 Alexandria Staubach By Alexandria Staubach WJI received a report in late June from controversial nonprofit Enough is Enough about reckless driving cases in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, highlighting significant differences in judges’ sentencing patterns. The court watch group, which was the subject of an open letter to the Milwaukee County judiciary last year, advocates against reckless driving and for “stronger measures to protect our communities,” according to its website. “ENE” was founded after the death of Erin Morgensen, who was killed as a bystander to a crash involving the police and a fleeing suspect. While ENE’s court watch program and the reports it produces are objectively laudable citizen efforts to provide oversight and affect a chronic public safety issue in Milwaukee, the group has an agenda, and they have a perspective that is evolving with experience. ENE wrote in an earlier report that it wanted to see a reduction in the number of cases with sentences less than the state’s recommendation. “No probation for repeat felons” or defendants who commit new crimes while awaiting adjudication, it says in the latest report. Metrics tracked by the group include the tendency of judges to offer more lenient sentences than those recommended by the prosecutor and the number of relevant cases the group observed in each courtroom. The report then rates the judges on their tendency to impose less or more lenient sentences than what an assistant district attorney recommends in a given courtroom. ADAs, like judciary, are not monoliths. They have past experiences, sometimes with defendants or judges, which inform their recommendations. They have varying degrees of personal experience with certain types of crimes. And they have a lot of discretion. I know this, having lived this, practicing as an ADA in Colorado before coming to Wisconsin. Measuring judges against compliance with ADA recommendations isn’t exactly an independent variable. It’s always possible the ADA recommendation isn’t the right thing. That said, an imperfect measure isn’t a meaningless measure, and some things in the report are worth considering, especially because we can’t escape the fact that the criminal justice system’s backbone is individual discretion. ADA discretion in charging and prosecuting crimes, offering pleas, and recommending sentences butts up against a defense attorney’s obligation to obtain the best possible outcome for their client, irrespective of guilt. But all of that is pinned against the judiciary’s ultimate discretion in sentencing. In Wisconsin, a trial judge is free to impose any legal sentence, whether the parties have come to terms in a plea deal or the defendant is convicted at trial. While that power is common, it’s not universal across states. Every defendant’s and victim’s experience is shaped by these forces and everyone practicing in the criminal justice space knows them to be true, but rarely do we take the time to quantify judges’ sentencing discretion, to measure it in action, or think about what it means for the people affected. I think ENE accidentally did. In ENE’s most recent reporting period from November 2025 through April 2026, the group observed 10 judges handling cases involving reckless driving. Judges Jorge Fragoso and Jack Dávila had the highest volume of observed cases. While a small majority (six of 10) of the observed judges imposed more lenient sentences than recommended by the ADA, Fragoso, who handled 55 cases, did so 56% of the time and Dávila, who handled 49 cases, did so 76% of the time. In ENE’s recent report it seems like the group’s takeaway is that Dávila was the second most lenient sentencer, after Judge Katie Kegel, who saw just eight relevant cases but imposed a more lenient sentence than the ADA’s recommendation 88% of the time. Kegel, it should be noted, also runs the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area and Gun Court. According to a defense attorney WJI contacted, she is less likely to see ENE-tracked charges without another charge present in the case, while Dávila deals with general crimes. In the same reporting period, Judges William Sosnay (10 cases) and Rebecca Keifer (17 cases) operated at the opposite end of the spectrum, never imposing a sentence more lenient than what was requested by the ADA, according to ENE. The value, morality, or correctness of the more or less lenient sentencing practices isn’t really the issue to me. It’s the effect the disparity in sentencing has on a case—the sense that everyone around the judge is playing the odds, in part predicated on what type of sentence they think the defendant may get. I’ve seen, and WJI has reported on, other ENE reports. It’s easy to gloss over what seems like a significant disparity and even easier to label the judges as merely more lenient or harsh, especially if you’re not convinced incarceration affects crime or is the ultimate deterrent. But it caught my attention this time, because I experienced these inconsistencies during the same reporting period. What always seemed like a simple fact of practice—that some judges are more lenient, that some ADA’s are harsher, that some defense attorneys are less reasonable—feels different when it is happening to you. In June of 2025, my husband was biking to work when he was hit by a vehicle driver who ran a red light and then fled the scene. The perpetrator’s reckless driving caused great bodily harm and by all accounts should have taken my husband’s life, though he miraculously survived. In May, the case against the perpetrator was dismissed without prejudice after the Milwaukee Police Department failed to locate and the district attorney’s office failed to personally serve a subpoena on a witness deemed essential for trial. Another witness seemed to suddenly lose their memory the weekend before they were set to take the stand. But before we knew these witnesses wouldn’t appear for trial, and before we knew the ADA would make the choice to dismiss the case without them, we were asked as victims to consider plea offers that were probationary in nature—some more harsh from the ADA, some more lenient from the defense attorney. This wasn’t because anyone thought mowing down someone on a bike and fleeing the scene merited such a plea. It wasn’t because the ADA questioned the defendant’s guilt. And it wasn’t just because the case was imperfect. We were told it was because of the judge’s sentencing record. The judge’s reputation is consistent with the ENE data. The judge was known to impose probation even in aggravated situations, so even if a trial resulted in conviction, we were warned not to expect incarceration. It’s impossible to say whether I would have advocated for incarceration. In an ideal world, all my family would really like is to keep the defendant from ever driving again. But that’s not a sentence the court can impose, and it’s also not the point. The sense that incarceration was totally off the table didn’t just seem to affect the plea; it seemed to affect the defense attorney’s expectations regardless of his client’s guilt or innocence. It seemed to affect the value of taking the case to trial. And it definitely impacted our perception of the criminal justice system in Milwaukee. The idea that practices from courtroom to courtroom, and indeed outcomes for similar misconduct, depend so much on what judge you randomly pull is tiresome in an already emotionally exhausting system. It makes one question the credibility of a system that purports to strive for impartiality and what we’re told is equal access to justice. We were never naive about the possible outcomes (including dismissal). It took a lot to even have the case investigated. I always anticipated the impact of ADA discretion on the case, and I understand that defense attorneys have an obligation to zealously protect their clients, but I honestly didn’t foresee the impact of judicial discretion in sentencing. Frankly, there was less of it in the jurisdiction where I practiced. I feel like we’ve accepted that balance in an elected judiciary includes some judges who sentence severely and some judges who don’t. But unlike in the Legislature, where a 50/50 split results in inaction for everyone, or a conservative majority results in conservative policies for everyone, a split across courts means that what you can expect from a sentence as a defendant, defense attorney, prosecutor or victim depends more on judicial disposition and less on individual conduct or the law. Overall, according to ENE’s report, sentences are tending more toward ADA recommendations since ENE began its court watch program in June 2024, with judges adopting more lenient sentences 52% of the time as compared to 72% of the time. While I don’t think ADA recommendations are a particularly telling metric, and we really don’t know how more or less lenient the sentencing is, I do know the lack of consistency across courtrooms is a tough pill to swallow when it’s happening. There’s a litany of criticisms that can be levied against the criminal justice system. And my sense, whether you agree with how things are currently structured or not, is that our courtrooms really are full of people trying very hard to do the right thing. Nevertheless, for a victim (and I assume for a defendant as well), the reality of disparate outcomes feels like a game. Who can get what from whom, with less focus on what’s right for the community, you, and whatever justice really means. In its report, ENE “recognizes the challenging responsibility judges face in balancing the unique facts of each case, the circumstances of the defendant, and the interests of justice.” The group acknowledges sentencing efforts by judges like “including educational sentencing components such as victim-impact essays and attendance at vehicular homicide hearings, which help offenders better understand the real-world consequences of reckless driving.” I recognize these challenges, too, and I recognize that we elect our judges (though many are appointed first) for their discretion, but I do wonder if we’ve lost some of the plot. To be clear, I think judicial discretion is a good thing. I think sentences tailored to individual defendants are a good thing. But if sentencing need only be “consistent and proportionate” within the confines of an individual courtroom, it may be worth questioning what those words really mean.
0 Comments
Felicity Rose, vice president of criminal justice research and policy at FWD.us, joined WJI and more than 80 guests on May 14 to share her research on the staggering economic costs of incarceration for the family members of imprisoned individuals. The incarceration crisis extends far beyond prison and jail walls. Families with incarcerated loved ones face lost income, housing instability, and expenses that prevent them from climbing the economic ladder. Each year, those families lose or spend almost $350 billion combined for childcare, travel expenses, communications, and other costs, including supplemental food from prison commissaries. Not surprisingly, the economic burden falls more heavily on families of color. Young adults with parents or siblings in prison mortgage their futures, while seniors with children in prison spend what little they may have out of fixed incomes. Children are frequently harmed by having to move (or even becoming unhoused), experiencing their families broken apart, or facing harmful or discriminatory treatment by teachers or others based on the actions of a parent. Based in Oakland, California, Rose spearheaded reasearch behind FWD.us' report We Can't Afford It: Mass Incarceration and the Family Tax. She talked not only about what drives these many costs and on whom they fall, but also how to mitigate them. In particular, she looked at various steps our neighbor state Illinois recently took to reduce its prison population significantly. Rose's suggestions included amending Wisconsin's "Truth-in-Sentencing" laws to return to earned good-time credits in prisons, narrowing sentence enhancements that force people into harmful plea deals, and creating ways to get people who are successful off of probation faster. Transparency about the enormous costs of the carceral system also may help. She pointed to one jurisdiction where prosecutors are required to inform a sentencing judge about how much a requested sentence will cost the state. Attendees networked and chatted during a cocktail hour, followed by Rose's thought-provoking presentation and an informative question-and-answer session. The event was held in Blue Ribbon Hall at Best Place, at the Historic Pabst Brewery in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. If you missed the event or want to watch Rose's presentation again, click on the YouTube video link below. We apologize that the lighting in the video is not the best (we're not professional videographers). The content is excellent, though! To better see the PowerPoint slides from the event, click here. FWD.us' report is available Please share the video with those in the courts, other portions of the carceral system, Legislature, and local government whose actions impact the rates of incarceration in Wisconsin. Please share this video with concerned citizens who can use their voices to call for change and families members of those in custody. And please share this video with family members who support those in prison and their children.  A slide from Rose's presentation By Alexandria Staubach The shuttering of WisconsinEye earlier this week has left a gaping hole in the public’s ability to watch what their officials are doing. For nearly 20 years, Wisconsin advocacy groups, community organizers, and independent journalists have relied on WisconsinEye, or “WisEye.” It provided comprehensive coverage of Capitol happenings and has been the state’s only gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Legislature, Supreme Court, Elections Commission, and more. WisconsinEye shut down on Dec. 15 due to a lack of funding and failure to meet minimum fundraising goals required to take advantage of a $10 million match offered by the Legislature earlier this year. It provided unedited, live coverage of full proceedings, as well as an important archive. WisconsinEye’s coverage allowed WJI staff and citizens across the state and nationwide to analyze arguments and identify the positions of Wisconsin’s legislators, justices, and executive branch officials without filter. Its closure highlights a dangerous trend: the decline of civic infrastructure. With the coverage and archive gone, tracking what happens at the Capitol becomes exponentially harder. Fish big and small—from formal media to nonprofits to active Wisconsinites of all parties and interests—will shoulder the weight of WisconsinEye’s demise. Wisconsin Justice Initiative's small staff is located in Milwaukee. WisconsinEye’s coverage of legislative hearings allowed staff to watch them without taking an entire day to travel to Madison. WJI has already missed a public hearing on proposed legislation to increase the maximum penalty for certain controlled substance offenses occurring near a homeless shelter. Kate Duffy, the woman behind Wisconsin’s @motherhoodforgood, spoke to WJI about the importance of WisconsinEye to what she does on that social media platform. Duffy's platform, with more than 100,000 followers, aims to make individual advocacy and civic engagement accessible to its followers. “As an independent content creator and civic educator, access to WisEye is essential to my work,” said Duffy. “More people are getting their news from social media, and many of us who aim to reach these audiences don’t have access to a traditional newsroom or the ability to be at the Capitol every day,” she said. Duffy said WisconsinEye allows her "to see for myself what’s actually happening in legislative hearings and floor sessions, without filters or spin.” “At a time when trust in information is fragile, WisEye remains one of the few truly objective, public-facing sources available,” she said. “Keeping it funded is critical to transparency and public understanding.” Amanda Merkwae, advocacy director at the ACLU of Wisconsin, confirmed that importance, telling WJI, “WisconsinEye plays a vital role in keeping the public informed and holding those in power accountable through transparency.” “Watching legislative floor sessions and committee hearings, Wisconsin Supreme Court oral arguments, and other programming on WIsconsinEye is part of my near-daily routine," she said. It’s unclear whether or how WisconsinEye could continue. Earlier this week a message replacing the decades-long archive of hearings and live coverage said in part: “Without consistent annual funding . . . citizens, legislators, legislative staff, the governor’s administration, agency leadership and staff, trade associations, attorneys and the courts, local government officials, journalists and all print, cable, television and radio news outlets, businesses, nonprofit organizations — all lose the only reliable and proven source of unfiltered State Capitol news and state government proceedings.” It attributed the shuttering to “extreme competition and a complete collapse in private funding.” That message has since been replaced by one highlighting the station’s award-winning coverage and years of service:  Legislation circulated for co-sponsorship by Sens. Mark Spreitzer, Kelda Roys, and Chris Larson and Rep. Brienne Brown earlier this week may provide an answer.
A new bill proposes the establishment of an Office of the Public Affairs Network to replace WisconsinEye. According a memo regarding co-sponsorship, the proposal “creates a permanent office to operate a public affairs network that will provide full coverage of state government proceedings in Wisconsin.” The memo says the Office of the Public Affairs Network would administer a network to:
The network would be governed by a board of seven, including the governor or their designee, two additional public appointees of the governor, and four legislators—one from the majority and one from the minority caucuses in both chambers. The Legislature would appropriate $2 million annually to support eight staff positions, which, according to the memo is equivalent to WisconsinEye’s “current coverage while supporting increased access.” The bill also directs the Department of Administration to “attempt” to obtain WisconsinEye’s digital archive to be incorporated into the new network’s archive. “While WisconsinEye's current contract requires them to hand over digital archives to the Wisconsin Historical Society for ongoing public access if WisconsinEye is ever dissolved or liquidated, WisconsinEye’s current funding issues have resulted in WisconsinEye taking the archives offline without a replacement becoming available,” wrote the senators. In the memo, the senators say the bill will transform “the recording, broadcasting, and archiving of Wisconsin’s state government proceedings from a failed private venture into a reliable, nonpartisan public service.” No matter the form, WisconsinEye’s coverage is critical to effective advocacy and public access to the actions of elected officials. “WisconsinEye’s live webcasts and recordings of state legislative proceedings in Wisconsin provide transparency and critical access to democracy for residents all over the state,” Merkwae told WJI. “We hope the Legislature can come to an agreement to continue this essential service, not only for individuals and organizations engaging in legislative advocacy, local government officials impacted profoundly by state government decisions, and journalists, but for everyday Wisconsinites who have a right to an accessible way to access what is happening in state government,” she said.  WJI policy analyst Alexandria Staubach speaks at a rally outside the Historic Federal Courthouse in Milwaukee on Dec. 15, 2025. Photograph by Jessica Schmidt. Wisconsin Justice Initiative policy analyst Alexandria Staubach spoke about the importance of protecting court proceedings at a Monday rally addressing the multiple consequences of Immigration and Customs Enforcement presence in Wisconsin courthouses. “When a place that is designed to protect you, protect your right to a fair and impartial trial, your right to protection, your right to dignity and equal treatment before the law, becomes a trap to ensnare people seeking justice, we are all less safe,” Staubach said. She added that victims, witnesses, and the accused don’t disappear but “just stay home.” The rally took place just prior to opening statements in Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan’s federal trial on charges of obstructing a federal agency and concealing an individual to prevent arrest. Dugan is accused of assisting an immigrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, evade ICE arrest by providing him access to a restricted hallway and directing federal agents away from her courtroom. Dozens of organizers and community members gathered outside the federal courthouse in Milwaukee, braving low digit temperatures to register their discontent with Dugan’s prosecution. Staubach noted in her comments the power of federal prosecutors, including recently appointed Interim U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel. “We’re going to say the quiet part out loud for Brad Schimel,” said Staubach, a former assistant district attorney in Colorado. “Prosecutions are discretionary.” Maxwell Love, the state political and campaign director for the Working Families Party, told WJI the coalition holding the rally was built “so that we could bring the case into the ‘court of public opinion.’” The group seeks “to make sure that the Milwaukee community could engage in a conversation about our values of fairness, due process, and democracy since we couldn’t be present in the courtroom,” Love said. The group highlighted the detrimental impact ICE presence has in the courthouse and its chilling effect on access to justice. “If due process can be violated for one group, it can and will be violated for all,” Wisconsin Working Families Party director Corinne Rosen said. “Today we stand together in this freezing cold to reject fear.” Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera, discussed the human impact and feelings of insecurity and intimidation created in immigrant community when ICE stands between them and access to justice. Louis Davis, executive director of SEIU Wisconsin led the crowd in chanting, “Your struggle is my struggle.” Nick Ramos, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign got the crowd going in yelling, “This is what democracy looks like.” The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that the chants and supportive honking could be heard inside the courthouse. Opening statements for Dugan’s trial began immediately after the rally. Prosecutors leaned heavily on the idea that courthouse arrests are “safe” and “routine,” and that Dugan’s “judicial robe didn’t put her above the law.” Dugan defense attorney Steven Biskupic said that conjecture about a chaotic morning was leading the federal prosecution and that Dugan did not obstruct law enforcement pursuit of Flores-Ruiz. Biskupic said Dugan directed federal law enforcement away from her courtroom in accord with a draft policy previously circulated by Chief Judge Carl Ashley to the Milwaukee County judges, telling them to direct federal agents to their supervisor. Biskupic said Dugan had not yet heard whether or for whom the federal agents had a warrant and so she did not intend to obstruct any action on their warrant. Biskupic also showed a screenshot of a group chat between federal agents, which suggested they had decided, on their own, not to arrest Flores-Ruiz in the courtroom hallway. A video shown during Biskupic’s opening remarks showed federal agents walking behind Flores-Ruiz at a leisurely pace as he exited the sixth floor of the courthouse where Dugan’s courtroom is located. The federal government plans to call up to 28 witnesses in the case and the trial is expected to last around five days.  WJI's Alexandria Staubach speaks at a rally outside the Historic Federal Courthouse in Milwaukee on Dec. 15, 2025. Photograph by Jessica Schmidt.  Lovern. Photograph from the Milwaukee County website. By Alexandria Staubach Milwaukee County District Attorney Kent Lovern has responded to the State Public Defenders office accusation that his office is too close to community advocacy group Enough is Enough. Lovern defended his office’s interactions with the advocacy group in a letter sent last week to Chief Judge Carl Ashley. Lovern’s letter addressed the claim by attorneys in the SPD’s office that Enough is Enough’s “activities and formation have been closely coordinated with the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s office since its inception,” and that the group “should not be regarded as an independent grass roots organization.” Lovern told Ashley that “the District Attorney’s Office has provided an appropriate level of assistance to allow a community group to better understand and access the Milwaukee County criminal justice system.” He said his office provided support “with the spirit of facilitating greater access of community members to the important workings of its local government institutions, while maintaining the ethical tenets that govern our advocacy.” Enough is Enough initially reached out to Lovern in early 2024, after he announced he was running for district attorney, he said. The group shared their plans to serve as “a court watch entity to gather information about prosecution and sentencing practices.” After Lovern met with the nascent nonprofit group, he “indicated (his) general belief that more public engagement with our criminal justice system is always welcome.” He told Ashley it is important for the public to see “the difficulty of the work done on a daily basis” by government accountable to the community. Lovern told Ashley that after meeting with Enough is Enough, he asked Assistant District Attorney Joy Hammond to aid the group in its early efforts to understand the criminal justice system. Hammond then asked retired Assistant District Attorney Tom Potter to help. The SPD attorneys claimed that Hammond and Potter were particularly involved in the group’s initial formation. Lovern described Hammond as one of eight community prosecutors whose primary function is connecting community members with other institutions in Milwaukee County. Lovern said Hammond attended a few meetings with Enough is Enough over the course of a year. She also provided a courthouse tour for the group, met with a sitting judge and Enough is Enough in the courthouse cafeteria, and attended an off-site community event held by the group. Potter helped the group learn the Wisconsin Circuit Court Access Program (CCAP). Lovern found the most concerning assertion in the SPD letter to be the alleged editing by individuals related to the DA’s office of Enough is Enough communications to the judiciary. Lovern conceded that Potter helped edit a letter of introduction from the group to Ashley, but noted that Potter’s edits included a suggestion to “clearly establish the independence of (Enough is Enough) from the District Attorney’s Office.” Hammond contributed to a letter Enough is Enough intended to distribute to the community. “Hammond wrote four suggested paragraphs,” said Lovern. While he had not seen everything produced by the group, “I have not seen . . . writing that substantially contains the paragraphs written by Hammond,” he said. “There is no evidence that any member of the District Attorney’s Office has edited other (Enough is Enough) submissions to the Judiciary at large,” Lovern told Ashley. He said his office had not participated in “any community impact statements submitted to the courts” by Enough is Enough. Lovern listed two dozen other organizations with which his office has regular contact and said that Enough is Enough “is now one of those groups.” Lovern wrote that his office did provide Enough is Enough with copies of criminal complaints as the group got on its feet and learned how to navigate CCAP. Those “are obviously public documents,” he said, adding that his office’s assistance was “consistent with every other member of the public, including the media, who requests a copy.” A shared Dropbox folder in which fewer than 20 complaints were placed was used for several days. “There is no attempt to obfuscate the engagement (Enough is Enough) has with this office,” Lovern said. He highlighted that “SPD made special mention” that Enough is Enough intended to share its findings with the press, local leaders, and legislators. “This is precisely the function of court watch groups,” Lovern wrote.  Attorney Calvin Duncan (right) talks at Marquette University Law School on Nov. 5, 2025, with the Lubar Center's Derek Mosley. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Margo Kirchner Calvin Duncan, author of The Jailhouse Lawyer, told law students and community members about inequalities in Louisiana’s criminal legal system and the numerous barriers faced by those in prison to establish innocence or prove constitutional violations. Legal roadblocks for those incarcerated include the lack of appointed counsel after completion of an appeal and great difficulty in obtaining court and other records. Now out of custody and an attorney, Duncan helps those incarcerated research and litigate their cases, and he is running for election as a court clerk with the intent to make records more easily obtainable. Duncan recounted his story as jailhouse lawyer to licensed attorney in a discussion at Marquette University Law School with Derek Mosley, director of the Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education. Along the way in his career, Duncan helped change laws in Louisiana and Oregon that allowed nonunanimous juries to convict a defendant. At the time of Duncan's conviction, agreement by 10 of 12 jurors was sufficient for conviction. Duncan told the crowd that documentation showed the Louisiana rule was created to preserve white supremacy by making the votes of one or two Black jurors irrelevant. In Ramos v. Louisiana (2020), the U.S. Supreme Court found that the right to a jury trial in the Sixth Amendment requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious crime. Duncan, not then a lawyer himself, worked with attorneys on the case. Duncan stressed for Marquette’s law students that law schools provide “knowledge of the law and how to wield it.” He emphasized that half of the Bill of Rights protects people accused of crime, and that more people need to defend the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth amendments and protect those who cannot protect themselves. Duncan spent more than two decades in prison for a murder he says he did not commit. He told the crowd that from the start of his time in custody, he focused on learning the law and helping his fellow residents with their legal matters. Immediately after his release in 2011, based on a new plea agreement, Duncan set his sights on becoming an attorney. Duncan was just a teen and had moved from Louisiana to Oregon to work when he heard from a relative that police wanted to arrest him for murder. Duncan said he did not know what the matter was about. Although he had committed some shoplifting as a troubled younger teen in New Orleans following years of abuse as a child, he had not been involved in any homicide. Two detectives found him in Oregon and arrested him. Duncan told the audience that he did not meet his attorneys until the day before trial. The prosecutor wanted the death penalty, but the jury disagreed and gave him life instead. He was sent to the Louisiana State Penitentiary, known as Angola. Incarcerated with men on death row, Duncan decided to learn the law, he said. Angola had a program to train “inmate counsel substitutes,” who could do most everything that lawyers could do except go outside the prison to conduct investigations. His girlfriend sent him copies of cases, while he created his own law book comprising newspaper articles that discussed the law. He joked that he “always enjoyed when wealthy people got arrested,” because the newspaper stories about them would include discussion of the law. As an inmate counsel substitute, Duncan wrote letters to obtain court and law enforcement records. He often was unsuccessful until Louisiana law changed in the 1980s to allow access to police reports and district attorney files. However, the requestor had to pay for the records. Duncan said he donated plasma about twice per week to raise money to pay for records. The Orleans Parish court clerk in particular was difficult to get records from. Other parishes were more cooperative. Duncan maintained his innocence for more than 20 years. He obtained his release after the prosecutor in 2011 allowed him to plead guilty to the lesser crime of manslaughter. Duncan said he lied to the court and admitted the killing just to get out. Duncan said that within a week of release, he was at Tulane Law School asking how to attend. It was news to him that he needed to get an undergraduate degree first. He then attended Tulane and received his paralegal certificate and bachelor’s degree. He made it into his first choice of law school: Lewis & Clark, in Oregon. He said the first line of his application read, “I am so tired of illegally practicing law.” Duncan was exonerated during his second year of law school. He said the officers who interrogated him had been investigated for corruption and altering evidence, and notes in the prosecutor’s file showed that a photo array shown to a witness included two white men (Duncan is Black). Meanwhile, Louisiana passed a law allowing evidence of innocence to be presented to a judge, even in old cases. Duncan’s attorney from years before helped present Duncan’s case to a judge in 2021, and the judge and prosecutor reopened his case and dismissed it. Duncan said that when he applied for compensation for wrongful conviction, the Louisiana attorney general said she would prosecute him for perjury for lying to the judge at his 2011 plea hearing if he pursued it. He dropped the request. After graduating from law school in 2023, Duncan founded The Light of Justice, a program helping people in prison with their cases. He also decided to run to replace that New Orleans clerk of criminal court. Duncan said his opponent, backed by the attorney general, argues that he is a convicted murderer. But a prosecutor has “stepped up” and said he was exonerated. Debates have been heated. Duncan’s talk was sponsored by the Lubar Center as well as Marquette Law School’s Andrew Center for Restorative Justice and Public Interest Law Society. The Jailhouse Lawyer, co-authored by Duncan and criminal justice reform advocate Sophie Cull, was published in July 2025.  At Wisconsin Justice Initiative's June 25 Salon, Fernanda Jimenez-Hauch and Mario Rubio presented information on the work of Voces de la Frontera's Comité Sin Fronteras. Comité Sin Fronteras advocates for DACA recipients and helps them with renewals. In addition, through its Community Defense Network, members protect immigrants in our community from Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention and train interested individuals in how to verify ICE presence and activity. Comité Sin Fronteras members Mario Rubio (left) and Fernanda Jimenez-Hauch (right) speak at WJI's Salon on June 25, 2025, at Turner Hall in Milwaukee. Slides from the presentation are available here. To sign up for Comité's verifier program, click here. Handouts at the Salon:
 Inside the Milwaukee County Courthouse. Photograph by Gretchen Schuldt. By Heidi von Helms* and Margo Kirchner
Due to AmeriCorps funding cuts made by the Department of Government Efficiency, the Milwaukee County Courthouse navigator program is gone, and its absence is already affecting courthouse staff and visitors. A recent court victory by Wisconsin and other states challenging the cuts to AmeriCorps funding may not be enough to bring it back. For the past two years, courthouse navigators walked individuals to the department or courtroom they were looking for. The courthouse complex consists of three buildings, each with at least two entrances, and it is easy for members of the public to get lost and confused. With the navigators’ help, fewer people were wandering the halls and trying to figure out on their own what they needed to do and where to go, which made the lives of visitors and courthouse staff easier. When the program’s funding through AmeriCorps grants and volunteers terminated suddenly on April 25, the program was shut down. Now, the courthouse remains as convoluted as ever. A single staff member remains at the information desk on the ground floor, but that person cannot leave to escort people to offices or courtrooms and cannot guarantee that a visitor makes it to the right place. The AmeriCorps information desk and navigator program began in 2023 through the Milwaukee Justice Center (MJC) at the courthouse. MJC staff, who provide legal assistance at the courthouse, noticed they were answering many questions unrelated to the law or courtroom procedure—like where to find parking or which floor has the paternity testing center. MJC staff also found that after they helped people understand and complete legal forms, many of those helped never went through with filing the forms, possibly due to fatigue, confusion or frustration regarding different offices in the courthouse. Someone needed to answer the public’s questions, but the MJC’s desk was intended for legal help, so the MJC launched the navigator program with AmeriCorps grant funding and personnel. The program was a vital resource for the community. Mark Guzman, the former director of the AmeriCorps program at the courthouse, spoke with Wisconsin Justice Initiative before his position terminated at the end of May. He said his AmeriCorps staff members unexpectedly lost their jobs and volunteer stipends after the DOGE cuts. Many of the navigator program’s AmeriCorps volunteers were from out of state and had moved to Milwaukee to work at the courthouse. Wisconsin recently won a preliminary injunction in a multi-state case challenging the federal government’s AmeriCorps cuts. A federal judge on June 5 found that the government violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not providing notice and opportunity for comment before making the changes. The judge ordered the administration to immediately reinstate grant funding and AmeriCorps personnel, if they are able and willing to return. The injunction was "to restore the AmeriCorps-funded programs in the plaintiff states to the status quo before the grants were terminated and programs closed on April 25, 2025," she wrote. Federal government attorneys told the court in a June 10 status report that they had notified grant and project sponsors in the plaintiff states "to stop any closeout activities that may have been initiated (and) resume incurring costs on applicable grants." The injunction is a preliminary one; the case continues and an appeal may be filed. But even if the trial court's injunction stands and becomes permanent, lack of time and clarity on reversing course currently weigh against the navigator program’s reinstatement. Mary Ferwerda, chief deputy clerk for Milwaukee County Circuit Court, told WJI this week that “returning back to where we were is a practical issue with lots of questions, not the least of which is future funding and the risks inherent in moving forward without a legal process entirely complete.” Because AmeriCorps volunteers were “exited from service,” they may not be allowed to return to that same term of service, Ferwerda said. Right now it is unknown what the national AmeriCorps office may allow, she said. Further, the grant year was set to end Aug. 31, with the volunteers’ last day on Aug. 15. “This is not a lot of time for people to try to make up the currently seven weeks of hours they missed in order to qualify for their education award and does not consider the work required to bring back exited members, if allowed to do so.” Guzman’s layoff as of May 30 makes the prospect or reinstating the program even more difficult. Because the AmeriCorps participants were volunteers, not employees, former navigator staff members could not receive unemployment. AmeriCorps received $400 million of funding each year and had one of the best returns-on-investment for a government agency. It provided millions of Americans with disaster relief, economic opportunities, environmental services, and education. It helped hundreds of thousands of young people begin their careers in public service. Following the budget cuts, important programs all over the country were pared back or dissolved, including Milwaukee’s own courthouse navigators and help desk program. It is unclear whether the recent court win will bring them back to life. *Heidi von Helms in a summer intern at Wisconsin Justice Initiative. By Alexandria Staubach The Wisconsin Policy Forum last week released the findings of a comprehensive look at Milwaukee’s Criminal Justice Council, a relatively unknown collaborative group of city and county officials who wield power in the Milwaukee County criminal justice system and strive to improve intergovernmental cooperation. The Criminal Justice Council is nearing its 20th anniversary, yet many in the Milwaukee area are unfamiliar with its existence or work. The forum's "In the Interest of Justice" report said that the council's long-term impact is threatened by a lack of public awareness about the council, unstable funding streams, and the council’s lofty goals when weighed against its capacity. “Many of the idea and action items that emanate from subcommittees fail to materialize because of a lack of CJC staff capacity and limited help from partner organizations,” the report said. A rash of retirements, including those of former Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm and Wisconsin State Public Defender Regional Attorney Manager Tom Reed, resulted in loss of “’key longstanding CJC leaders,’” according to unnamed sources quoted by the forum. The forum wrote that “(o)ne individual we spoke with noted that the ‘key drivers of action’ in regard to the Milwaukee CJC are the Chief Judge, the District Attorney, the Public Defender’s Office, and the Department of Corrections.” Participation by other justice system leaders, in particular the Milwaukee mayor, Milwaukee County executive, Milwaukee police chief, and Milwaukee County sheriff, “has ebbed and flowed over the years,” said the report. “(E)nsuring more consistent and active participation from these stakeholders may be a worthwhile goal for the CJC in the months ahead,” the report said. The forum recommends opening the council to business leaders and interests, developing a separate and independent nonprofit organization to continue on as the CJC, developing funding for staff from the city and county, and enhancing public communications about the council’s activities and initiatives. The CJC relies primarily on funding from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, or “JAG.” As is the case for all federal funding now, “changes in JAG funding levels or policies might eventually preclude (CJC) from accessing these funds,” the report said. Further, “that concern has served as a deterrent to further investment in staff and other resources.” The CJC currently has three staff members, including an executive director. All work out of and are employed by the Wisconsin Policy Forum through grants made to the CJC. According to the forum, “the decision to house the positions in an independent nonprofit organization and have them be employees of WPF—as opposed to one of the justice system agencies that participate in the CJC—stemmed from the Executive Committee’s sentiment that placing the positions in a department of either county or city government would convey that one of those governments had greater control over the council.” The report indicates that one of the council’s key early initiatives was to investigate how the criminal justice system could better use work-release programs. The council also oversaw the creation and implementation of risk-assessment tools used to set bail at the initial appearance in every criminal case in the county. While the CJC’s early days focused on data collection, community engagement, external communications, and jail population, its 2024 strategic plan added “new priority areas that include violence prevention, housing, mental health and trauma, and youth justice,” according to the report. The report indicates that the CJC may have grown out of a 2007 resolution of the Board of County Supervisors at the request of then-Sheriff David Clarke, to deal with a consent decree that mandated a population reduction in the county jail system. Some individuals who were around at the council’s inception, however, credit “an outgrowth of efforts already underway among justice system leaders to better understand the work of their peers and encourage greater collaboration,” the report said. The first meeting was attended by Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Chief Judge Kitty Brennan, Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn, Milwaukee County House of Correction Superintendent Ron Malone, Clarke, and Chisholm. The report cited an unnamed senior county staff member as saying “it was remarkable to have leaders of such distinct political and ideological backgrounds meet on such a frequent and productive basis.” Later additions to the council included the presiding judge of Milwaukee Municipal Court, representatives from the State Public Defender’s Office and Wisconsin Department of Corrections, the chair of the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors’ Judiciary Committee, the director of the Milwaukee County Department of Health and Human Services, Milwaukee County Corporation Counsel, a representative from the Eastern District of Wisconsin’s U.S. Attorney’s Office, the leader of the Milwaukee Homicide Review Committee, and a citizen representative. Current CJC executive committee members: Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson Milwaukee Police Chief Jeffrey Norman Milwaukee Municipal Court Presiding Judge Phillip Chavez Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley Milwaukee County Sheriff Denita Ball Milwaukee County District Attorney Kent Lovern (Council Vice Chair) First Judicial District (Milwaukee County Circuit Court) Chief Judge Carl Ashley (Council Chair) Milwaukee County Supervisor Willie Johnson, Jr. Milwaukee County Community Reintegration Center Superintendent Chantell Jewell Milwaukee County Department of Health and Human Services Director Shakita LaGrant-McClain Milwaukee County Corporation Counsel Scott Brown Milwaukee County Circuit Court Clerk Anna Hodges Wisconsin State Public Defender Regional Attorney Manager Angel Johnson Wisconsin Department of Corrections Community Corrections Regional Chief Niel Thoreson U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Wisconsin representative (Richard Frohling currently Acting U.S. Attorney) Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission and DataShare Director Constance Kostelac Community Representative Walter Lanier Nicole D. Porter, senior director of advocacy with The Sentencing Project in Washington, D.C., presented "Decarceration 2.0: Charting New Strategies on Prison Population Reductions and Closures" to close to 100 attendees at Wisconsin Justice Initiative's fundraiser event on May 14. Porter discussed other states' recent efforts to reduce their prison populations, the current political climate impacting incarceration rates, and what can be done here in Wisconsin to return incarcerated people to their communities and reverse the past five decades of mass incarceration. Attendees enjoyed a cocktail hour with appetizers and engaging conversation, followed by Nicole's thought-provoking presentation and an informative question-and-answer session. The event was held in the Palm Garden at historic Turner Hall in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. If you missed the event or want to watch Nicole's presentation again, click on the YouTube video link below. We admit we're not professional videographers, but the content is excellent! To better see the PowerPoint slides from the event, click here. Please share the video with those in the justice system, carceral system, and Legislature whose actions impact the rates of incarceration in Wisconsin and with concerned citizens who can use their voices to call for change. Many thanks to the following sponsors of the event: Diamond Level  Platinum Level
Gold Level
Silver Level
Bronze Level
Margo Kirchner Edgar Lin |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed