobbs disregarded this precedent and severely undermined the integrity of the Court. If the composition of the Court is now what defines a fundamental constitutional right rather than precedent, then how is the Court any different than a legislative body? Does the Court now simply represent the political majority, rather than defend the constitutional rights of everyone, particularly those without the power to defend themselves? The Dobbs majority sacrificed the integrity of the Court in order to strip fundamental liberties from women. With a severe and immediate negative impact on Wisconsin women and their families that will continue to be felt for years to come, Dobbs is the worst decision for the people of Wisconsin in at least the past 25 years. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Sonia Sotomayor I admire Justice Sonia Sotomayor for her judicial philosophy. She has described her philosophy as “fidelity to the law”, which can mean different things to different people. To Sotomayor, that means that the law must be considered in context and as applied to real people. This can contrast with the approach of other justices. For example, in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 127 S. Ct. 2738, 168 L. Ed. 2d 508 (2007), Justice John Roberts asserts that “[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” This might make for a catchy sound bite, but it ignores the entire history of racism in this country and how it continues to shape modern institutions and society. Instead, “fidelity to the law” is better described by Justice Sotomayor, who said in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigration Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary, “[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.” 572 U.S. 291, 381, 134 S. Ct. 1623, 1676, 188 L. Ed. 2d 613 (2014) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting). This philosophy guides my own approach to the law. The law should be considered within the full relevant history and context of American experience, so that it can serve real people. Ann Walsh Bradley I admire Ann Walsh Bradley for her preparation, insight, and judgment when applying the law. These qualities were apparent to me when I argued in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Justice Bradley asked meaningful, relevant questions that struck at the heart of the matter in question. She had clearly studied the briefs and understood the legal question in front of the court and the applicable facts, and had a nuanced understanding of the parties’ arguments. Beyond her own understanding, her questions and responses indicated an equal understanding of her colleagues’ opinions and concerns. She asked questions not just to confirm or announce her own thoughts, but to assist her colleagues’ understanding of the law. As an advocate, I felt understood and respected, which should be an objective of every judge or justice hearing a case. Richard Niess I admire former Dane County Circuit Court Judge Richard Niess for his ability to command a courtroom through a combination of attention, empathy, humor, and decisiveness. I interned for Judge Niess during law school and also argued a motion in front of Judge Niess while representing then Superintendent Tony Evers. Like Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, Judge Niess was always well prepared, actively engaged with litigants to ensure they knew they were heard and understood, disarmed difficult conversations with dry – and appropriately restrained – humor, and was sincere in every word he said in court. As a judge, I hope to pattern my own demeanor and philosophy off of these esteemed and accomplished jurists. The proper role of a judge: The proper role of a judge is as a public servant. As a public servant, a judge should be humble, understanding that ego and pride only interfere with a judge’s obligation to the public. A humble judge is able to allow the attorneys in a case to educate the judge on the issues relevant to the case. Similarly, a judge should have the appropriate temperament to be able to effectively communicate with counsel, the parties, jurors and witnesses, and to effectively consider all relevant information and deliver an appropriate disposition. This is much easier said than done, particularly when disputes involve matters of immense importance to the litigants, intense emotions, high stakes, and an often long and difficult case history. I know how difficult these kinds of interactions can be, because I engage with them on a regular basis in my role with the Department of Public Instruction. I communicate with students who have been victims of sexual assault or grooming at the hands of teachers, families who are appealing an expulsion decision, and community members concerned with a school district’s adoption of a controversial new policy. These are all conversations that require patience, an even temperament, empathy, courtesy, active listening, and the ability to then clearly articulate how the law applies to those concerns. I am well tested and confident in my ability to effectively navigate these difficult conversations, including in a courtroom. A judge must actively strive to be an objective decision maker, to ensure the judge’s decisions are equitable and advance justice. This requires effort and constant attention. In my current representation, I am constantly examining my advice and decision making for bias, developing systems that reduce subjective analysis to reduce or eliminate that bias. In the same way, judges should examine the system of justice they are a part of to identify bias, and work to develop systems, policies, and strategies to eliminate those biases. A judge has to be aware they are a judge, both while on the bench and off. A judge is a high profile public figure and must represent the bench at all times. That judge must be committed to the independence and integrity of the bench, avoiding conflicts of interest, upholding the highest ethical expectations, ensuring the public’s confidence in the judge and the judiciary by extension. A judge must also be an actively engaged member of their community, to best be able to understand the concerns and challenges members of that community face in their lives. Without an understanding of the community, it is easier to disregard the real impact that decisions have on members of that community. That connection allows for empathy, understanding, and better- informed decisions to advance justice. Finally, a judge must be accountable. A judge should accept that they can be wrong, which allows a judge to maintain an open mind when hearing disputes and maintain the public’s confidence that the judiciary is committed to the rule of law, rather than the egos and pride of individual judges. "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: Stephanie R. Hilton
Appointed to: Dane County Circuit Court Appointment date: April 28, 2025, to a term ending July 31, 2026 Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Superior High School – Blaine High School, Blaine, Minnesota Recent legal employment: August 2020-present – Assistant attorney general, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Madison, Wisconsin January 2019-August 2020 – Legislative director, Office of the Governor, Madison, Wisconsin May 2015-January 2019 – Assistant district attorney, Dane County District Attorney June 2014-April 2015 – Assistant District Attorney, La Crosse County District Attorney Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin General character of practice: Throughout my legal career, public service has been at the heart of my practice, and I continually seek opportunities to make my community better and serve my state. As an attorney, I have focused on criminal law, with a specialization in prosecuting domestic abuse and sexual assault offenses. Though my passion and expertise lies with sensitive crimes, I have prosecuted a wide range of cases from drunk driving to homicide. Describe typical clients: The people of Wisconsin have been my only client. As a prosecutor, I have a unique ethical obligation to seek justice for all Wisconsinites, both defendants and victims. Ensuring their constitutional and statutory rights are upheld has been a guiding principle in my career. Representing the state means working with victims from all backgrounds, many who face significant challenges participating in the criminal legal system, including risk to their personal safety. This obligation also means pursuing justice for defendants, whether by declining to issue charges, advocating for case dispositions focused on rehabilitation, or taking cases to trial when necessary. Ultimately, as a prosecutor, I pursue outcomes that enhance public safety, uphold the law, and provide justice for victims. Number of cases tried to verdict: 22 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: State v. Aidison Yang, Dane County Case 2023CF347 (Dane County Judge Ellen Berz): As co-counsel, I was one of two Assistant Attorneys General (AAG) representing the State throughout all proceedings. This prosecution resulted from a collaborative effort by the WI DOJ’s Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI) team and multiple state and local agencies. This case involved a 2005 stranger sexual assault on a Madison bike path, which remained unsolved until a DNA match linked the defendant to the victim’s sexual assault kit. This case was significant to me because of the stakes for the victim. After waiting almost 20 years, the victim finally had answers and was able to gain some closure through the court process. Despite the compelling DNA evidence, clear facts, and the victim’s excellent memory, I understood the weight of my role: if I did not do my job well, the victim might never feel truly safe again, and the community could remain at risk. I was honored to be part of the team that carried the responsibility of securing justice for her. State v. Kevin McDowell, Dane County Case 2021CF306 (Dane County Judge David Conway): My co-counsel and I were the two AAGs for all stages of the proceedings. This prosecution resulted from a collaborative effort by the WI DOJ’s SAKI team and multiple state and local agencies. The case stemmed from a 2017 sexual assault in Madison where the Dane County DA’s Office did not initially issue charges. The defendant’s DNA from the 2017 victim’s sexual assault kit hit to a different victim’s sexual assault kit collected in 2008, which had been tested as part of SAKI. Further investigation revealed that at least seven other victims had reported being sexually assaulted by the defendant over a 20-year span. This was one of the most challenging cases of my career due to its complex pre-trial litigation, the significant vulnerabilities of the victim, and the broader public safety implications of the case. Pre-trial litigation included extensive motions involving private health records, rape shield protections, and other acts evidence, culminating in an appeal on the eve of trial regarding the admissibility of key evidence. Beyond its legal complexities, this case underscored the importance of testing sexual assault kits to identify serial offenders and connect criminal cases. It also highlighted how a trauma-informed, multidisciplinary approach to prosecuting sexual assault leads to better processes and outcomes for victims. I was honored to be part of the team that fought for justice in this case. State v. Stephan Burton, Dane County Case 2017CF1905 (Dane County Judge Susan Crawford): As the lead Assistant District Attorney (ADA), I represented the State of Wisconsin in all stages of the proceedings, with a colleague serving as co-counsel for trial. This defendant unlawfully entered a UW dormitory by following residents inside, then sexually assaulting two students by groping them while they slept in their beds. This prosecution was significant from a public safety perspective because the defendant had been convicted of nearly identical offenses five years earlier, showing his ongoing threat to women on campus. The case presented trial challenges due to its combination of direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence included campus surveillance video showing the defendant entering and exiting the dormitory, victim testimony, and other acts evidence from the previous offense, admitted through pre-trial litigation. A key challenge was proving the defendant’s intent for sexual gratification, which the State relied on circumstantial evidence to establish, and it became a focal point of closing arguments for both sides. This case was particularly significant to me as it marked my final jury trial as an ADA in the Dane County District Attorney’s Office, in addition to its impact on community safety. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: While most of my litigation experience is in trial courts, I have both professional and pro bono experience in administrative proceedings. As a Public Member of the Medical Examining Board, I serve on complaint screening panels alongside physicians. We review complaints and decide whether to open investigations. If a case proceeds, a Board member serves as a case advisor, reviewing evidence and consulting with agency attorneys to determine next steps. The full Board votes on these decisions and other regulatory matters. This role gave me significant experience with Wisconsin’s licensing framework, insight into medical malpractice, and a focus on patient safety. As a Dane County Assistant District Attorney, I represented the state in revocation hearings on behalf of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, particularly for offenders facing revocation due to new domestic violence or sexual assault charges. My role ensured a more victim-centered process in small but meaningful ways, such as creating physical distance between victims and defendants during these in-person hearings. These hearings also deepened my understanding of what defendants face when they are placed on probation. As a law student, I volunteered with the UW Law School’s Unemployment Appeals Clinic, advocating for individuals denied unemployment benefits. Growing up, our family occasionally relied on these benefits, so this work was deeply personal. I prepared claimants for hearings before administrative law judges, conducted direct and cross-examinations, and objected to improper evidence. I handled at least six hearings and saw first-hand how difficult and overwhelming the process was for pro se claimants. I was particularly proud to successfully appeal a case to the Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, securing benefits for a claimant. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). In my first year of practice, I served as a Law Clerk and Supplemental Court Commissioner for three judges in Oneida and Vilas Counties. I mediated over 200 small claims cases involving creditor/debtor disputes, landlord/tenant matters, real estate transactions, and contract disputes. This experience had a huge impact on me because I saw first-hand that for many litigants, these cases were anything but “small claims.” Most individuals being sued in small claims could not afford an attorney, and while many agreed they owed money, they couldn’t afford to pay the hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars without a payment plan. During mediation, I explained the relevant law and court process, adapting my approach in real time to ensure both parties understood their options. Mediation seemed less intimidating for pro se litigants and offered a pathway to resolving the dispute, ultimately reducing judicial caseload. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization:
While I have done my best to remember every campaign that I’ve held a position in, I may have inadvertently left out other progressive candidates that I’ve supported. Previous runs for public office: Not applicable All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Justice Jill Karofsky, Dane County Circuit Court, WI Supreme Court, 2017, 2020 Justice Rebecca Dallet, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2018 Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg, Wisconsin Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, 2011, 2016, 2018, 2024 Judge Susan Crawford, Dane County Circuit Court, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2018, 2025 Judge Payal Khandhar, Dane County Circuit Court, 2024 Judge Diane Schlipper, Dane County Circuit Court, 2022 Judge Juan Colas, Dane County Circuit Court, 2021 Dr. Jill Underly, Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2021, 2025 Nicki Vander Muelen, Madison Metropolitan School Board, 2023 Richelle Andrae, Dane County Board, 2019, 2024 Aaron Collins, Dane County Board, 2022 Melissa Ratcliff, Dane County Board, 2019, 2022 Kelly Danner, Dane County Board, 2018 Arvina Martin, Madison City Council, 2021 While I have done my best to remember every candidate, I may have inadvertently left out other progressive candidates that I’ve supported. Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Wisconsin Medical Examining Board, public member, 2023-present JustDane, board member, co-secretary, 2023-present McKenzie Regional Workforce Center, board member, 2022-present Legal Association for Women, member, 2022-present Wisconsin State Attorneys Association, member, 2020-present Dane County Bar Association, member, 2020-present Association of State Prosecutors, board member, 2016-2019 Wisconsin District Attorneys Association, Board Member 2016-2019 UW Women in Criminal Justice Mentoring Program, member/volunteer, 2022-present Prairie Moraine Friends, Inc., board member and secretary, 2019-present Madison Teal Team, volunteer, 2018-present Madison Area Donor Milk Alliance, breast milk donor, 2023-2024 Women in Courts & Corrections, 2017-2021 Bethel Lutheran Church Women’s Choir, 2002-2010 Lakewood Gardens Condominium Association, board member, 2006-2007 University of Wisconsin-Superior Alumni Association, board member, 2004-2011 University of Wisconsin-Superior National Leadership Council, board member, 2004-2010 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: As an attorney working for the State of Wisconsin, I cannot provide pro bono legal services. However, I have sought many volunteer opportunities to serve my community. Currently, I am a Public Member of the Medical Examining Board and serve on the Board of Directors for JustDane and Prairie Moraine Friends, Inc. While training for a career of public service law, I did significant pro bono work as a student. In 2023, I was appointed by Governor Evers to serve as a Public Member of the Medical Examining Board. Part of my responsibilities on the board are to review complaints and assist with decision-making. Through this work, I have gained valuable experience in Wisconsin’s licensing and regulatory framework and medical malpractice, and I’ve seen the importance of having non-physician perspectives, like mine, on the Board, particularly when we adjudicate sexual harassment and misconduct complaints. JustDane provides essential resources for rehabilitation, helping individuals reintegrate into society and reducing recidivism. As a Board member, I help deliver programs for individuals impacted by the criminal legal system. I collaborate with staff and other board members, including those with lived experience to empower individuals to rebuild their lives, ultimately strengthening the safety and well-being of our community. My family and I enjoy outdoor activities with our dogs, often hiking at Prairie Moraine County Park. After noticing the park’s restoration needs, I joined other volunteers to help found Prairie Moraine Friends, Inc. Our organization assists Dane County Parks staff in the preservation, restoration, and management of the park. We support the park’s conservation efforts through volunteer work and fundraising, such as the annual spring Dog Park Clean Up day and seasonal activities like spreading native seeds to help restore the prairie habitat. I am currently in my sixth year as Secretary of the Board. In recognition of my extensive pro bono legal work in law school, I was inducted into the UW Law School Pro Bono Society at graduation. In my third year, I advocated for individuals appealing the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development’s denial of benefits through the Unemployment Appeals Clinic. During an economically difficult time, being denied unemployment benefits was a significant setback for workers and their families. Even though I was still a lawyer in training, the claimants told me they really appreciated my assistance during the hearing so they didn’t have to fight the state alone. I am especially proud of successfully advocating a written appeal to the Labor and Industry Review Commission, securing many weeks of previously denied unemployment benefits. Through the UW Law School Remington Center’s Legal Assistance to Institutionalized Persons project, I worked with incarcerated individuals on various legal issues, traveling to state prisons with fellow students and our supervising attorney. One client seeking driver’s license reinstatement turned out to be eligible for parole but didn’t recognize his own rehabilitation. I researched and wrote a parole advocacy letter; though initially unsuccessful, he was released within two years. By framing his progress positively, I helped him see his own growth. This experience reinforced my belief in rehabilitation and the importance of seeing individuals beyond their past actions. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: Now more than ever, we need judges who will follow the law and use it to protect people’s rights, not erode them. Our community needs leaders who reflect their values and shared life experiences—leaders who collaborate, problem-solve, and treat everyone with fairness, dignity, and respect. Throughout my career, I have been preparing—intentionally or not—for this role. As the first in my family to graduate from college, I understand firsthand the opportunities education can provide, beyond what I ever could have imagined. This experience instilled in me a deep commitment to using my knowledge and skills to give back and improve the lives of others. After eight years working in public policy, I attended law school to take my advocacy to the next level and expand my ability to make a difference in people’s lives. My progressive values have shaped my approach as a prosecutor, where I earned a reputation for standing up for the rights of defendants and victims, using my discretion for good, and engaging in fair and honest plea negotiations. I am committed to evidence-based responses to crime, not only because the law requires judges to first consider probation at sentencing, but because the evidence shows that increasing our prison population does not lead to safer communities. People expect the government to solve problems, and the courts play a crucial part within that process. When someone has to turn to the courts to resolve their dispute, they want to be heard and receive a fair resolution. I’ve spent my entire professional career collaborating across disciplines to solve complex problems. My ability to listen, think creatively and critically, and uphold fundamental fairness aligns well with the role of judge. My passion for public service and commitment to justice have driven every step of my career. My extensive jury trial experience and other legal expertise have prepared me for this position, but I also recognize the importance of continuous learning. I do not have experience in every area of the law, and I am eager to ask questions, expand my legal knowledge, and approach new challenges with humility. However, this role is about more than legal training—it requires real-world perspective. As a daughter, aunt, and now a mother, I’ve experienced some of life’s most beautiful and challenging moments. As a judge, I will bring not just legal knowledge, but also empathy, fairness, and a deep respect for the individuals and communities I serve. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), to overturn Roe v. Wade and end 50 years of precedent protecting a woman's constitutional right to an abortion will negatively impact Wisconsinites for generations. In Wisconsin, the Dobbs decision created immediate uncertainty due to the state's so-called "1849 abortion ban." Abortion care was halted. Eighteen months later, a circuit court ruled the ban didn't apply to consensual abortions, allowing this critical health care to resume, though the issue remains pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. For my husband and me, the Dobbs decision was deeply personal—we were in the middle of infertility treatments when it was handed down. The journey was grueling … [redactions] We feel extremely fortunate that our story has a happy ending … [redactions] and our daughter was born in … [redactions] Infertility treatments forced us to make difficult medical and ethical decisions: selective reduction in the case of multiples, genetic testing, and the possibility of terminating for medical reasons. Dobbs made it clear how fragile our autonomy over these choices could be. As a woman who has experienced pregnancy and childbirth, I understand the profound physical changes the body goes through, risks, and the unpredictability of labor and delivery. I cannot fathom misinterpreting the U.S. Constitution to restrict the bodily autonomy of over half the population. Beyond the physical and emotional toll, the economic impact of having a child permanently alters the course of a woman's life. Dobbs was wrong on the law. Its consequences will be felt by Wisconsinites for generations. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson When I first met Chief Justice Abrahamson, I wasn’t a lawyer and had no plans to go to law school. However, because I was working in politics, I knew she was a trailblazer being both the first woman on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, then becoming the first woman chief justice. But I had no understanding or appreciation for her legal brilliance and the contributions she had made, and would make, to the legal profession in our state and the country. In the early 2000s, I was working in the Wisconsin State Capitol as a legislative staffer. As a proud UW-Superior graduate, I always attended the reception at the end of Superior Days, which is an annual lobbying effort where local elected officials, business leaders, students, and other community members from the Superior area gather in Madison to lobby and bring awareness of the needs of the region. I met Chief Justice Abrahamson at the reception, and thought it was incredible that she would take time out of her busy schedule to not only attend, but also speak to the youth delegation and mingle with Superior Days participants in meaningful ways to learn about their lives and issues important to them. A few years later, while attending an event in northwest Wisconsin, I again saw Chief Justice Abrahamson as a guest speaker. She and her husband took time to chat with my aunt and me— not about law or politics, but about everyday life. I was struck again by her warmth and genuine interest in people. Watching her speak eloquently and then weave through the crowd, stopping to connect with local attendees, confirmed what I had observed at Superior Days: her engagement wasn’t for show but a reflection of her deep commitment to public service. It would have been easy and expected for her to give her speech and leave, but she stayed, listened, and learned. Her presence wasn’t just about leadership—it was about truly understanding the people she served. Through law school and my legal career, I’ve read and studied her decisions, developing a full appreciation for her legal acumen and scholarship. While I will never match Chief Justice Abrahamson’s intelligence and wit, as a judge I hope to emulate her commitment to engaging the public in the justice system, and being a champion for individual rights and equal justice under the law. Dane County Circuit Court Judge John Markson During my tenure as a Dane County Assistant District Attorney, prosecutors were assigned to specific criminal branches, appearing almost daily in front of the same judge. My first assignment was in Branch 1, Judge Markson’s courtroom. At the time, I had no idea how fortunate I was. As a newer prosecutor with a high-volume caseload of misdemeanor and traffic cases, I was overwhelmed. Although I had served as an ADA in La Crosse County for about a year before coming to Dane County, the pace and volume were so much greater. There was not enough time or experienced attorneys in the DA’s office to get any meaningful mentorship. However, Judge Markson’s courtroom was different. Judge Markson collaborated with his clerk, court reporter, and bailiff to run an efficient calendar. The day’s calendar could be a mile long, but I never felt rushed or that he was growing impatient with me or the other attorneys working through the calendar. Judge Markson’s calm demeanor and quiet sense of humor set everyone at ease, and helped make the constant churn of cases a little more manageable. Whether it was a joint sentencing recommendation or an argued sentence, he was fair to both sides, genuinely looked for the best in people, and always had hope that things would get better for the people who came through his courtroom. Two of the jury trials I had during that first year in the DA’s office were in Judge Markson’s courtroom. I had never tried an OWI case before and still had a lot to learn, not only about the area of the law, but also how to best present evidence to a jury. I sought Judge Markson’s feedback after both trials, and incorporated his insightful feedback to better my trial skills. One of the things I admired most about him as a judge was not these formal feedback sessions, but the legal and life lessons that were sprinkled in among the motion and plea hearings. In particular, he had a special talent for highlighting teachable moments in court, but doing so kindly and without publicly shaming anyone. Above all, Judge Markson had a seemingly magical ability to draw out the best in the attorneys appearing in his courtroom. The proper role of a judge: The role of a judge is to uphold and protect the rights of people, serve as a referee to ensure legal proceedings are fair, and remain engaged in their community. Now more than ever, judges must follow the law by upholding and enhancing the rights of individuals. Their role is to safeguard against government actions that infringe on rights without due process. Legal standards exist to ensure fairness and justice. Today, it seems like the legal system is facing unprecedented distrust. When people feel like the system is set up against them, they are less likely to accept judicial outcomes, even when the judge provides a well-reasoned analysis clearly supported by the law and the facts. Our democracy is built on core rights and values vested with the people. While working for the Governor, I was often reminded of this by a quote on the conference room ceiling: “The will of the people is the law of the land.” This served as a constant reminder of the immense honor and responsibility I had as part of the Governor’s team, advancing policies and programs that make life better for Wisconsinites. Having worked in each of the three branches of government, I deeply understand their distinct roles and the judiciary’s duty to serve as a check on the executive and legislative branches. Judges must uphold this delicate balance of power that our country’s founders contemplated. With this responsibility in mind, a judge is a referee, ensuring that all parties adhere to the law and play fairly in the courtroom. Treating others with dignity and respect is essential in this role, whether interacting with attorneys, the people they represent, or unrepresented individuals. Fairness requires listening, applying the law to complex and often emotional facts, and holding parties accountable when they fail to follow the rules. People come to court during some of the most challenging times in their lives – facing criminal charges, custody disputes, or personal hardships. A judge’s fair-minded approach can help ensure the parties feel heard and valued in the process. Equally important is a commitment to impartiality and integrity, which reinforces public trust in our judicial system. I recognize the weight of this responsibility and would approach each case with a balanced, objective perspective. Judges are leaders in our community and should remain engaged beyond the courtroom. Legal decisions should not be made in isolation, disconnected from the real-life struggles people face and the consequences their decisions have on their neighbors’ lives. Attending events and staying informed about issues facing our community fosters a broader understanding of the issues before the court. As judge, I will uphold this commitment, ensuring both fairness in the courtroom and meaningful engagement in the Dane County community. "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: Gordon R. Leech
Appointed to: Washington County Circuit Court Appointment date: July 11, 2025 (effective Aug. 8), to a term ending July 31, 2026 Education: Law School – University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Undergraduate – Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania High School – Franklin Regional, Munysville, Pennsylvania Recent legal employment: September 2022-present – Prosecutor, assistant district attorney, State of Wisconsin, Fond du Lac County District Attorney’s Office July 2010-September 2022 – Leech Law Office, West Bend, Wisconsin July 2009-July 2010 – Rose & deJong, S.C., Milwaukee, Wisconsin 2005-June 2009 – Samster, Konkel & Safran, S.C., Milwaukee, Wisconsin Military service: U.S. Marine Corps, active duty 1992-1995 serving as Judge Advocate (trial counsel and base labor counsel); active reserve 1998-1999; highest rank Major Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. Supreme Court Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (lapsed) Pennsylvania Bar (lapsed) Florida Bar (lapsed) General character of practice: Current: Prosecution of criminal offenses in the circuit court. Formerly practice principally included criminal defense, consumer law litigation and employment law litigation. I’ve represented a clients in workers compensation benefit claims and social security disability claims during the first four years I practiced in Wisconsin. I have also represented people in ch. 13 bankruptcies. For about 2 years in Florida, I worked in an insurance defense firm handling liability and coverage claims. Describe typical clients: Currently representing the State of Wisconsin and its citizens. Formerly specialized in criminal defense on direct retainers, court appointments and State Public Defender appointments. Also represented people in employment and consumer litigation. Number of cases tried to verdict: approx. 35 JT (jury trials), many more administrative and court trials List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: Termination of Parental Rights case (closed proceedings). This case was both a trial and an appeal. I was Lead Trial Counsel and sole counsel for the state on appeal. Fond du Lac County Circuit Court. … Five-day trial in 2023 followed by an appeal. Another ADA and I took over the prosecuting this case after our Juvenile Prosecutor determined he had a conflict just prior to trial. The case was significant because the child was placed with foster parents who provided a stable, loving home, and had been for several years while the sole parent contesting the termination had been incarcerated until recently. The child and foster parents had a close bond, the foster parents were going to adopt, and the evidence showed that the child experienced significant emotional distress when the contesting parent was in contact with him. The foster parents had the child for years, waiting for the TPR to be prosecuted and finalized so they could finalize the adoption, which the child strongly wanted. The case was important to all involved. For me, it was my first TPR matter as a prosecutor. The significant legal issue involved a novel question of whether the incarcerated parent should be relived of the requirements he failed to satisfy while incarcerated when he committed the crime causing his incarceration on the very day the conditions of return were imposed on him. One of the conditions included not to commit any crimes. The facts of this case had not been addressed directly by appellate decisions. We won the trial and subsequent request to terminate parental rights. The contesting parent appealed. I handled the appeal alone, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The SCOW denied the petition for review. The foster parents were then able to finalize the adoption, and the child is living with them now as one of their own. State v. Orlando Daniel; Trial Counsel for the State; Fond du Lac County Circuit Court … May 27-28, 2025. Prosecuting a domestic violence case where the victim waited until testifying to recant her complaint entirely. The defendant was charged with drugs, possessing a firearm as a felon, going armed while intoxicated, and first degree reckless endangering safety of the victim by pointing a loaded firearm at her head repeatedly. The case was significant because the defendant posed a significant threat to the victim and public at large with his actions and the related involvement of firearms and drugs. The victim's recanting testimony jeopardized the entire case. The case was significant to try. It was challenging as a trial attorney to impeach the victim, who was the state's primary witness, and convince the jury that her prior statements were the truth. Keeping calm despite an antagonistic witness and focusing on the rules of evidence, logic and persuasive arguments, I was able to prevail. It was important to stop the cycle of violence against the victim and preventing harm to others in the future. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: Revocation of probation hearings and appeals as defense counsel in many cases from 2018-2022. Litigated many cases before the Equal Rights Division from 2004 to 2018, unemployment, and workers compensation benefit claims and appeals. I’ve also litigated federal admin courts to include the EEOC, Social Security Disability, and Merit Systems Protection Board. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). Formerly certified mediator by Fla. Bar and conducted mediation sessions as the mediator in Wisconsin. I’ve participated as attorney to a party in many mediations over the years, probably over 150, in Florida and Wisconsin. I have also handled arbitration claims for stock brokers and for consumers in automotive lemon law claims. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: None Previous runs for public office: None All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: None listed Professional or civic and charitable organizations: ABLE (Audio & Braille Literacy Enhancement), member, board of directors, approximately 2007-2008 National Association of Consumer Advocates, peer group leader, 2016 Wisconsin Bar Civil Rights & Liberties Law Section, chair and board member, 2010-2013 Wisconsin Bar Labor & Employment Law Section, board member, 2011-2014 Florida Chapter of National Employment Lawyers Association, president and other roles, 2002-2005 Florida Bar Labor & Employment Law Certification Review Course, co-chair, 2004 Northboro Home Owners Association, president, approximately 1998 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: Volunteer Lawyers Project, gave multiple seminars for volunteer lawyers taking cases in areas typically not served, and I also consulted with an took many consumer related cases on referral as a volunteer lawyer to the project 2010-2018. I accepted appointments in criminal matters at reduced rates through the State Public Defender. There are also many times that I waived my fees or gave a reduced fee to low income clients in consumer and employment matters. I volunteered for several years in mock court competitions in S. Florida as a judge and again in Washington County, WI for high school competitions. For several years I gave presentations on the law and a career in law with Junior Achievement. I spent many days volunteering with my children’s activities to support them in hockey, football and ballet events by working concession stands, announcing games, time and score keeper, and setup/tear down for events. I also volunteer with school events for my soon-to-be step children who are still in middle and high school for various activities. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I want to serve the people of Wisconsin as a judge because I believe my varied life and professional experiences will help guide me to apply the rule of law as given by higher courts to the facts of the cases presented and arrive at fair and equitable decisions whether that be a criminal case, a family dispute, a civil suit or other matter. I grew up in a very close, middle-class family with three sisters. We typically did not have more than a paycheck to live on. In my own adult life, we had times when money was scarce and times of plenty. College was something l earned, working and finding ways to pay for it on my own. I am a father of three adult children now, all having graduated college in the past six years. I have lived through the experience of a broken marriage and divorce with their mother. I have now learned again what it means to love and be loved once more as I will be married later this year when I will become a stepfather to my fiancé’s three children. I learned about service and teamwork in the Marine Corps. As a lawyer, I have represented many diverse clients in many diverse situations. My clients included businesses in commercial disputes. I have represented people that lost jobs, large sums of money or credit due to wrongful acts of others. Some of my clients were denied medical treatment and benefit claims after being injured at work. I have counseled prospective clients out of lawsuits when I did not see that legal relief was available. I started my career as a prosecutor, then later in life represented people in defense of criminal charges, and I have since returned to representing the people of Wisconsin as a prosecutor—arguably one the best jobs one can have as a trial attorney. I have come to know people at their best and worst, as I have come to know myself from these experiences. With these experiences, I will listen to the people putting their trust in the court; I will judge their disputes fairly; I will treat them with respect; and I will uphold the integrity of the office in which I serve with the highest personal moral standards and work ethic. This is the type of judge I have always most respected regardless of the outcome. People may disagree with the result in a case but accept it because they believe it was a decision free of bias and deliberately made based on the court's understanding of the law. Wisconsin rightfully expects that kind of person in the judiciary, and I believe I can be that 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 2023, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin decided State v. Johnson, 2023 WI 39. This case has a significant impact on the people in Wisconsin because it positively impacted the rights of victims of crime by protecting them from incursions into their privately held healthcare records which historically had a negative effect on victims of crime both discouraging prosecution and inflicting emotional distress. At the same time, it negatively affected the rights of those accused of crime to investigate their accusers in ways traditionally done to attack the veracity of the accusations and credibility of the accuser. The decision is recognized as one of the first cases decided by the SCOW to address the rights of victims under the constitutional amendment and enabling statutes for Marcy's law. However, the court appeared to recognize that victims may have standing to exert rights under Marcy's Law, the court did not decide the standing issue. Instead, the court overruled State v. Shijfra with which courts and parties have wrangled since 1993 when the court said a victim's healthcare records could be subject to discovery by a criminal defendant using an in camera review process. Although the case overturns almost 30 years of precedent, the court was willing to examine whether the earlier opinion was correctly decided, how workable the decision was when put into practice, and the change in respect given to victim's of crime as illustrated in the enactment of the constitutional amendment with Marcy's Law. The opinion is significant in part because it says being old law alone isn't good enough to justify keeping it and signals that victims may have standing to enforce the rights stated in Marcy's law. It seems to shift some of the weight on the scales of justice to a third plate, that of the victim. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Sandra Giernoth, Washington County Circuit Court. Judge Giernoth is smart, direct, and holds attorneys accountable to the standard she clearly sets for herself. She does not show favoritism to either party. She is always prepared and runs her calendar efficiently. If you respect her preparation, intelligence and time, she respects yours. She also took over the Drug Treatment Program in Washington County. Judge Martens's work before her and now her efforts have helped make that one of the most effect treatment programs I have seen in the courts where I have practiced. I aspire to gain the respect she has as a jurist and would look to her as a mentor and role model. Judge William Sosnay, Milwaukee Circuit Court. Early in my career, I appeared before Judge Sosnay as local counsel on behalf of the firm where I worked. It was for a 3-week jury trial involving the death of man from mesothelioma. It was complicated as it was long. Lead counsel was from another jurisdiction, and suffice it to say they played a little rough where he came from. Judge Sosnay was clearly frustrated with lead counsel throughout the case, but he never let on to the jury. He always maintained his calm, professional demeanor. He made his frustrations known and laid out his expectations clearly. Any criticism always occurred in chambers. He was more than patient throughout and never showed anyone disrespect even when he was disrespected. I continued to appear before him in other cases and always left feeling glad to have him as the judge. His judicial demeanor left a great impression on me. I enjoyed practicing in his court knowing that he would be fair to the parties and I always felt respected. If given the opportunity, I hope people will feel the same way in my courtroom. Justice John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court. I admire Justice Roberts for his integrity. He has put judicial restraint and respect for precedent above politics of the day. Regardless of affiliation or agreement with the result, having the courage to decide issues based on these principles honors what I believe is the proper role of the court. The proper role of a judge: The proper role of a judge is primarily to uphold the integrity of the office. The integrity of the office for a trial court is upheld by following the rule of law as given by the higher courts, refraining from legislating from the bench, being free of personal or political influence, and maintaining decorum in the courtroom. A judge must know the law, whether from prior experience or by learning it when knowledge is lacking. A judge must recognize personal prejudices and biases and then understand how these may play a part in the judge's own decision-making to avoid letting them influence judicial decisions. Listening to the parties, witnesses, lawyers, and other participants in the process is also necessary, and communicating decisions in a way that shows the judge has listened and understood the parties even if the judge didn't agree with them. A judge should also treat people with respect, ensure that the parties treat each other with respect, and ensure that the parties also treat the office with respect. Being a judge is a privilege ultimately given by the people. The focus should be on the office, not the person. A judge's role should be to honor the office by example, living according to the values of the community the judge serves, acting with dignity and maintaining a high moral character consistent with the judicial code of ethics. A judge must respect the office as much as the judge expects others to do. "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.  Photo by Lesa Ann Molitor from the Spooner Advocate. Name: Angeline E. Winton
Appointed to: Washburn County Circuit Court Appointment date: Aug. 13, 2019 (elected in April 2020 to term ending 2026) Education: Law School – William Mitchell College of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire High School – Hayward High, Hayward, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: January 2017-present – District attorney, Washburn County January 2009-December 2016 – Half-time shared assistant district attorney for both Burnett and Washburn counties October 2008-December 2016 – Self-employed attorney, Angeline E. Winton, Attorney at Law, Hayward, Wisconsin October 2008-December 2016 – Associate, Winton Law Offices, Hayward, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin Lac Courte Oreilles Tribal Court, Hayward, Wisconsin General character of practice: Since January of 2017, I have served Washburn County as full time District Attorney. Focusing solely on criminal matters, my days are spent reviewing police reports, making charging decisions, attending Drug Court when scheduled, meeting with victims, reviewing files and/or meeting with defendants and defense attorneys to discuss settlement. Additionally, a significant part of my time is spent meeting with victims, preparing for contested hearings, writing legal briefs, appearing on behalf of the State in bond hearings, initial appearances, preliminary hearings, motion hearings, sentencing hearings, preparing for trial and trying jury trial cases. From January 2009 to the end of December 2016, I served both Washburn County and Burnett County in the capacity as their half-time shared Assistant District Attorney. The other half of my time was spent running a successful private practice in Hayward, Wisconsin, working in the family firm alongside my father, Ward Wm. Winton. In this capacity I handled a wide variety of civil matters and municipal prosecutions as Municipal Attorney for the Village of Siren in Burnett County and the Village of Birchwood in Sawyer County. Describe typical clients: Although not clients per se, as District Attorney I serve the people of Washburn County, and take that responsibility extremely seriously. With an overarching goal of protecting the community, I encourage rehabilitation of amenable, low-risk offenders such as with treatment of those struggling with drug addictions. When time allows, I have an open door policy and encourage victims, citizens and other interested parties to meet with me and share any special concerns they may have, or to provide me with information they believe is crucial to my role as District Attorney. Until December of 2016, my civil private practice focused primarily on real estate, estate planning, guardian ad litem work, probate and family law. My typical clients were honest, hardworking people who simply needed someone to guide them through the often confusing steps of the legal process. Number of cases tried to verdict: At least 25 jury trials and countless court trials. List up to five significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: State v. Brandon Scherz: Washburn County Case 16CF92/WI Court of Appeals Case 17AF730 This was a case that was initially charged by my predecessor, Thomas H. Frost as Second Degree Sexual Assault. When I took office in January of 2017, this case was set for trial on April 20, 2017. Before trial, I filed a motion in limine indicating that I intended to use the defendant's confessions. On April 13, 2017, after a Miranda/Goodchild hearing on March 15, 2017, the Honorable Judge Eugene D. Harrington rendered his oral ruling, suppressing the defendant's confessions. One of the hardest things I have had to do in my career is explain to the rape victim in this case that, in order to seek justice on her behalf, I needed to delay her case and fight to correct the Circuit Court's clear error in suppressing defendant's admissions. The victim was extremely reluctant as she wanted the stress of the trial to be over with, and we both knew seeking an appeal would mean many months of delay. Ultimately she found the strength to agree that a continuation was necessary to achieve justice in her case, After lengthy discussions with the Wisconsin Attorney General's Office, in anticipation of the court's ruling, on April 13. 2017, I requested a continuance of the trial pending an interlocutory appeal. The Circuit Court denied that request and the Attorney General's Office sought and received an immediate stay of the Circuit Court proceedings on April 17, 2017, three days before the trial was to commence. On December 28, 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed the Circuit Court's ruling and remanded the case back for further proceedings. The State filed a substitution of the Honorable Eugene D. Harrington and the Honorable John P. Anderson was assigned to the case. On March 14, 2018, a Petition for Review to the Wisconsin Supreme Court was denied. With the defendant's confessions reinstated, the case proceeded to trial on 11/28/20l8. At trial, the case focused on the use of force. After consulting with the victim, 1 asked the court to include a lesser included instruction for Third Degree Sexual Assault. The defendant was then convicted by a jury of his peers of Third Degree Sexual Assault, Possession of THC, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. The victim was extremely happy with the outcome and this was one of my most satisfying days as District Attorney. After asking the victim to have faith in me and faith in the criminal justice system, she was ecstatic and told me she was so happy that I was her DA. Shockingly, the Presentence Investigation came back with a probation recommendation. With the assistance of the victim's heartfelt victim impact statement, the State was able to convince the Honorable John P. Anderson that prison, rather than probation, was the appropriate response to Mr. Scherz' admitted rape of the victim. On February 6, 2019, Brandon Scherz was sentenced to five years imprisonment, bifurcated as two years of initial confinement, followed by three years of extended supervision. This was a significant case in my career. I was happy to see, after the long battle through the Circuit Court, that the system worked and the Court of Appeals carefully, fairly and impartially applied the law to the facts and reinstated the defendant's confession, thereby helping me attain justice for the victim. State v. Kelly Daniels: Washburn County Case 17CF89 This case involved three controlled methamphetamine buys from Kelly Daniels in February of 2017. After a lengthy 2 day jury trial in bitterly cold weather, Ms. Daniels was convicted on all three delivery counts. During trial, I played the audio from one of the controlled buys. Having had the audio transcribed in advance, I was able to let the jury read along while listening to Ms. Daniel's voice as she sold methamphetamine to the confidential informant. I believe this played a significant role in the outcome of the case. After she was convicted, although I argued the severity of Ms. Daniel's actions warranted a prison sentence, she ultimately received only an imposed and stayed prison term. Despite the sentence, many in the community took notice that prosecution of this case was a priority for my office. It is my hope that other drug dealers like Ms. Daniels will consider how vigorously my office prosecuted this case and will give a second thought before moving their operations into Washburn County. State v. Steven Stone: Washburn County Circuit Court Case 14CF'88 This was an interesting case. Steven Stone was charged with Count I - OWI-5th, Count 2- Operating After Revocation and Count 3, PAC-5th. My involvement first began when, as assistant district attorney, I second-chaired the jury trial on January 22, 2015 with then District Attorney Thomas H. Frost. During District Attorney Frost's direct questioning of Deputy Josh Christman, Mr. Frost unintentionally provoked a mistrial when Deputy Christman commented on the defendant's prior OWI-4th conviction in violation of the trial court's pretrial ruling. After a ruling from the Court of Appeals, the State was permitted to retry the case. Although I was only working one day per week at that time for Washburn County in my capacity as Assistant District Attorney, when asked by District Attorney Frost, I agreed to retry the case alone. I did so on October 5, 20I6 and successfully obtained convictions on all three counts. Although I didn't handle the sentencing, I understand that the defendant was ultimately placed on probation and ordered to serve 330 days conditional jail time on Count I, OW1-5th, consecutive to 120 days conditional jail time on Count 2, OAR. Winton’s application included discussion of two additional cases, which WJI has not included due to length. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: For approximately a year prior to being elected District Attorney in 2017, I was appointed to serve as Sawyer County's Condemnation Commissioner. During my tenure I was never called upon to serve but stood ready to do so. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). From 2008 to 2016, in my civil practice, I handled a variety of real estate matters and estate planning cases which focused primarily on drafting documents and advising clients, rather than litigation. During this time, as guardian ad litem in family law cases, I also frequently engaged in informal mediation with the parties in an attempt to reach a result consistent with the best interests of the children. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Since approximately 2000, I have volunteered to various degrees either by making phone calls, door-knocking, etc. for each U.S. presidential democratic party campaign. Prior to going to law school in 2005, for approximately a year I served as the President of the Sawyer County Democratic Party in Hayward, Wisconsin. Previous runs for public office: Washburn County District Attorney, elected November 2016 All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Chief Judge Lisa Neubauer, in 2018 and 2019 for April 2019 Supreme Court election Dane County Circuit Judge Jill Karofsky, in 2019 for April 2020 Supreme Court election Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Washburn, Sawyer & Rusk Tri-County Bar Association, 2008-present, president 2011 Spooner Lions Club, volunteer, 2015-present Spooner Rodeo Committee, volunteer-Rodeo, 2015-present Northwoods Humane Society, volunteer, sporadically from 2001-present Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: I volunteer for various organizations in my community when able but due to the nature of my restricted duties as District Attorney, I do not have significant pro bono legal work. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I have served the citizens of Washburn County as a prosecutor for over ten years, yet now feel called upon to serve as Washburn County's next judge. I am not tendering this application for purposes of career advancement because as for me, becoming a judge has not always been a lifelong goal. Indeed, I firmly believe the decision to become a judge should be less about a person's career aspirations and ego, and more about that person's proven track record of service to their community, their fairness and dedication, their work ethic, and their continued study of the law. I feel compelled to apply for judge because the citizens of Wisconsin deserve a hardworking, honest judge who will not become complacent, but who will recommit each day to serving her community. I was born in Washburn County and have spent most of my adult life living and working here. This is the place I call home and this is the place where I intend to live the rest of my life. I grew up in a family which encouraged a life of service. Guided by that encouragement, I have been honored to serve as District Attorney. I want to continue to serve the people of Washburn County as their judge because I want to help strengthen my community and pledge to work tirelessly, within the proper judicial bounds, to do so. 1 am concerned with the limited resources available to young people in our community and how, as a result, those who cannot get a good job, or pursue higher education, often become entangled with drugs and alcohol. I care deeply about my community and I am concerned with the rise in crime due to the spike in methamphetamine and opioid addictions. As District Attorney, I have worked excessively long hours, at night and on weekends, to keep up with the ever-expanding caseload, which is largely attributable to the spike in methamphetamine and opioids flowing through our county. As District Attorney, I have paid special attention to vigorously prosecuting child pornography cases, property crimes, sexual assaults and drug-related offenses. As a result, I have had approximately twenty jury trials in the last two and half years. I am honored to work hard to do the right thing. I am honored by the faith that Washburn County residents have already placed in me to elect me as their District Attorney. l want to serve Washburn County as their judge with that same dedication. As judge, I believe a strong message must be sent to those who intentionally seek to harm our communities. However, I will also continue to support and encourage educational programs, mentorships and treatment courts, such as the Washburn County Drug Court for low risk, first time offenders. Serving as a member of Drug Court for over the last three years has given me the unique perspective to see how earnestly community members struggle with addiction and how very essential such programs are to the survival of our communities. 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 my opinion, United States v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013) has had the greatest positive impact on our democracy in the last 25 years. Many, if not all of us, have been affected by U.S. v. Windsor. Although many of us are not members of a same-sex partnership, the odds are that we know someone, work with someone or love someone who is. Society has come a long way in terms of acceptance since 2013, due in large part to U.S. v. Windsor. Separate yet unequal. The Defense of Marriage Act (hereafter DOMA), embodied that philosophy. DOMA was passed in the rnid-1990s, as States were just considering same sex partnerships. The very title of DOMA made clear the federal government's outright distain for same sex partnerships and Congress's fear that if granted equality, these couples would forever tarnish the sanctity of marriage. To discourage the taboo "choice", DOMA denied same sex couples significant governmental benefits by refusing to recognize civil unions as legitimate "marriages" in the eyes of the federal government. Everything changed in 2013 with U.S. v. Windsor. In 2007 Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in Ontario, Canada and their home state of New York recognized their union. Two short years later, however, Thea Spyer died leaving Windsor as sole beneficiary of her estate. Windsor attempted to claim the surviving spouse federal estate tax exemption but was barred by doing so by DOMA which specifically excluded same-sex partners from the act's definition of "spouse" and "marriage." As a result of her choice of a same-sex spouse, Windsor inherited her wife's estate but paid costly in estate taxes. Ultimately Windsor filed suit, claiming the DOMA violated her 5th Amendment Equal Protection Rights. In 2013 Justice Kennedy authored the majority's decision ruling DOMA unconstitutional, indicating; "The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States." U.S. v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744, 770, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 2693 (2013). "It also forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect." Id., 570 U.S. 744, 747. Windsor is so significant because it shows how, even decades after the civil rights era, the judiciary can apply traditional legal analysis to properly render significant change in our modern world. By doing so, the United States Supreme Court restored faith to many in our democracy who had been previously disenfranchised for the simple reason of whom they chose to love. Undeniably, there are still parts of the country where people cannot bring themselves to put aside their prejudice and accept others. However, since U.S. v. Windsor, acceptance for same-sex couples has begun to flow like a tidal wave. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Three circuit court judges that 1 have observed over the course of my career and whom I admire greatly are former Burnett County Judge Kenneth Kutz, Bayfield County Judge John P. Anderson and Sawyer County Judge John M. Yackel. These Judges have diverse personalities, yet all possess many qualities I admire. I had the most exposure as a young lawyer before the Honorable Kenneth Kutz when he was the Burnett County Circuit Court Judge and I was serving part time as Burnett County's Assistant District Attorney from 2009 to 2016. Judge Kutz impressed me each time I appeared before him because of his great depth of legal knowledge and his remarkably calm and patient temperament. I cannot recall more than once or twice over the seven years I appeared before him when Judge Kutz ever had to raise his voice to command the respect of those in his courtroom. Judge Kutz remains one of the most respected Judges in our area not only because he is a scholar of the law, but also because he has the unique ability to render decisions and even impose harsh sentences by educating those before him and inspiring them, instead of using his power and authority to be disrespectful or disparaging. Judge Yackel is yet another judge whom l greatly admire. I first encountered Judge Yackel when he served as Sawyer County's Assistant District Attorney. In that role, he and I interacted frequently when I served as guardian ad litem in Children In Need of Protection or Services cases. When Judge Yackel took the bench in Sawyer County, he brought with him many qualities that had served him well as a prosecutor. For example, as a prosecutor John Yackel possessed a unique ability to cut to the heart of a dispute and assist others to put aside their petty differences so as to focus what was really important, such as the best interests of the child. He retains that ability now as Judge. It is also evident from watching Judge Yackel that he cares passionately about Northwestern Wisconsin. While always being fair to each side, once an offender is convicted, Judge Yackel frequently takes a strong stance against those who seek to harm his community. Finally, I greatly admire Bayfield County Judge John Anderson. Like Judge Yackel, Judge Anderson quickly analyzes a situation and focuses on the issue at the heart of whatever conflict is before him. It is my firm impression that Judge Anderson isn't swayed by private interests and is more concerned with doing what is right than what is popular. Judge Anderson uses his authority to change people's lives, often through brutal honestly in an attempt to help them realize the error of their ways. All three have unique personalities and divergent theories about how best to administer justice. The common characteristics that each possess, and which I greatly admire, however, is their tireless work ethics and their genuine desire to administer justice fairly so as improve their communities. The proper role of a judge: Over the course of my career I have seen that the legal system functions the most smoothly, provides the most just outcomes, and inspires the most public confidence, when each party and their attorneys zealously advocate for their positions and the judge functions as a neutral and detached magistrate, weighing the facts with the law and rendering a fair and impartial decision. Many times, over the course of my career I have seen the system work and I have seen the system fail. The proper role of a judge is to first and foremost be well-educated and well-informed. No matter how well-meaning, a judge cannot function efficiently if she doesn't take her job extremely seriously, prepare for her cases, have strong attention to detail, and possess a firm understanding of the law. A judge should not be complacent. The proper role of a judge is to never stop learning and never assume, just because they are wearing the black robe, that they are automatically the most informed person. A good judge should have a strong personality so as to maintain order and command authority but should also be patient. Over the course of my career I have seen justice delivered in many forms. Many times a judge can administer justice simply by allowing a party to feel as though they were respected and given an opportunity to be heard. "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: Reyna Morales
Appointed to: Milwaukee County Circuit Court Appointment date: Sept. 21, 2020 (elected in April 2021 to term ending in 2027) Education: Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Undergraduate – Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York High School – Uniondale High, Uniondale, New York Recent legal employment: June 1997-present – Attorney, Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office, Madison, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin General character of practice: During my tenure with the State Public Defender, "SPD", I have handled thousands of cases, with a myriad of legal issues. I have had the opportunity to represent individuals in many different settings, ranging from informal diversions to extensive trials. I have experience handling juvenile, chips, guardianship, mental commitments, TPR's, misdemeanor and all level of felony cases. I never shy away from complex legal issues and I am willing to research and invest as much time as needed so that clients are zealously represented. Throughout my career I have had bench trials as well as jury trials in cases ranging from traffic matters to high profile homicides. Describe typical clients: The majority of my clientele consists of individuals who have extremely complicated lives. The vast majority of my clients come from socially marginalized communities and have had to deal with economic disadvantages all of their lives. I current represent individuals charged with serious felonies including armed robberies, sexual assaults, and homicides. I provide advice on a daily basis to clients who face life altering consequences as a result of their involvement in the criminal justice system. I have specialized in complex homicide cases focusing both in mental health issues as well as abusive head trauma litigation. I specialize in jury selection and in connecting with jury panels. Number of cases tried to verdict: 40+ 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: State of Wisconsin v. Kervin Pierce - Milwaukee County Case #2017CF5844 I was the defense attorney for Mr. Kervin Pierce from 12/26/2017 through 12/07/2018. My client suffers from Schizophrenia, at the time of the incident Mr. Pierce had yet to be diagnosed with this serious mental illness which unraveled his life to the point where he killed his mother and attempted to kill his brother. I along with my defense team presented the case to a jury panel who agreed with our defense and we received a unanimous verdict of Not Guilty By Reason of Mental Decease or Defect. As a result of this case I was the first Latina in Wisconsin to be awarded the Hanson Memorial Advocate Prize by The Wisconsin Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers. State of Wisconsin v. Jason Tilley - Milwaukee County Case #2018CF1047 I was the defense attorney for Mr. Tilley from 03/14/2018 through 02/12/2019. My client suffers from cyclical schizoaffective disorder. This disorder led to Mr. Tilley believing the "illuminati" was giving him commands and his mind unraveled to where he killed his landlord over a $30.00 increase in rent. Mr. Tilley had a checkered past with both State and Federal System by the time he became my client. On the date of the incident Mr. Tilley killed his landlord, disposed of his landlords car, and went to check in with his federal probation agent before reporting to work where he was arrested without incident. Mr. Tilley's case is significant as he had been interviewed by several members of my office before I was assigned to represent him. I had a very short interaction with him before raising competency in front of the Court. Mr. Tilley underwent treatment at Mendota Mental Health Institute and after months of treatment he was deemed competent to stand trial. A special plea was entered and two court appointed doctors agreed and supported the special plea of Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Disease or Defect. State of Wisconsin v. Annette Morales-Rodriguez - Milwaukee County Case 2011CF4871 I along with attorney Debra Patterson represented Ms. Morales-Rodriguez from 04/18/2012 through 12/13/2012. Ms. Morales-Rodriguez was accused of the homicide of a pregnant woman and slicing out her full-term fetus, killing both the mother and child. Ms. Morales-Rodriguez only spoke Spanish. As a native speaker I was able to use my skills both in knowledge of the law and a second language to support my client while at the same time respecting all those involved in the process. We argued several complex motions and represented Ms. Morales-Rodriguez through trial. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: n/a Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). As a defense attorney I am in the unusual role of having to mediate between the different parties involved in the criminal justice system. In my position, success in most cases can only be achieved through negotiation and mediation with Judges, Prosecutors, and Clients. I have presided over mediation tournaments at Marquette Law School. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Participated in the Official Second tier Caucus on 5/1/2016 for the Democratic Party of Wisconsin to nominate Ann Jacobs to be a delegate for the 2016 presidential convention. Previous runs for public office: [No answer given] All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: David Feiss, Circuit Court Judge, 2014 Martin “Joe” Donald, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, 2016 Martin “Joe” Donald, State Appellate Court Judge, 2019 Jean Kies, Circuit Court Judge, 2016 Thomas J McAdams, Circuit Court Judge, 2016 Janet C Protasiewicz, Circuit Court Judge, 2014 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Wisconsin Hispanic Lawyers Association, board of directors, 2018-present Felmers O. Chaney Advocacy Board, board member, 2019-present Marquette University Law School Alumni Association, board member, 2010-2018 MUHS-Mother’s Guild, Hospitality Team, 2020-present Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: [No answer given] Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I grew up in Guatemala in the middle of a civil war and was able to come to the United States in my teens. I was the first in my family to graduate from college in the United States and the first to go to Law School. I have the ability to communicate with, and work along with others with a clear understanding of the different roles we all hold in the judicial system. I want to use my life experience as a bi-cultural individual to serve the people of my community. Throughout my career I have worked with underprivileged individuals and have noticed the difference in their demeanor when they have a sense of belonging. I want to use my life experiences, knowledge, and background to have an active role in the judiciary. I understand the importance of diversity in the bench and I have learned throughout my career how important it is for underprivileged individuals to see other people of color in active roles in the court system so they feel heard. I have had to assist clients with the difficult decision as to which cases to take to trial and which cases require a resolution where they are exposed to a lengthy sentence in the prison system. I have met people at their best and worst and I have had the privilege to stand beside them waiting for the judge to deliver a sentence that will impact the rest of their life. In representing individuals I understand the great power a judge has in the life of others and the impact following the law can have in the community. In exercising this role, all you can do is to try and understand the issue before you and then decide it in the best way you know how. 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 belong to the immigration specialty group in my office. I participated in the Leadership project where I prepared a presentation to our agency on the critical issues raised on Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (20210) Padilla has had great impact in how cases are handled in our office. Padilla brought to light the need for collaborative representation in cases where the consequence of a criminal conviction could result in the deportation and ultimate exile of a client to a foreign land. I alongside other attorneys in our office created a screening form to ensure proper representation of individuals who need a specialized immigration assessment. I participated in panel discussions and training of others both at a CLE put together by WHLA and at the annual SPD conference on the duties of counsel and the need to properly advise clients of the devastating collateral consequences in criminal matters which must be taken into consideration both by prosecutors and defense counsel alike Two or three judges whom I admire and why: I had the opportunity to meet Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson. The idea of interacting with someone as brilliant as Justice Abrahamson was intimidating, however she had the ability to listen to you and make you feel as the only person in a crowded ballroom. Justice Abrahamson gave me one of the best experiences in my legal career by letting me know that she loved the law and that family is important. I had the opportunity to attend a live argument and Justice Abrahamson's questions showed she had taken the time to be prepared and treated all those involved with a level of respect which had a calming effect on a lawyer that needed reassurance in the middle of a tough oral argument. Justice Abrahamson was the first woman to be appointed as Chief Justice to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I often read her decisions and it is clear from her writings the profound respect she has for the law and the application of law to all those involved in the judicial system and the vast repercussions of her decisions. Sonia Sotomayor - United States Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor is a true inspiration and a pioneer in the legal system. She is the first Latina to be appointed to the highest court in the United States. Justice Sotomayor has an impressive legal background with experience as a prosecutor and a corporate litigator. Justice Sotomayor's credentials have been recognized by both republican and democratic presidents. Justice Sotomayor was originally appointed to the bench by President Clinton. Before her appointment to the Supreme Court by President Obama, she had been appointed to the appellate bench by President George H.W. Bush. Justice Sotomayor is the only current justice with experience as a trial judge. The proper role of a judge: Judges have a privileged position in society. The most important role of a judge is to always be aware of the law's impact on society and everyday life. A judge must probe factual and legal details when deciding legal matters in order to uphold the rule of law. The rule of law requires a judge to be thoughtful and consistent when applying the law to cases and facts on a consistent basis. "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: Gregory J. Jerabek
Appointed to: Wood County Circuit Court Appointment date: Jan. 15, 2025, to term ending July 31, 2025 (seeking election in April 2025) Education: Law School – Hamline School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point High School – Roncalli High, Manitowoc, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: March 2005-present – Attorney-Shareholder, Nash Law Group S.C. Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin General character of practice: I have a general practice which includes, or at times has included: criminal defense, municipal prosecution, civil litigation, personal injury litigation, collections, probate, estate planning, real estate transactions, bankruptcy, guardianships, guardian ad litem appointments, family law, termination of parental rights , CHIPS, employment discrimination/harassment, unemployment, social security disability, appeals, and juvenile law. Describe typical clients: My clients have come from diverse backgrounds. I do not believe that I have “specialized” in one area of law or another, or in any particular type of client. I provide a wide-range of practice areas which as allowed me to provide practical solutions across several areas of the law to a complete spectrum of clients. 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: The interest of C.J.O., Wood County Case . . . In 2020, I was the lawyer for a mother and her husband who wanted to adopt his 10-year-old stepson. Despite not having any semblance of a relationship with the child, the natural father contested the termination of his rights and subsequent adoption. This case stands out as significant to me for several reasons. First, it was one of the first jury trials held during the COVID-19 pandemic. Selecting a jury and trying a case while masked presented a unique set of challenges. Second, due to the pandemic, the case was delayed beyond time limits, obviously for good cause; however, despite cause, the added strain that this put on my clients makes the case stand out. Third, the jury returned with a verdict finding grounds to terminate in under fifteen minutes, which makes the case a significant moment in my career. IN RE THE MATTER OF DISCIPTINARY ACTION BY THE CITY OF NEKOOSA AGAINST MARK KANE Nekoosa Ambulance Disciplinary Hearing . . . In October of 2020, I was appointed by the City of Nekoosa to act as an Impartial Hearing Officer to review the decision of Nekoosa Ambulance Service in demoting Mark Kane from a Lieutenant position following an allegation of sexual harassment. A hearing was held on November 18, 2020. This was significant as it was my first experience as an impartial hearing officer. I was careful to construct a solid record, advised the appellant of his right to have counsel present as well as advising the appellant that as the hearing officer, I could not act on his behalf. I issued a written decision (attached as a writing sample to this application) approximately three weeks following the hearing. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have had in excess of 50 unemployment and sexual harassment proceedings during my career to Wisconsin Administrative Law Judges, for both employees and employers. In every case, I have acted as the lawyer from initial contact through any appeal. I have also had Social Security disability hearings on behalf of applicants whose applications were previously denied. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). I have participated in countless mediations, some as representation for the parties, but several as the mediator in both family law/placement matters, as well as civil litigation. As a mediator, I have been successful in resolving every case in which I was involved. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: I volunteered for the judicial campaigns of both Timothy Gebert (Wood County) and Jeffrey Wisnicky (Kewaunee County). Previous runs for public office: Kewaunee County District Attorney, 2004, received approximately 44% of vote All public offices to which you were appointed or elected: Wisconsin Rapids Police and Fire Commission, appointed, 2010-2017 All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Timothy S. Gebert, Wood Country Circuit Court Judge, 2023 Jeffrey R. Wisnicky, Kewaunee County Circuit Court Judge, 2022 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Wood County Crime Stoppers, secretary, 2019-present United Way of South Wood and Adams County, board of directors, 2007-2012 Boys & Girls Club of the Wisconsin Rapids Area, board of directors, 2006-2008, 2014-2017; president 2017-2018 Wisconsin Rapids Police and Fire Commission, 2010-2017; president 2015-2017 Howe Elementary PTC, president, 2016-2017 Wood County Bar Association, president, 2009-2014 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: I have filed several bankruptcy cases on a pro bono basis and I routinely waive associated fees for serving as a Guardian ad Litem in adoption cases (child and adult). Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I believe that the opportunity to serve as a judge is a profound privilege and have worked the entirety of my twenty-year career intentionally gaining the broad-based experience necessary to effectively and meaningfully serve. I submit my application, not for personal financial gain or a desire to be addressed as "your honor", but to serve the people of Wood County Wisconsin with integrity and intention. Except for my time in law school, I have lived my life in Wisconsin. Born in small-town Wisconsin to loving, humble, hard-working parents, I developed a strong sense of community, founded on the principles of morality, honesty, strong work ethic, and accountability. I strive to utilize this strong foundation in my daily life and work. I am proud of who I am, but not too prideful to admit my mistakes, then to address and learn from them. I believe that everyone deserves the opportunity to do the same, including litigants in the criminal justice system, without being summarily branded irredeemable. I believe that this sense of responsibility toward humanity, in concert with a strong sense of practicality, will allow me to best serve the families of Wood County. For example: placement matters often become more about who "wins", ignoring the reality that there is no winner when parents fight over a child, rather than what is in the best interest of the child. In these situations, my intent is to foster the collaborative efforts necessary to limit the exposure of children to high conflict placement situations. Though it is impractical to outline a multitude of examples, I re-emphasize my global desire to serve in a way that provides a positive and lasting impact on my community. I believe that, given my background and intentions, my greatest opportunity to do so is as a judge. In this role, my dedication will be to the application of law, with efficient, practical, and direct administration of justice. 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. There is no doubt that most, if not all, Wisconsinites place great value on family. Because of this core value, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling in Michels v. Lyons (In re A.A.L.), 2019 WI 57, has had a significant positive and negative impact on the people of Wisconsin, expanding rights for parents, and curtailing them for grandparents. For many years I routinely handled grandparent visitation cases, both on behalf of petitioning grandparents and responding parents. In many of these cases, the matter was routine, and grandparents were usually given some dedicated time with their grandchildren. Although the time was usually quite limited, the relationship would be preserved, and the child would have the benefit of another source of trusted care. In Michels v. Lyons, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a petitioning grandparent is required to overcome the presumption in favor of a fit parent's placement decisions with clear and convincing evidence that the decision is not in the child's best interest. This changed the burden of proof in grandparent visitation cases and likely altered the routine nature of grandparent visitation petitions permanently. I have tremendous respect for Justice Dallett's majority opinion, and the constitutional analysis of the precedent on this issue is thorough and on point. I would agree that the several grandparent visitation statutes are constitutional on their face but are unconstitutional as applied in Michels v. Lyons. Given the fundamental liberty interest at stake (a parent's right to raise their children), the higher clear and convincing standard is appropriate. I also agree, as Justice Dallett wrote, that "[a] circuit court should not substitute its judgment for the judgment of a fit parent, even if it disagrees with the parent's decision." 2019 WI 57 ¶ 37. This decision ultimately gives parents more authority to dictate who may or may not have contact with their children. In most of the grandparent visitation cases I handled, the parent(s) of the child had legitimate concerns for wanting to limit the grandparents contact with the child. In those cases, a parent should decide what is best for their child without interference from the courts. However, there are some cases where a fit parent cuts off a loving and supportive grandparent simply out of spite, which tragically can have a negative consequence on not only the grandparents, but more importantly, the child. Fortunately, circuit courts are left with the discretion of what evidence is clear and convincing to overcome the presumption set forth in Michels v. Lyons. So long as a judge can appreciate that their opinion about the parent's decision is not part of the analysis, it is possible to still find that grandparent visitation, despite the objections of a parent, is still in the child's best interest. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: First is retired Wood County Circuit Court Judge, James Mason. I spent the first six years of my practice routinely appearing in front of Judge Mason. His cordialness to the bar, sense of importance ascribed to every case, and attention to case details, were remarkable. Judge Mason afforded the smallest of matters, such as traffic or small claims, the same time and dedication he provided to the most serious. Judge Mason impressed upon me that the court's time was not his time, rather it was the litigant's, and time was never wasted when being utilized to obtain the relevant facts necessary to render a decision in accordance with the law. In my years of practice, his attention to rendering a thoughtful decision based on the law, without injecting opinion, has been unparalleled. Judge Mason exemplified what I believe a circuit court judge ought to be. Second is U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who I consider to be one of the founders of our modern understanding of free speech. I, as he, believe that freedom of speech is our most important fundamental liberty interest and is also the most often attacked. These attacks often come in the form of outcries that speech constitutes violence or hate, or in the form of books banned from schools in the name of opinion and public protection. I see these issues as an assault on free speech, which is ultimately harmful to the whole of society. I try to impress upon and exemplify, to my children and stepchildren, the importance of the free exchange of ideas, even in cases where a vast majority of people would find the ideas offensive or hurtful. When any speech is suppressed, we are all chained to that suppression. Justice Brandeis detailed it best when he wrote, "It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears . . . if there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." The proper role of a judge: A judge should ensure the efficient and thorough adjudication of the court system, providing every case timely due consideration, yet efficiently and effectively respecting the schedule and those it impacts. Efficient administration, recognition, and respect assist in maintaining the people's confidence in the judicial system. As exemplified by Judge James Mason, cordial treatment of all parties and their counsel is foundational to a respected courtroom. A judge should help ensure that both represented and unrepresented individuals receive fair treatment under the law. To a judge, it may just be another small claims case, a minor dispute over placement time, or a bond modification hearing, but to the parties, it may be the most significant aspect of their life. Therefore, all cases and parties should be treated with respect and given the time they deserve. A judge should follow the rule of law without deference to opinion or emotion. Every judge has personal experiences that may influence their decisions, but strict adherence to the law limits the risk of unpredictable decisions which do not conform to the law. A judge should be truly neutral and impartial and never let any personal bias overcome the need to be consistent. A judge should act as a safeguard against violations of an individual's rights, but also rule with deference to the State's level of interest, victims of offenses, and the need to protect the public. Careful considerations must be made in every case but balanced against the need for consistency by the judiciary. A judge should be respectful of the fact that his or her job is to ensure that the law is applied as written and intended, not as they see fit in a particular case. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed