 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. 
0 Comments
By Margo Kirchner
Gov. Tony Evers just vetoed a bill that would have required the Department of Corrections to recommend revocation if a person on extended supervision, parole, or probation is charged with a new crime. In his veto message, Evers wrote that he objected "to the unfunded mandate that such revocation would impose on the Department of Corrections, which would move Wisconsin in the wrong direction on criminal justice reform without improving public safety. This bill is estimated to have a fiscal impact of more than $330 million in just the first two years and hundreds of millions of dollars in unknown, ongoing costs to state taxpayers in the years to follow. This significant price tag does not include construction costs to build additional state correctional facilities, which would likely be needed, or take into account the fiscal impact on local governments. This fiscal impact is particularly untenable on the heels of the legislature significantly underfunding existing operations at the Department of Corrections in the most recent state budget." Evers wrote that "Wisconsin should be investing in data-driven, evidence-based programming that addresses barriers to reentry, enhances educational and vocational opportunities for individuals who will be released after completing their sentence, and provides treatment for mental health and substance use issues, which will help to reduce recidivism and save taxpayer money while improving public safety." Wisconsin Justice Initiative and Wisconsin Justice Initiative Action wrote to Evers on Wednesday, urging him to veto the bill, AB 85. Currently, the DOC has discretion to pursue revocation when a person on release is charged with a new crime. Revocations are then decided by administrative law judges, rather than sentencing judges. AB 85 would have taken away the DOC’s discretion and required that the department recommend revocation, even though new charges are based only on probable cause and could later be dropped or defeated at trial. The Assembly passed AB 85 in March along party lines with the exception of cross-over votes by one representative from each side. The Senate passed the bill in June along party lines. The bill was sent to Evers yesterday. As of today, Wisconsin holds 23,346 people in prison. The most recent available number of people on probation or parole, from May 31, is 63,420. Estimates indicated that if the bill became law, more than 4,600 additional people would end up in Wisconsin prisons each year, with a price tag of $250 million annually once the additional population was in place. In written testimony in the Legislature, even the Badger State Sheriffs’ Association and Wisconsin Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs Association questioned the bill, expressing concern about its cost and impact on jails and prisons. WJI and WJI Action's letter to the governor said that “the bill turns the long-standing American concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ on its head. The bill would require that a person on supervision is presumed guilty of a violation of the terms of release merely upon accusations of other, as yet unproved, conduct, which are made on only probable cause.” Further, WJI and WJI Action wrote, “individuals on supervision or parole already face overwhelming odds against making it to the finish line. . . . People on release face a long list of behavior controlled by the DOC, and for more than a decade, the Department of Corrections has failed to develop rules and guidance implementing 2013 Wisconsin Act 196 to provide those on release with guidance.” As WJI reported recently, Act 196 calls for DOC to develop a list of sanctions that may be imposed for the most common violations, offering “clear and immediate consequences for violations.” The law also mandates that any rule developed by DOC take into account the impact of revocation on an offender’s employment and family. WJI and WJI Action pointed out that Wisconsin’s prisons are already at capacity and that this bill sends that number higher, at great fiscal and societal cost. The organizations also questioned the removal of discretion from the DOC. Minister Roy Rogers, executive director of The Onesimus Group Milwaukee and a WJI board member with personal experience in the justice system, had this to say about the bill: "Assembly Bill 85—though cloaked in the language of accountability—is, in truth, a reactionary measure. It weakens due process, disrespects the discretion of our criminal justice professionals, and burdens our communities with costly, ineffective incarceration." "Out of the 6,280 individuals charged with new crimes while under supervision in 2019, we must ask: how many of those charges ended in actual convictions? According to the Department of Corrections and the Badger Institute, more than half did not. Yet this bill would treat every charge as though it were already a conviction—punishing men and women based solely on an accusation." "That’s not justice," he told WJI. "That’s preemptive punishment—a direct threat to the constitutional principle of 'innocent until proven guilty.' . . . Charges can stem from false accusations, mistaken identity, or insufficient evidence. And in historically over-policed, marginalized communities, we know all too well that it doesn't take much to find yourself charged." Rogers, too, noted that the bill stripped discretion from DOC agents and administrative law judges, who "weigh the severity of the violation, the individual's risk level, and history. That’s what smart justice looks like. AB 85 would remove all that wisdom and replace it with a blunt, one-size-fits-all mandate—rooted in fear, not facts." "Public safety is essential," Rogers told WJI. "But AB 85 did not offer real safety—it offered mass disruption under the guise of accountability. We cannot incarcerate our way into healthy neighborhoods. We need wiser strategies that reduce harm, restore people, and invest in transformation." By Alexandria Staubach
More than 60 people appeared at a virtual Department of Corrections hearing Tuesday morning to comment on the Department of Corrections’ failure to implement a decade-old law that could change revocations statewide. Attendees raised personal, ethical, and legal arguments about the DOC’s proposed new administrative rule to implement 2013 Wisconsin Act 196. DOC proposed the new rule two weeks ago. As WJI reported last week, Act 196 requires the DOC to develop a list of sanctions that may be imposed for the most common violations, offering “clear and immediate consequences for violations.” The law also mandates that any rule developed by DOC take into account the impact of revocation on an offender’s employment and family. Advocates say that the DOC until now has largely ignored Act 196, which passed with bipartisan support. Participants at today’s hearing said the proposed rule remains insufficient to bring DOC into compliance with the law. The Wisconsin Legislative Council has said that the current rule “does not set forth a list of sanctions for the most common violations, nor does it explain what specific evidenced-based responses may be applied to a violation (e.g., when revocation is the required response). Instead, it implies that the list of sanctions and responses will be contained in a document somewhere outside the administrative rules.” Many at today’s hearing shared personal stories about how lengthy and unpredictable terms of supervision have impacted them. “It feels arbitrary and excessive,” said JenAnn Bauer, who has served eight years of supervision, which she said was more than 75% of any possible prison sentence. She said that despite making significant payments toward restitution, fees for extended supervision and her financial obligations to the court system keep growing. “I feel trapped in a cage made of numbers, not bars,” she said. Sean Wilson, Senior Director of Organizing and Partnerships at Dream.org, also expressed concerned about the impact of fees accrued during supervision. He said the proposed rule would actually codify profits into supervision, giving private vendors control over fees. A section of the proposed rule says “a vendor is authorized to charge a fee to probationers, parolees, and persons on extended supervision to cover the cost of supervision and administration of the contract.” Wilson called the DOC’s proposed rule a “missed opportunity” because the rule continues to be “focused on managing people rather than their success.” He said he recognized that DOC faces significant issues in staffing, but elsewhere in the nation departments use technology like kiosks to reduce the burden of check-ins on supervisees who are least likely to reoffend. Marianne Olson, an advocate with Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing who has been on supervision for eight years and has another 18 to go, said “people are being sent back (to prison) not to protect public safety but to punish past behavior,” in violation of federal law. Supervision “should be an opportunity for restoration, not retaliation” she said, calling extended supervision “retaliation disguised as support.” Shannon Ross of The Community expressed concern that the DOC seemingly did not engage any formerly incarcerated people in developing the rule. “A lot of us would be great in those rooms at the end of these things,” he said. WISDOM's Tom Gilbert, who has met with DOC about this issue since 2019, said the decisions that the DOC and its “agents make every day regarding people under your supervision, widely affect families, employers, health care providers, social services providers, schools—in other words, whole communities and this whole state.” The public comment period on the proposed rule will remain open through August 8. Instructions for submitting comments can be found here. By Alexandria Staubach
The Wisconsin Department of Corrections will hold a virtual hearing on July 8 for public comments on proposed new rules that could improve supervision and avoid revocations, though an advocate says the rules could be even better. More than a decade ago, the Legislature passed 2013 Wisconsin Act 196, which says the DOC “shall” create rules for a system of short-term sanctions for violations of supervision conditions, with “a list of sanctions to be imposed for the most common violations.” The rules were to give flexibility in imposing sanctions while providing “offenders with clear and immediate consequences for violations.” Implementation of the law had the potential to eliminate harsh revocation prison sentences and dramatically reduce the prison population. Instead, in 2019, the DOC created an administrative rule that an advocate says gives lip service to the law and continues opaque standards that prop up incarceration as the primary vehicle for revocation sanctions. “The rule was one sentence,” WISDOM’s Tom Gilbert recently told WJI. “It said they will adopt an evidence-based response to violations, which is what they had before the law was passed.” Gilbert calls the current administrative rule “wasted words and paper.” He strongly believes that the current rule does little to address the requirements imposed by the law. “I understand the difference between the word ‘shall’ and the word ‘may,'" Gilbert said. “When I learned about Act 196 and its potential for changing the way things are done and the consequences, I thought this could be a game changer,” said Gilbert. On behalf of WISDOM, Gilbert has been meeting with DOC about the law and rule since 2019. WISDOM is a statewide network of faith-based organizations and others advocating for racial, social and economic justice. In 2024, more than 8,000 people were admitted to Wisconsin’s prisons, and roughly 60% of those admissions were based on revocations, per DOC data. Act 196 was designed to ensure that short-term sanctions for individuals who violate the rules of their probation, parole, deferred sentence, or community supervision are tailored and take several individual factors into account. While correcting the offender’s behavior, providing proportionate consequences, and protecting the public are all objectives, the law requires DOC also to ensure “that efforts to minimize the impact on an offender’s employment” and “efforts to minimize the impact on an offender’s family” are made when imposing sanctions. Gilbert said that if DOC followed the law and considered the impacts on a person’s employment and family, it would be a radical departure from its current Electronic Case Reference Manual, which “says very little about these things.” The statute also requires DOC to be transparent about specific sanctions for the common types of rule violations. Before Act 196 passed, and continuing today, DOC has determined revocation sanctions using an evidenced-based, but proprietary, tool called “the Compass,” Gilbert said. “Because it’s a proprietary tool, no one can see how (DOC) arrives at their decisions." Defendants and defense attorneys have no way of knowing what sanctions will be imposed for what violations or how decisions to revoke are made, he said. Proper implementation of Act 196 through an improved rule could require DOC to set forth a clear list of sanctions for the most common offenses. “People would know in advance,” and “that kind of transparency is sadly lacking in supervision today,” said Gilbert. This year, DOC proposed new rules, which are the subject of the July 8 public hearing. After the hearing, interested individuals will have 30 days to submit written comments. Gilbert said the proposed rules “still will not implement the law” because they merely quote the eight requirements of Act 196 and fail to develop the mandated system of short-term sanctions. He called this a “conscious omission, not an oversight.” However, “the release of the proposed Act 196 rules for public comment provides a real opportunity to communicate our vision of a community corrections system that focuses on restoration, both of affected individuals and the communities in which they and we live,” Gilbert told WJI. More information about the hearing and how to make public comments can be found here. By Alexandria Staubach
Gov. Tony Evers has pardoned more individuals than any other governor in recent history. He has granted a total of 1,436 pardons, which exceeds the total of the next closest official, Gov. Julis P. Heil (1939-1943), by nearly 500. Evers issued 300 pardons in 2024 alone. Evers’ predecessor, former Gov. Scott Walker, granted zero pardons in his eight-year term and even disbanded the pardon board. Although Evers revived the pardon advisory board, the board is not exactly giving clemency away. For some perspective, in 2018 as many as 1.4 million Wisconsinites had criminal records that may hinder gainful employment, according to the Wisconsin Policy Forum. The pardon advisory board conducts hearings quarterly by Zoom. The board currently has eight members, including Evers’ chief legal counsel, Mel Barnes, who serves as board chair; Attorney General Josh Kaul’s appointee, Judge Jeffrey Kremers; and Cindy O’Donnell. Kremers served as a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge for 26 years, with seven years as chief judge. O’Donnell served as deputy secretary of the Department of Corrections under Govs. Tommy Thompson, Scott McCallum, and James Doyle. Other board members include Anthony Cooper, Sr., head of an organization working to address violent crime, who served time in prison and was pardoned by Evers in 2021; Rev. Jerry Hancock, a former public defender who now works in prison ministry; Nadya Pérez-Reyes, a former public defender now serving as deputy secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families; Myrna Warrington, director of vocational rehabilitation on the Menominee reservation; and former City of Madison Police Chief Noble Wray. However, at last week’s board hearing Barnes was joined by only Kremers and O’Donnell. The hearing covered 26 pardon petitions. One individual seeking a pardon, Tommy Kirk, Jr., who was originally fifth in line for his hearing, sat through three hours of proceedings because Kremers recused himself from hearing Kirk’s case. Without Kremers, the board lacked a sufficient number of members to hear Kirk. The board kept Kirk on the line waiting for another member to appear, but no one else showed up. Kirk eventually had to return to work. Before leaving, he made his case without a sufficient number of board members present to vote on his pardon application. For many petitioners this was their first application, but some had applications denied previously. A majority of board members must vote in favor of a petitioner for a recommendation to go the governor. Anyone who committed a felony in Wisconsin more than five years ago, has completed all confinement and supervision, has no pending criminal cases in any jurisdiction, and is not currently required to register as a sex offender is eligible for a pardon. But while the technical requirements to receive a pardon are minimal, the governor also requires those seeking a pardon to fill out an 11-page application, which asks about all law enforcement contact, ever, and requires applicants to rehash their crimes “in detail” and explain why the pardon should be granted. Applicants must also pay to obtain certified copies of all court records and authorize the state to do a background check. Letters of recommendation from people who can attest to an individual’s changed ways are given heavy weight. Comments and questions from board members at last week’s hearing suggest that significantly more than mere eligibility is expected, and that near model behavior is required. “For me, pardon is an extraordinary measure,” said O’Donnell to more than one petitioner. Benjamin Zimmer described in detail at the hearing how he purchased one ounce of marijuana at house party in 2012. Zimmer described having to quit nursing school but completing his probation and 100 hours of community service on time and a lack of further encounters with law enforcement in the 13 years since. He listed a host of subsequent accomplishments, from owning his own contracting business to becoming a leading volunteer in his community. According to a letter described by O’Donnell at the hearing, Zimmer even had the support of the judge who originally sentenced him. Nevertheless, Zimmer has been denied previously. Zimmer wasn’t the only individual seeking a pardon for old marijuana crimes. Christopher Teed also described buying one ounce of marijuana at a house party when he was 17—a crime followed by probation revocation and two years in prison. By Alexandria Staubach An old convent is getting new life as a “House of Studies” for men who were formerly incarcerated and are now working to obtain their college degrees. Thrive for Life has arrived in Milwaukee, hoping to achieve the same success they’ve experienced with two similar homes in New York City. The first of its kind, according to Thrive for Life, Ignacio House opened in New York City in 2019 with a novel concept: a transitional supportive learning community, exclusively for the formerly incarcerated. A dorm, with a mission. Founded by Father Zachariah Presutti, a Jesuit priest and former chaplain at Rikers Island, Ignacio House currently serves 15 formerly incarcerated men who have scholarships to one of eight partnering universities, which include Columbia and NYU. The second house of studies, Abraham House, began in 1993 as an alternative-to-incarceration program under a different provider and since 2023 has been merging into Thrive. As at Ignacio House, residents receive comprehensive continuity of care, including therapeutic and wellness resources, personal and spiritual mentorship, and individualized learning plans, while adhering to stricter house rules. According to Thrive’s website, the two houses have served more than 3,000 formerly or currently incarcerated individuals, and 100% of their resident scholars have avoided recidivism and are on track to complete a trade school program or university degree. WJI recently visited Thrive’s Milwaukee House of Studies and spoke with Christa Pipitone, soon to be the senior regional coordinator for the Milwaukee Thrive for Life program. Located in Halyard Park, the house can accommodate a house manager and up to 11 scholars, whose stays will typically range from six months to two years. To get a room, individuals who were formerly incarcerated will need to apply and be accepted. Once they’re in, Thrive for Life provides a community of people committed to its men’s success, said Pipitone. “We are continuity of care,” said Pipitone.
Like the houses in New York, in addition to providing a roof over residents’ heads, the program will help residents with every aspect of making themselves “whole” and “healed,” Pipitone said. From health services to employment, the team at Thrive is “invested in the whole person, in demonstrating to these men that people care,” Pipitone said. “We’re likely giving many of these of guys a first chance,” she said. “We want to be that for them.” Thrive’s program is faith-based but nondenominational. “It’s important to us that the scholars have some higher power,” said Pipitone, but applicants need not be Catholic or even Christian. She highlighted that the houses in New York have welcomed both Muslin and Jewish scholars and that there are no rules around faith if applicants are grounded in a “higher power.” Community service in the Halyard Park neighborhood will also be part of the experience. Scholars will be expected to engage in service projects that serve the community they’re in. Abraham House in New York, runs a local food pantry, for example. The scholars will also be expected to participate in creating community among themselves. A sit-down Sunday dinner will be expected, a Catholic mass will be held in the house’s chapel (though attendance is not mandatory), and household chores will be allocated. It is communal living with purpose, said Pipitone. Residents will be expected to maintain employment. They will sign a “covenant agreement,” the terms of which include affordable rent, charged on a sliding scale based on take home pay. Like other aspects of the program, rent is not about the money. It’s about “giving the men a track record,” a rental history they can take with them to a new landlord, Pipitone said. Pipitone hopes it won’t feel like “all work and no play.” While alcohol and drugs are off limits, “the scholars will set the tone.” She hopes it will be a place where the men want to be—where they will enjoy Bucks and Packers games and study or play games in the common areas, investing in themselves and their shared experiences as students. Pipitone told WJI that Thrive hopes to strike a balance between structure and independence. The Milwaukee House is nearly complete. Pipitone anticipates it will host its first cohort beginning in October. She is actively searching for a house manager, who will hopefully live on site and help usher in the first class, and a social worker. Thrive has a strong preference for formerly incarcerated individuals to fill these roles. She encourages those interested to reach out to her directly at [email protected].
|
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed