 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
City of Milwaukee commission to study lack of enforcement of housing voucher antidiscrimination laws4/1/2026  By Alexandria Staubach
A Milwaukee County ordinance makes discrimination against housing voucher holders illegal, but enforcement is essentially nonexistent. A City of Milwaukee agency is now looking at the issue. In 2018, then-Milwaukee County Supervisor Marina Dimitrijevic sponsored and helped pass the county ordinance that made discrimination against housing voucher holders illegal. But the county failed to develop a serious enforcement mechanism and has never litigated a complaint, says Stefanie Ebbens, senior administrator of the Inclusive Communities Program at Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council. FHC is a local nonprofit that operates a full-service fair housing program. Private landlords are not required to opt into the subsidized housing voucher (known as section 8) program, but if they do, they cannot then discriminate against those who use them. Discrimination against voucher holders isn’t just illegal at the local level. Wisconsin’s fair housing law also prohibits landlords from discriminating based on a person’s “lawful source of income,” which includes vouchers with monetary value. Nevertheless, in a decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Wisconsin, the judges questioned whether federal rent vouchers fit within the meaning of "lawful source of income." The City of Milwaukee’s Equal Rights Commission is now taking a closer look at the county ordinance and others around the state that are designed to protect individuals who have managed to obtain a subsidized housing (known as section 8) voucher to help cover the cost of rent. At a commission meeting in February, Ebbens told the commission about the frustration she and her clients experience when trying to secure housing. She said Milwaukee landlords have become “more bold because they know no one is coming after them.” FHC’s Megan Wanke presented problematic trends and discrimination in the acceptance of vouchers in Milwaukee. Maps in the presentation showed a disproportionate concentration of households using federally subsidized vouchers in Milwaukee’s highest poverty areas, which remain consistent with historical racial segregation and Milwaukee’s long history of redlining. The problem is a mismatch of available properties and people receiving housing vouchers. FHC shared data from a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities think tank study conducted between 2017 and 2021, which showed that while only 20% of the city’s voucher affordable properties are located high-poverty census tracts, 32% of voucher holders reside in them. Meanwhile 34% of the city’s voucher affordable housing properties are in low-poverty census tracts, and only 17% of the city’s voucher holders live there. FHC recently conducted its own testing investigation, which showed that 45% of major property owners in Milwaukee prohibit or restrict the use of section 8 vouchers, some with policies that are exclusive to Milwaukee. Wanke told the commission that about three-fourths of those property owners refuse to accept vouchers at all, while the others disqualify voucher holders with targeted restrictions that effectively cut them out of the market. One company in fact accepts voucher renters, just not in Milwaukee. Wanke shared that the investigation involved more than 7,000 residential units. Wanke said the difference in where voucher holders are concentrated cannot be explained by housing stock or average cost of rent, and it has “despicable racial discrimination implications.” Section 8 vouchers belong to a rental assistance program managed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. They are supposed to ensure that low-income families, seniors with fixed incomes, and disabled individuals have access to private-market housing. Participants pay roughly 30% of their income toward rent and utilities. A local public housing agency pays the remainder directly to landlords. The public housing agencies act as a conduit for the federal funding and ensure that rent makes it directly into landlords’ hands. The agencies have broad discretion in running their programs, which impose strict income requirements. The waitlist to receive benefits is often years long. In Milwaukee, the program is administered by the Housing Authority. Its waitlist is so long that it is currently closed. Participants are subject to criminal background checks that can be disqualifying. The local program must “accurately distinguish between criminal conduct that indicates a demonstrable risk to resident safety and property and criminal conduct that does not,” according to the Milwaukee Housing Authority’s Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy. Despite these protections, many still have trouble finding landlords willing to take their vouchers. Members of the public who testified at the commission’s meeting shared stories of landlords “ghosting” them at showings or failing to return calls. One woman, Katravia Lee, shared her struggles in attempting to find a landlord willing to accept her voucher in time for her to use it, after she had waited years to receive the voucher at all. Lee also expressed frustration at paying as much as $75 to fill out an application, just to have a landlord decline her without providing a reason. According to Wanke, the pressure to find housing reduces a renter’s desire to file a complaint to enforce the antidiscrimination laws. Complaints would take months to resolve, which they don’t have. Also, many who feel or know they have been wrongfully discriminated against also do not want to risk being seen as problematic. And despite the 2018 enactment of the county ordinance, there is no clear path to file a complaint with the county, Ebbens told the city commission. Milwaukee County's corporation counsel could not be reached for comment on this issue. The issue is not as pronounced in Madison. Wanke and Ebbens said that Madison has a more comprehensive and structured administrative process under a city antidiscrimination ordinance. Commission Chair Tony Snell Rodriguez assured community speakers that the commission would take action, ordering a comparative analysis of the Wisconsin county and municipal fair housing law from the city’s Legislative Reference Bureau and creating a subcommittee to evaluate whether the commission can enact more robust protections. Note: Author Alexandria Staubach serves on Milwaukee's Equal Rights Commission.  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. By Alexandria Staubach
Legislation in response to the temporary suspension of Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan quietly made its way through public hearing and voting in the Assembly’s Judiciary Committee. Bill AB380/SB381 would require judges who are suspended for misconduct to receive no pay. However, the law would not apply retroactively. So whether or not it passes, it will not apply to Dugan. The bill passed out of committee on Oct. 1 on a party-line vote: four Republicans for and three Democrats against. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in April suspended Dugan, who was charged criminally in federal court for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant evade federal law enforcement. In doing so, the court invoked its “superintending and administrative authority over all courts in the state.” The Supreme Court did not impose additional sanctions or conditions beyond the temporary prohibition on Dugan from exercising the powers of a circuit court judge. She continues to be paid. At the public hearing on the bill on Sept. 25, Rep. Andrew Hysell (D-Sun Prairie) highlighted that the bill may not address the conduct that its proponents seek to censure. He pointed out that if a judge was subsequently found innocent, there was no mechanism to redress backpay. Hysell is one of the few attorneys in the Legislature, The bill was then amended to permit back pay from the date of suspension if ultimately the Supreme Court imposes no discipline on a judge and to clarify that the temporary suspension must be for criminal misconduct. The bill appears aimed at Dugan's actions rather than any wider issue that the Legislature otherwise would have addressed. In written testimony, bill sponsor Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) said that “Wisconsin taxpayers must be protected from the misconduct and/or commission of a crime by rogue judges.” At the public hearing and before the committee vote, Sortwell focused on Dugan’s specific case. He characterized her suspension as a “taxpayer-funded vacation” and said he found it “mind-boggling . . . that some people are OK with judges helping criminals escape law enforcement officers.” He said he thought the Supreme Court was “obviously predisposed to be more favorable of the actions of Judge Dugan for their policy positions.” Judicial suspensions are rare. Legislative materials associated with the bill indicate only 15 judges have been suspended since 1978. The Senate’s version of the bill has been referred to its Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety and has not yet been scheduled for public hearing. Jury selection in Dugan's case is set to begin Dec. 11. Report compares Milwaukee County juvenile justice numbers and offenses to pre-pandemic data8/4/2025 By Heidi von Helms, WJI intern Youth referrals in the juvenile justice system are back up to their pre-pandemic levels, and the severity of offenses, number of weapons offenses, and transfers to adult court increased significantly. The data comes from the Wisconsin Policy Forum’s report in May on the state of youth justice in Milwaukee County. The report compared recent statistics with pre-pandemic data. The report indicates that during the pandemic the number of youth referrals to the Milwaukee County Department of Health and Human Services’ Children, Youth, and Family Services Department (CYFS) dropped significantly across every category. However, by 2024, referrals had returned to their pre-pandemic numbers. The report shows a notable 50% increase between 2018 and 2024 in referrals for certain felonies, including armed robbery, terrorist threats, taking and driving a vehicle without consent, and first-degree recklessly endangering safety with a firearm. Felony weapons offenses more than tripled and misdemeanor weapons offenses grew by 73%.  Graph from the report showing the increase in severity of offenses. Source: "Youth Must Be Served: The Post-Pandemic State of Youth Justice in Milwaukee County," Wisconsin Policy Forum, May 2025. While this data suggests an increase in violent crimes committed by youth, victim and suspect data from fatal and nonfatal shootings in the City of Milwaukee show some recent progress in reducing shootings. Milwaukee Police Department and Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission data show that from 2023 to 2024, the number of youths suspected of homicide or nonfatal shootings decreased by 51%, and the number of fatal and nonfatal shooting victims age 17 or younger decreased by 25%. The report states that from 2018 to 2024, the majority of youth referred were ages 15 and 16 (61%). Boys made up 80% of referrals. Black youth made up 80% of referrals, Hispanic youth made up 11%, and white youth made up 7%. The table below compares these percentages to Milwaukee County’s youth population demographics, highlighting how Black youth are overrepresented in the justice system.  Table comparing demographic and ethnic data between CYFS referrals and general population. Source: "Youth Must Be Served: The Post-Pandemic State of Youth Justice in Milwaukee County," Wisconsin Policy Forum, May 2025. An overwhelming proportion—78%—of referred youth had a mental health condition, an alcohol and other drug abuse condition, or both.  Infographic showing percentage of youth in CYFS with mental health and AODA addictions. Source: "Youth Must Be Served: The Post-Pandemic State of Youth Justice in Milwaukee County," Wisconsin Policy Forum, May 2025. From 2018 to 2023, significantly fewer youth were placed in detention facilities. However, more youth have been moved up to adult court, perhaps corresponding with the increase in referrals for violent offenses noted above. The Vel Phillips Youth and Family Justice Center includes a short-term detention facility for youth pending court disposition when detention is deemed necessary. As shown in the chart below, the number of youths detained at the center was significantly higher in 2024 than pre-pandemic, and since 2021 the facility has faced significant capacity issues. Additionally, the average length of stay increased by more than 14 days from 2018 to 2024.  Graph showing population of youth at Vel Phillips Youth and Family Justice Center from 2018 to 2024. Source: "Youth Must Be Served: The Post-Pandemic State of Youth Justice in Milwaukee County," Wisconsin Policy Forum, May 2025. The Wisconsin Policy Forum also reviewed the Milwaukee County Accountability Program, created in 2012 as a longer-term detention alternative to Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake, which have faced abuse allegations for years. MCAP is designed for youth considered high risk for reoffending and involves intensive supervision, structure, support, and skill building for up to 180 days before the youth transitions to at-home supervision and behavioral management. The report indicates that MCAP has contributed to consistently fewer youth being sent from Milwaukee County to Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake. However, MCAP has only 24 beds, and some youth spend up to 12 weeks in detention before they can begin the program. The county plans to replace the 24 beds at Vel Phillips currently used for MCAP with a new, 32-bed facility by 2026, with the hope that the new facility will fully replace the use of state youth detention facilities.  Chart comparing Milwaukee County youth detention in MCAP and Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake. Source: "Youth Must Be Served: The Post-pandemic State of Youth Justice in Milwaukee County," Wisconsin Policy Forum, May 2025. CYFS in recent years has emphasized programs designed to keep youth from becoming involved in the justice system altogether. These include the Credible Messenger Program, created in 2021, which serves as a prevention influence for youth at risk of becoming involved or further involved in the justice system, and Advance Peace Fellowship, created in 2024, which pairs youth identified to be at high risk for gun violence with support for their development, health, and well-being. In 2023, 78% of youth in the Credible Messenger Program had no referral to CYFS or re-offense. The report notes that the success of various CYFS programs is hard to determine, CYFS does not have a framework to track recidivism and does not follow any of its programs’ participants after they reach the age of 17. The report states that without better data collection, the Wisconsin Policy Forum cannot determine whether the youth justice system is operating better and producing better outcomes than before the implementation of these programs.  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
By Margo Kirchner Twelve judges will change assignments in Milwaukee County Circuit Court effective Aug. 1, 2025. Chief Judge Carl Ashley announced new assignments on March 31. Because of the court’s size, its 47 judges are separated into divisions to handle one type of case. Divisions include criminal felony, criminal misdemeanor, children, family, and civil, with specialties within some of the divisions. The court’s guidelines about rotations indicate that judicial rotations are based on a judge’s length of service in the present division and various judges’ requests, among other things. Judges who have served more than six years normally spend about four years in a division. Newer judges normally serve two to three years in a division and then are moved so they experience more areas of law. Assignments to small claims court are generally just one year unless the judge volunteers to remain. However, the chief judge makes the final assignment decisions based on the needs of the court as a whole and considerations such as a judge’s seniority, background, and expertise, plus stakeholder feedback. Assignments to problem-solving courts, such as drug-treatment court, take into account a judge’s additional specialized knowledge and training. Problem-solving courts include collaborative work and use of various interventions to treat defendants while still holding them accountable. Here are the announced 2025 rotations:   By Alexandria Staubach Milwaukee County’s 2025 budget shows how recent state legislation helped improve revenue, but analysis shows that spending is increasing even more. Last week, Milwaukee County unanimously adopted its 2025 budget. With reserves shored up by new taxes, the budget seems positive. Recent state legislation known as Act 12 permitted the county to raise Milwaukee County’s sales tax from 0.5% to 0.9% in 2024. However, the Wisconsin Policy Forum’s annual review warns that “the fiscal stability produced by Act 12 is likely to be short lived.” Budget gains anticipated from the tax for 2024 fell short of projections and are quickly gobbled up by required spending on law enforcement. In the 2025 budget, $161.1 million will be spent on public safety alone. According to the Forum’s review, year-over-year increases in costs demonstrate “if these trends continue—that public safety expenditure pressures will consume much of the annual revenue growth promised by Act 12, or all of it in years like 2025 when sales tax growth is modest.” The Forum warns that “unless new strategies are developed to control annual cost increases in the public safety function, the future impact of Act 12 in helping resolve the county’s structural deficit may be eclipsed.” Among the biggest beneficiaries of 2025’s budget is the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office, which according to the Forum’s review will receive “the largest percentage increase of any functional area in the budget besides non-departmental expenses.” A new $5 million have been allocated to the sheriff’s department, bringing its 2025 budget to $64.7 million. According to the Forum, that’s a 42.2% increase over 2021. The sheriff’s office funding will cover nine new bailiff positions plus $800,000 for salary and benefit increases under a new labor agreement with the Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs' Association. Another $2.1 million are allocated for overtime expenses, as the department continues to struggle with staffing shortages. The Community Reintegration Center will see a boost to its budget, from $60.2 million in 2024 to $65.5 million in 2025. Here, too, $1 million has been allocated for overtime, as the center also struggles with staffing shortages, which reached 36% in 2022. $4.1 million is attributed to rising healthcare and food-service contract costs. The budget adds $2.7 million to the court system, some of which will fund eight new full-time positions in children’s court. A separate $1.7 million is allocated to pay attorneys taking cases that would otherwise be eligible for service from the State Public Defender’s Office, but for which that office has a conflict. Operating costs and costs allocated to acquiring or maintaining land, buildings, and equipment also foreshadow significant expenses moving forward. According to the review, the 2024 budget allocated $9.4 million dollars to start a much-needed project to replace the county’s decaying Safety Building. The 2025 budget includes another $6 million directed at planning and design of the new courthouse building, plus an authorization to transfer an additional $5 million if necessary. Another $23.7 million is anticipated for the same project in 2026, all before a shovel hits the ground. “Future short comings will be exacerbated by much needed but unprecedented spending to build a new criminal courthouse” in the coming years, the Forum review said.
By Alexandria Staubach Milwaukee County Circuit Court has a new mental health docket, which its creators hope will streamline the civil and criminal aspects of cases where competency is at issue.  Sanders Judge Mark A. Sanders will preside over the new docket, which started accepting cases this month.
The docket is designed to address a significant backlog of cases that deal with competency and to incorporate and possibly expand the capacity of the current mental health treatment court. Legal competency is the ability of someone who has been charged with a crime to appreciate the charges and consequences and to participate in their defense. The new court got its start through the Milwaukee Community Justice Council (CJC), which comprises Milwaukee-area criminal justice agencies and local governments working collaboratively to “ensure a fair, efficient, and effective justice system that enhance(s) public safety and quality of life in our community,” according to its website. WJI recently discussed the new court with Chief Judge Carl Ashley, who chairs the CJC; Milwaukee County Chief Deputy District Attorney Kent Lovern, who co-chairs the CJC’s Mental Health Committee (and is running unopposed for district attorney in November’s election); and Tom Reed, vice-chair of the CJC and regional attorney manager of the Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office. “It is not possible to overemphasize that the mental health docket is a reflection of deep concern at every level that individuals with mental health issues end up with the police and in jails, in situations that are not equipped to deal with these issues,” said Reed. “We envision phases,” said Ashley. He told WJI that he hoped the new docket will grow to further address the significant needs of those charged with criminal offenses and simultaneously dealing with mental disease. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a significant backlog of cases, said Ashley. He told WJI, he believed the court could improve outcomes and efficiencies, especially in competency cases. Ashley, Reed, and Lovern all told WJI that mental health is a significant issue in court efficiency. Each noted the desire for individuals with significant mental health issues to achieve just outcomes, while acknowledging that arriving at those outcomes requires significant time and resources from the court. Apart from improving efficiency for individuals that have been charged, the new docket will have a “corollary benefit,” said Lovern. He said the new docket will let other courts move at an improved pace. Ashley, who others indicate led the effort in engineering the new docket, said the court will initially deal only with cases in which competency, not guilty by reason of mental defect, or restoration to competency is an issue. Sexual assault and homicide cases will be excluded from the new docket; those cases will remain in other specific courts. The new docket is distinct from the mental health treatment court. The circuit court has had a mental health treatment court for more than 10 years, deemed “the longest pilot project ever” by Lovern. The current mental health treatment court program is small and voluntary. “It’s really not the fit for every case” Lovern told WJI. It is designed to connect participants with mental health treatment, community services, and “appropriate dispositions” to criminal charges relative to the seriousness of the participant’s mental illness and severity of the offense, Lovern said. Reed said the treatment court is designed to deal with individuals who display a significant mental illness and could benefit and improve with long-term intensive work and supervision. The new docket is also designed to help the whole court system run more efficiently, said Ashley. If an individual is found not competent, it may be that they can be restored through treatment either out of custody (conditional release) or in custody at Mendota, a state-run mental health facility. In cases where competency is an issue the court must first establish a lack of competency by hearing, which often requires the testimony of medical professionals, and then act upon that fact. One objective for the new court is to give the civil system, plus service providers and medical professionals, a dedicated court to deal with, Ashley said. “There are significant delays in just the competency path; some of those delays have to do with the state hospital not having enough beds,” Reed told WJI. However, “other problems arise,” too. “Every criminal court has to deal with competency, and the result is ‘yes,’ time tied up in hospitalization, but a lot of time is also tied up in the process,” he said. “If felony courts can move faster to other cases, it can free up other court time,” said Lovern. Reed highlighted that a single docket for competency cases may result in a single team of people—court providers, district attorneys and public defenders—who are better positioned to think upstream, “to understand the familiar faces, see who is cycling through and trapped in unproductive cycles.” “We have to get in there, then see what we can do,” said Ashley. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed