Meet the candidates for Racine County Circuit Court

In Racine County, Jamie M. McClendon challenges incumbent Jon Fredrickson in Branch 7. The election is April 1.

McClendon is an attorney practicing at McLendon Law, LLC, and previously was a staff attorney in the State Public Defender's Office. She graduated from Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law in 2007. Her resume is here.

Fredrickson was appointed Racine County Circuit Court judge by Gov. Scott Walker in 2018 and then elected to a full term in 2019. He previously was an attorney at Kravit Hovel & Krawczyk. He graduated from Marquette University Law School in 1999. 

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

McClendon responded to WJI's questionnaire. Fredrickson did not. However, voters can find out more about him in this WJI blog post, which included portions of his application to Walker.

Candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.

Why do you want to become a judge? 
 
After my mother retired from the Army, she became a Teamsters member who worked in a factory for 30 years. We were a working-class family, but because of my mother’s hard work, my sister and I were able to follow our dreams. The dedication and values my mother instilled in me while I was growing up has had the biggest impact on my career.  She taught me to do what is right, and to protect people who are the most vulnerable.

I became the first in my family to go to college and then to law school. Once I passed the bar exam, I became an attorney at the Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office in Racine County. My career as public defender is where the beliefs and values my mother instilled in me are exhibited the most. Many of the people that come through the criminal justice system are from a background of poverty and rely on public defenders to represent them. Public defenders have the difficult duty of speaking up for people others may overlook or ignore; and are integral in making sure our justice system is fair. Public defenders play an important role in protecting people’s rights.

While public defender’s play an important role in fighting for people’s rights; judges ensure equal justice for everyone to prevent violations of people’s rights. Judges must have the strength to do what is right and not allow outside pressure to impact their decision. With this strength, should come an understanding on how judges’ decisions can impact those who are the most vulnerable in our community.

Both my personal and professional experiences have guided me to stand up for what is right and I believe to my core that everyone deserves to be treated fairly in our justice system.  This is why I became a lawyer, a public defender, and this is why I want to be a judge. 
 
Describe which U.S. Supreme Court or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion in the past 25 years you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin and explain why.
 
Rucho v. Common Cause 139 S.Ct 2484 (2019): The Wisconsin Supreme Court relied on this case when determining the limited role the judiciary has on redistricting legislative maps. The Court does not have power to intervene with redistricting when it comes to political parties. It must only review legislative maps to ensure they are in compliance with our constitution and statutes. The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed that the maps at the time were not constitutional based on the lack of “one person, one vote” due to a shift in the locations of the population according to the most recent consensus. They declined to be involved with the political question of the map being fairly drawn for a political party.
 
This had a positive impact on Wisconsin because maps should be drawn to ensure everyone’s votes count. 
 
Describe your judicial philosophy. 
 
A judge should show judicial restraint and be reluctant in reinterpreting the law. She should respect our Constitution and not allow outside pressures impact their decisions.
 
Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.
 
1. 1st Degree Intentional Homicide-Use of a Dangerous Weapon, Possession of a Firearm by a Felon, Misdemeanor Bail Jumping, Jurisdiction: Jury Trial: July 19, 2022
 
This was my first Intentional Homicide case that went to trial. The discovery was voluminous. Unlike the State, I did not have officers or other staff to help me review over 100 hours of surveillance videos and thousands of pages of reports and collected data. In addition, time was very limited due to my client’s request for a speedy trial that had to be held within 90 days of the demand. I also did not have co-counsel. I had to organize and review everything on my own to be ready for a speedy trial. 

By the time of trial, I was prepared to give the vigorous defense my client deserved. I was equipped to cross examine experts in DNA testing, cell phone data and tracking, medical records, and law enforcement. In the end, the jury found my client guilty on all counts. This case is significant to me because it shows how important it is that our justice system has competent and dedicated attorneys on both sides to be fair. 

2. Attempted First Degree Intentional Homicide, First Degree Reckless Endangering Safety, First Degree Reckless Endangering Safety-Causing Injury, Possession of a Firearm by a Felon: Jury Trial: March 3, 2020

From the start of this case, there was one concerning issue: the reliability of the eye witness identification. 

In reviewing the recording of the identifying witness’s statement to the police, it was clear that this witness was being treated more like a suspect than a potential victim. He was on probation and the officer had already requested an arrest warrant for him. Prior to trial, there were two hearings in which the key identifying witness had to provide testimony. One was at my client’s revocation hearing and the other was at a deposition hearing. At both hearings, the witness denied that my client was the shooter. At the revocation hearing, the ALJ did not find the witness’ identification credible and denied the department request for revocation. The State was aware that my client was not revoked and decided to continue to trial anyways. 

In addition to this witness, there was an alleged victim who was shot in the leg. She told the officer from the beginning of the investigation that she could identify the shooter. She said he was walking right towards her and she saw his face. When she was provided a photo line-up that included my client, she did not identify him as the shooter. She testified to the same at trial.

This case was significant to me because I had to convince the jury that the identification of my client was unreliable because the identifying witness was susceptible to overwhelming pressure to name my client as the shooter. Ultimately, the jury found my client not guilty on all counts.
 
Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.
 
I have been practicing in Racine County for 13 years. I have represented the people of Racine in over 1500 cases. These cases include juvenile court, criminal, family, civil commitments, and probation revocations. I have handled minor disorderly conduct cases all the way up to first degree homicide cases.
 
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.
 
One of the biggest injustices I witnessed in the courtroom happened to my client. He was charged with another young man for a robbery. Both equally participated in this crime. However, that is where the similarities ended. The other guy had a personal issue with the victim and set up the robbery. He was smug and rude to the police when asked about his involvement. My client was helpful and provided information to the police. The State offered the other guy a lower charge, a probation recommendation, and expungement. My client was offered a charge that was not eligible for expungement and a prison recommendation. I provided the Court with as much information as I could about his upbringing and neglect as a child. I was hoping that, although the Court could not change the charge he pleaded to, she would at least give them the same sentence. She did not. Despite the victim's family’s support of my client, the judge sentenced him to prison. She sentenced the co-defendant to probation and granted his expungement. The only other difference between these two was their race. My client was black. The co-defendant was white.

My response to this event was running for judge in Racine County.
 
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?
 
A fair judge should be able to acknowledge any possible implicit or explicit bias within themselves. She should strive to prevent bias from interfering with her decision-making. Racine County deserves to have an independent judge that does not allow public pressure or politics to dictate the outcome of a case. 

I do think that a judge should recuse themselves from cases in which donors contributed to their campaign. I believe any amount of donations should be reviewed for any possible bias in deciding a case. 
 
What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them? [Define “true justice” as you see fit.]
 
True justice is defined by the preamble of the Code of Judicial Conduct: “[a] judge must be independent, fair and competent when they interpret and apply the laws to the facts and circumstances of the cases presented.” The judge’s role is to listen to both sides of a case and then interpret and apply the law to that case.  One of the greatest obstacles a judge faces when trying to accomplish true justice is the volume of cases, especially in criminal court.

I look to the two judges I admire, the Honorable John Jude and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, for examples on how to effectively ensure that everyone is treated fairly and justly. Both judges are known for asking questions of the parties to get a better understanding of the presented case. They both seek to understand the people, the issues, and the arguments presented to make sure they will fashion an informed decision when applying the law.

---