Meet the candidates for Columbia County Circuit Court

In Columbia County, Roger L. Klopp challenges incumbent Judge Troy D. Cross for the Branch 3 position. The election is April 2.

Cross was elected circuit judge in 2018 and previously was an assistant district attorney. He graduated from Marquette University Law School in 1998.

Klopp is an attorney in private practice at Klopp Law Office in Lodi. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1989. His resume is here and an additional biography statement he submitted is here.

WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments

Klopp's answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors. Cross did not respond to WJI's request.

Roger Klopp

Why do you want to become a judge?
 
I want to become a judge because I am a very fair person who is attentive to people's situations and would be able to address people's cases with a humanistic perspective. I ran for judge one other time in 1999 but came in third place. Since then, I have pondered running several times and I was encouraged by many people to run in this year's judicial race. Throughout my career as an attorney, I have represented many low income and middle-class people. I have also been on the board of directors at Legal Action of Wisconsin for over 30 years, and have been the organization’s treasurer, vice president and president of the board in the past. My work with this organization has educated me about the difficulties that the disadvantaged and disenfranchised have getting a fair hearing in the courtroom. Access to justice is one of the underpinnings of our country, and we must work harder to provide that access to all on an even playing field.

Name one of the best or worst U.S. or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last 25 years and explain why you feel that way.
 
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 has to be one of the worst US Supreme Court cases in the past 25 years. In 1901, Theodore Roosevelt, in assailing corporate influence, prosecuted what at the time were called the great trusts vis a vis the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, breaking up the oil monopoly of the Rockefeller's and others. Roosevelt was strongly against corporate influence and control of politics. There was a long-term prohibition on corporate financing of political campaigns. This was due to the belief that corporate influence by way of financing campaigns would give the wealthy an unfair influence upon the political process and weaken the voices of common persons. The Citizens United case was a 5-4 decision which held that the freedom of speech clause of the first amendment prohibited the government from restricting campaign expenditures by corporations, non-profit organizations, labor unions, and other entities. It equated corporations the same rights due to citizens. A corporation is not a person. What has happened is that it allowed a never-ending spigot of corporate money to influence elections and weaken the voice of the common person. Citizens United has allowed corporations to essentially buy elections to the detriment of our populace.
 
Describe your judicial philosophy. 

Currently there is a lot of debate over constitutional originalism versus the living document theory. A third theory, strict constructionism is also frequently cited. In studying law, and history I believe it is abundantly apparent that the founding fathers drafted a document which was to protect key principles while allowing the document fluidity to address changes in society, and how the law would react to those changes as our nation grew. The industrial revolution was beginning, factories which previously never existed were springing up. Textile, iron and steel mills, and other beginnings of great commerce were emerging while the document was being written. The US Constitution was ratified in 1788. It did not contain the Bill of Rights which was later ratified in December of 1791. The constitution set up our governmental framework with three branches of government. It specifically allowed for the constitution to be amended by two thirds vote of the Congress and ratification by three quarters of the states. There was debate while the original document was being written and first proposed for ratification, that additions or amendments needed to be made in order to protect civil liberties. The founding fathers, through a great series of debates, agreed modifications needed to be made at the time of the ratification of the constitution, and the bill of rights followed. It was further acknowledged that additional amendments to the constitution may be necessary. I believe we need to interpret the constitution based on the general framework of the living document as applied to the facts at hand.
 
Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.
 
From the thousands of cases where I have represented people, two cases which come to mind were both criminal law matters. There was an incident in Columbia County where an elderly woman was beaten by a group of gang wannabes as a way to gain admittance in a local branch of the Folk Gang, an affiliate of the Black Gangster Disciples. It was horrific crime and I had to advocate for a young man who had beaten this elderly woman for little or no reason. In doing so, I found out why this young man, who had been abandoned by his family and bounced from one couch to another, finally found a home in the gang structure. The gang then influenced him and others to burglarize and rob this woman, assaulting her in her sleep. The impression it left on me is that as a society, we need to do more for our children than we are currently doing. We need to make earlier interventions to reduce bad outcomes in the future.

A second case was one of a young woman from Europe who was brought to America to be an au pair for a farm family where the mother had passed away. While driving home in the rain one night after meeting some friends, she crossed the center line, and was involved in an accident which resulted in the death of a passenger in an oncoming vehicle. I believe that there were political considerations made in the charging decision due to the deceased woman's connections in state government. My client wanted her side of the story to be heard. She believed in American justice and after the trial went to the jury, the court officer leaned over and wished my client good luck. The jury came back with a not guilty verdict. The jury foreman walked over to the defense table with tears in his eyes. My client was crying too, and he hugged her. He stated, “we had you in there”. It was evident that they felt she was unjustly accused.

Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.
 
I have extensive experience in criminal defense cases, having been one of my primary areas of practice for almost 35 years. I am in court on almost a daily basis and am certified by the State Public Defender for virtually all areas of criminal defense, along with juvenile representation, civil commitments, and protective placements. In the 1990s I had a broad-based general practice. I had a family law practice along with real estate, civil litigation, personal injury, small claims, landlord tenant, and employment law. Additionally, I did some bankruptcy work and federal criminal defense. I have represented many clients in probation revocations, which are administrative proceedings.

While I was a law clerk, I also did grievance arbitration. In the mid 90's I represented a fellow who was fired from a nationwide trucking and delivery service company for little or no reason. The employment contract called for arbitration through the American Arbitration Association. The arbitration case was held in Madison and the employer flew in its vice president and in home corporate counsel to Madison on a private jet. It was me and my client versus three more experienced lawyers, and the Vice President of the company. When we called our first witness (another employee of the company), the lead attorney spoke to the vice president of the company and then told the witness “you know this can affect your employment”, basically a threat to fire if he testified. I objected to the threat to a witness, and the arbitrator stated if there were further threats made it would be referred for prosecution for intimidation of a witness. After a day of testimony, the arbitrator closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing and said he would issue a written decision. When the decision came, we won. My client got basically everything we asked for in regard to damages and reinstatement.

Describe an instance when you were challenged and had to exhibit courage in the face of adversity or opposition and how you handled that situation.
  
In regard to being challenged and exhibiting courage in the face of adversity or opposition, you are describing what defense attorneys do on a daily basis. My practice at present is mostly public defender and court appointed criminal cases. The system is usually stacked against my clients, and many of them have little or nothing as far as resources, education, and money. Every day I try to figure out how to advocate for my clients and how to get them the fair hearings they deserve.

Recently I had a criminal case where I raised the competency of my client. The client was suffering from severe mental illness. The client had a health issue, and the county should have filed a 51/15 mental commitment or a protective placement. The county instead tried to interplead into the criminal matter and gain an order for involuntary medical treatment of this person. I raised the impropriety of what was being done and stated what the proper procedure was. The court ruled against my client. I immediately filed for a stay, secured appellate counsel for my client, and eventually the appellate counsel won a stay of the involuntary administration of medication and medical care. A second case was filed with the same client and when involuntary administration of medicine was asked for by the state, the judge having recently been educated on the proper procedure by the court of appeals, agreed with my client's position and did not order involuntary administration of medication.

Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors and indirect supporters who contribute money or other resources to the judge's election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set?

Recusal of a judge in cases involving donors and indirect supporters is best addressed on a case by case basis, looking at the amount of the contribution, amount of support or assistance to a judicial campaign, and whether the judge was aware of the donation, support and amount of assistance. Normally recusal is not required for de minimus contributions and assistance. If the situation amounts to impropriety or the appearance of impropriety, the judge should consider recusal. Contribution amounts to judicial and other campaigns are set by law. If a contribution is in excess of that amount the excess should be returned if possible or donated to a permissible entity.

What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them?  
 
The concept of true justice has historically been based upon a deist approach to justice with an omnipotent arbiter providing divine justice. What a circuit court judge does is much different than that. Circuit court judges are the first level of the courts in Wisconsin in most cases of significant matter. It's important to listen to the arguments of counsel as well as any testimony or evidence adduced in a case. A good judge should look at the litigant’s relative position in relation to each other, as well as considering their socio-economic background, assistance of counsel, and their apparent intelligence and competency. A judge is allowed to use common sense in fashioning its judgment within the parameters of the law. A circuit court judge is not allowed to craft the law or replace the current law in order to fashion a particular decision. All judges are bound by our oath of office, and decisions must be made within that context. However, when deciding or imposing a sentence, a judge must also be bound by his conscience in making sure that he or she is making the right decision, applying the law to the facts of the matter at hand. I pledge to do that.

---