Evers' judges: Adam Y. Gerol

​​​"Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications.
 
Italics indicate direct quotes from the application.​ Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.

Name: Adam Y. Gerol
 
Appointed to: Ozaukee County Circuit Court
 
Appointment date: May 24, 2024, to term ending July 31, 2025
 
Education:
Law School – Drake Law School, Des Moines, Iowa
Undergraduate – The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
High School – The Prairie School, Wind Point, Wisconsin
 
Recent legal employment:
July 2009-present – District attorney, Ozaukee County
September 2008-July 2009 – Assistant district attorney, Milwaukee County
July 2008-September 2008 – Assistant attorney general, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Criminal Litigation Division
September 1992-July 2008 – Assistant district attorney, Ozaukee County
 
Bar and administrative memberships:
State Bar of Wisconsin
U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
Illinois State Bar Association (lapsed)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
 
General character of practice:
I advise law enforcement on investigations, and assist with law enforcement training. I review and charge criminal cases, litigate these matters through trial to disposition, and sometimes through the appeal. I am also the department head of my office for purposes of budgeting, staff supervision, and government relations. As an assistant district attorney in Milwaukee County I was assigned to the Drug Unit and the Gun Unit in the Violent Crimes Division where we handled everything from Felon in Possession to Attempt Homicide. Staffing in Ozaukee County allows for little specialization. However I have always prosecuted the bulk of sensitive crimes in Ozaukee County, and as the district attorney I personally review and prosecute the most serious of allegations .…
 
Describe typical clients:
Prosecutors don't have clients in the traditional sense. We act in the name of the State of Wisconsin, and law enforcement agencies are our witnesses. We have statutory and constitutional obligations to the victims of crimes, but they are also, technically, not our clients. As the district attorney I still assign myself the bulk of all the sensitive crimes
 
Number of cases tried to verdict: Approximately 250 jury trials
 
List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years:
I was the prosecutor in State v. Banas, Ozaukee County Case No. 2018CF000333. My participation began with the investigation commencing in 2007, where ultimately, more than 20 women reported being surreptitiously drugged after socializing with a local man. While all the women reported similar experiences, none had come forward within the time frame where traditional forensic testing could help identify the substances used or even what conduct may have occurred. Ultimately, a victim in 2014 did report within a time frame where we were able to use forensic hair analysis as pioneered by a leading world expert on drug-facilitated crimes, Dr. Pascal Kintz of Strasbourg, France. The case was tried before The Honorable Todd Martens, a Washington County judge. Motion practice was extensive, and the three day trial began on February 24, 2020. The opposing counsel was Brent Nistler. This case demonstrated the difficulties in applying the statute designed to address this type of behavior, Wis. Stats Sec. 941.32, Administering Dangerous or Stupefying Drug. There was extensive public attention to this matter from the earliest days of the investigation through trial.
 
I was the prosecutor in State v. Kerschbaum, Ozaukee County Case No. 2020CF000156. Opposing counsel was Attorney Jerome Buting. Only the second phase of a bifurcated case was tried, and that was to the bench. The Honorable Sandy Williams was the judge. This was a sensitive crime prosecution, together with related counts of Child Pornography. The behavior was among the most disturbing I’ve ever encountered. This case involved applying existing state and federal law on the question of Miranda and police interrogation of a special needs suspect. However, the critical issue was the role of the defendant's (redacted) and how it might apply to questions of intent and mental responsibility. A related question was the relevance of expert testimony on the question of a knowing and voluntary Miranda waiver. This defendant suffered from significant limitations, and this case demonstrated the sometimes awkward fit between existing law and the state of medical science when addressing questions of cognition and intent.
 
I was the prosecutor in State v. Difrances, Ozaukee County Case No. 2019CF000143, where the defendant was convicted of Incest with a Child, contrary to Wis. Stat Sec. 948.06. I litigated all material aspects of this case from its inception in June 2019 through trial and through the post-conviction motions that concluded on April 8, 2023. The two day jury trial began on June 29, 2021 before the Honorable Paul Malloy. Opposing counsel was Jason Baltz. This case touched on almost every reason why the Shiffra/Green procedure harmed victims. Here, it resulted in substantial delays but also demonstrated other aspects of how that process was flawed. When asked for a treatment history, this child didn't know who she might have treated with when she was very young. This was also the first case where I encouraged the victim to seek her own representation because Marsy’s Law creates tension between a prosecutor's interest in complying with a discovery order and the victim's right to have her records remain private. This victim was represented by Attorney Nancy Noet of the Crime Victims’ Rights Project, associated with Legal Action of Wisconsin, Inc. This case is also an example of another related privacy concern with incest victims. When we charge the crime of Incest, the identity of – and the trauma experienced by – the victim essentially becomes public. In these cases, I would ordinarily choose just to charge a sexual assault for this reason, leaving out the Incest count entirely. That option wasn't available here.
 
Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies:
I have no recent experience. More than 30 years ago I represented a client involved in a banking regulation matter. We were able to resolve the matter with the Wisconsin Department of Justice without any further litigation. In private practice I represented a client who was a witness in a matter with the Department of Regulation and Licensing related to a fraud committed by a real estate agent. As a defense attorney I represented a number of people who had been charged with operating while intoxicated at their administrative hearings regarding their drivers licenses.
 
Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation).
In the early years of my practice I worked on corporate formation, creation of employee benefit plans, and the occasional tax problem. A number of years ago I formed a non-profit corporation, negotiated a land transfer, and obtained charitable status for a local dog park. As a volunteer with Habitat for Humanity, I assisted with land use questions, grants, and corporate compliance. I offer advice from time to time to my wife's employer, the Milwaukee Center for Children and Youth.
 
Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization:
I've served as treasurer for Jim Konowalski who was running for the county board approximately 10 years ago. I was the Courthouse Representative with the Ozaukee County Republican Party, and was active with them from 2009 until 2022. I know that I have dropped literature or helped with yard signs with campaigns in the distant past, but I can't accurately specify them. I know that I was very active with the campaigns of Sandy Williams (district attorney and judge), Tom Wolfram (Judge) and Steve Cain (Judge).
 
Previous runs for public office:
Ozaukee County District Attorney, appointed in 2009 and elected in 2012, 2016 and 2020
 
All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years:
I never maintained a list of endorsements that I’ve made. I tried to be accurate with this question by checking my email accounts and researching internet history for cached versions of relevant campaign websites. With that caveat, I believe this list is complete. I would add that it’s likely that I endorsed Brian Hagedorn for the Supreme Court. I don’t believe I ever endorsed Daniel Kelly.
 
Jennifer Dorow, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2023
Maria Lazar, Court of Appeals, 2022
Shelly Grogan, Court of Appeals, 2021
Steve Cain, Circuit Court Judge, 2019
Annette Ziegler, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2016
Brian Hagedorn, Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2017
Michael Screnock, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2017
 
Professional or civic and charitable organizations:
Wisconsin District Attorneys Association, roles including president, 1994-present
Rotary International, 2008-2021
Habitat for Humanity, board member, 2008-2014
Ozaukee County Jail Advisory Board, 2009-present
Wisconsin Bar Association, district governor, 2016-2018
Joint Legislative Councils, various committees and dates
 
Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service:
While in private practice I helped numerous people with various concerns without charging a fee. Since becoming a prosecutor, Wis Stat. Sec. 978.06 places restrictions on the ability of a prosecutor to perform other legal services. That said, I helped create the current incarnation of the Grafton dog park in the early 1990s and helped when they had problems with their regulatory filings. I also provided informal assistance when I volunteered with Habitat for Humanity, assisting with grants and contracts.
 
Quotes:
 
Why I want to be a judge:
I have had a fulfilling career in litigation, which has given me an excellent legal education. However, it has also made me aware of many flaws in our court system. One that demands resolution is the cycle of never-ending status conferences in court calendars. These frustrate litigants immensely, leading many to settle their cases arbitrarily. These calendars ultimately leave judges with less time to focus on the crucial aspects of cases. This inevitably has a corrosive effect on the whole judicial process. My first goal is to change this dynamic.
 
As an advocate, I've built where I could. Ozaukee County has an efficient district attorney's office that studies its cases, excels at providing complete discovery to litigants, and works hard to obtain fair outcomes. Thousands of cases, hundreds of trials, and dozens of appeals have built a strong foundation in the letter of the law. My resume reflects how I've also tried to serve the broader legal system.

Our justice system isn’t just about laws. It's about people. I've never lost sight of the human side of my cases. Every case represents a significant turmoil in someone's life, and few people choose to become embroiled in the legal system. They find themselves trapped within a court system that is daunting, confusing, and often appears capricious. They're forced to rely on the advice of strangers. Their relationship with their attorney is frequently marked by caution and occasionally suspicion. Almost everyone is afraid.
 
My understanding of the legal system extends beyond my professional experiences. It's deeply personal, shaped by the victims I encounter, the clients I've represented, and my family's experiences with the law. All of this has reinforced my belief in the importance of empathy, patience, and communication in the justice system.
 
People deserve a court system that will treat them fairly, respectfully, and honestly. This is my commitment. The key is to understand the people in our courtrooms. Judges must have the ability and the desire to engage with people in a way that allows them to leave the courtroom understanding what has occurred. There is nothing more critical to the integrity of the entire justice system. In every case, there will be litigants who will not agree with the outcome. However, when a judge follows the law and explains how it applies to the facts that have been proven, the fairness of that outcome – no matter how unwelcome it might be – will resonate.
 
As a judge, I want to accomplish all of these things and am dedicated to making this a reality. I am deeply rooted in this community and committed to using my skills and knowledge to ensure a fair, honest, and trusted court system. For the past 35 years, I have had the privilege of observing many great judges across southeastern Wisconsin, and I am eager to apply those lessons in this courthouse that is so important to me.
 
Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin.
State v. Johnson, 2023 WI 39, 407 Wis.2d 195, 990 N.W.2d 174 was the most significant triumph for victim rights in Wisconsin in the last 25 years. The modern world has made great strides in destigmatizing mental health concerns. We encourage every sexual assault victim to seek therapy immediately. But since 1993, in State v. Shiffra,175 Wis.2d 600, 499 N.W.2d 719 (Ct. App. 1993), our courts have provided a legal strategy to force victims to either surrender their privacy interests in their counseling records or watch the prosecution get dismissed. Shiffra motions became the standard of practice in every sexual assault case, with defendants commonly asking trial courts to inspect victims' private counseling records for exculpatory information.

In the Shiffra sexual assault prosecution, the defendant claimed that the victim's history of psychiatric issues could have affected her ability to perceive and convey truthful information. The Court of Appeals held that the victim’s psychiatric history and the records from any doctors, hospitals, or counselors that may have treated her could be obtained if the defendant made a preliminary showing that such documents might be relevant and helpful at trial. They created a standard, and if the trial court made the requisite finding and the victim did not consent to release the treatment records for an in-camera inspection, the remedy would be suppressing the victim's testimony.

I've prosecuted the most sensitive crimes in Ozaukee County for the last 30 years, and I know just how upset victims become when told that the defendant is trying to access their counseling records. The fact that only the judge will do the initial review does not comfort them.

Johnson rejected this entire scheme. In a logical and reasoned fashion, Johnson set aside an ill-crafted mechanism that had the natural effect of retraumatizing sexual assault victims. "… in the past thirty years, because of Shiffra, countless sexual assault victims who reported their victimization have been on the horns of a dilemma, forced to choose between either disclosing their mental health records or not testifying in the trials of their perpetrators. Neither option was tenable, leaving victims with no choice but to have their suffering compounded by the system meant to administer justice." Johnson, ¶80. Johnson explained the “special justification” to reverse Shiffra and why the doctrine of stare decisis supported this outcome. The Supreme Court explained why the Shiffra line of cases was wrongly decided, unworkable, and inapplicable in light of the constitutional amendments enshrining victim's rights. Johnson recognized how Shiffra had ignored statutory protections, ran roughshod on the sensitivities of people who had been grievously harmed, and "allowed perpetrators to harass victims into silence." Johnson was a vindication of the rights of victims and a rejection of outmoded thinking about the presumed behavior of people who had been sexually assaulted.
 
Two or three judges whom I admire and why:
Perhaps drawing from his experience as a small-town lawyer and judge, Justice Jon Wilcox crafted ‘useable’ opinions that were direct and straightforward. He was committed to ensuring that the law was easily understood to all who needed to apply it. A prime example of this can be seen in his concurrence in Carney-Hayes v. NW Wis. Home Care, 2005 WI 118, 284 Wis.2d 56, 699 N.W.2d 524: "I write separately to set forth some clear rules regarding the analysis to be employed in applying the expert privilege, in hopes of providing guidance to litigants and judges dealing with this seemingly difficult area of the law." Carney-Hayes, ¶ 63. Justice Wilcox believed in judicial restraint, stare decisis, and the judiciary's limited role. This was particularly stressed when approaching matters of public policy – something Justice Wilcox emphasized should be left for the legislature. That’s not to say that he would always agree with what the legislature had done, once writing: "… I write separately, however, to address the serious concerns raised by the broad language in Wis. Stat. § 974.07(6) ... and I strongly urge the legislature to take a hard look at the practical consequences of this subsection. …" State v. Moran, 2005 WI 115, ¶ 59, 284 Wis.2d 24, 700 N.W.2d 884. Justice Wilcox never recited a principle just to say it. When dissenting, there was never anything ad hominem in his words. Even his most strident objections could be read as a fair exchange of opinion, leaving for the reader – or perhaps later courts – to further consider who was correct.

Judge Joseph McCormack of Ozaukee County was the finest judge I have ever practiced before. He was never concerned with impressing others or demonstrating the breadth of his intellect. He only made his presence known at trial if a ruling was necessary. During his tenure, some of the most complicated cases in Ozaukee County were tried in his court. Whether it was a products liability case involving a 'big 3' automaker, a horrible medical malpractice claim, or an aggravated felony, he would immediately seize the essential thread of a subject. He always looked for the established standards that should apply to any question. Perhaps gained from his years as a social worker, Judge McCormack had a unique ability to connect with the people before him quickly. No litigant, victim, or defendant ever left his courtroom wondering what had occurred or with a lingering doubt that the outcome was anything other than well-considered.

Judge McCormack was the first presiding judge in Ozaukee County to reach out to other justice system partners to improve local practices. I will always credit him for consolidating criminal calendars so prosecutors and public defenders could organize their time. He mentored young lawyers and was always willing to offer advice to those who showed interest. He was highly respected and known for his genuine concern for others.
 
The proper role of a judge:
Every society throughout history has expressed its thoughts on the proper role of a judge. 2,500 years ago, Socrates said, "Four things belong to a judge: to hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly, and to decide impartially." All of these remain true today. The best judges have the same qualities: They listen, they grasp the issues presented, they apply the law fairly, and they are respectful to the litigants. Today, the best judges are also mindful of the public’s perception of the court. Society must have confidence in their justice system. A judge must always consider that their behavior and demeanor affect the public's opinion of the judiciary.

Everyone in the courtroom must perceive the judge as unbiased, unaffected by any familiarity with the litigants or by personal feelings toward the subject matter. A judge should go to great lengths to demonstrate that they approach the record objectively, guided solely by statutes and common law. Any deviation from this principle fosters contempt for the judicial system because it allows people to remain skeptical of the outcome. The law is a sacred thing, bequeathed to us by thoughtful, wise individuals who refined a system of resolving disputes. Every judge should acknowledge that precedent holds a superior understanding of the law than anything they might choose to invent. Respect for stare decisis is the most compelling of judicial virtues and a guiding principle for a trial court judge.

A judge's calendar should prioritize the prompt resolution of cases rather than fostering a system that might pressure litigants into settling for the sake of convenience or cost. Fair compromises uphold the interests of justice, but when a case is settled for the wrong reasons, it breeds resentment. Someone will feel let down or perceive the justice system as manipulable, inevitably eroding respect for the legal system. When a judge's calendar offers a genuine opportunity for a case to be tried promptly, and where litigants know there will be no 'penalty' for doing so, few will leave the courtroom feeling that the outcome was forced upon them.

A judge can't force anyone to resolve anything, and stern messaging by frustrated judges is soon forgotten. There’s nothing to be gained from status conferences where little will occur except for scheduling yet another date. Consequently, the client will be billed for another hour's work, which could have been put to better use. A judge should default to trusting the lawyers to advance their own cases. Before a jury trial, a judge should encourage litigants to discuss the expected testimony so that rulings can be anticipated. In a trial, a judge should avoid becoming an active participant whenever possible because that behavior is too easily misunderstood. In the eyes of jurors, the judge should appear to be the most neutral party in the courtroom.

---