Meet the candidates for Waukesha County Circuit Court Branch 4

In Waukesha County, David Maas challenges incumbent Bridget Schoenborn in Branch 4. The election is April 1.

Maas is a prosecutor in the Fond du Lac County District Attorney's Office and before that was an assistant attorney general at the Wisconsin Department of Justice. He graduated from University of Wisconsin Law School in 1998. His resume is here.

Schoenborn was appointed Waukesha County Circuit Court judge by Gov. Tony Evers in 2024. She previously was a federal prosecutor in the United States Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. She graduated from University of Wisconsin Law School in 2004. 

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.

Maas responded to WJI's questionnaire. Schoenborn did not. However, voters can find out more about her in this WJI blog post, which included portions of her application to the governor.

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

​Why do you want to become a judge? 
 
My desire to be a judge stems from my extensive experience as a prosecutor and my deep commitment to justice and the rule of law.
 
First, I believe in the fundamental promise of our legal system – that every person who enters a courtroom deserves fairness, due process, and justice. I have had the benefit of practicing in front of dozens of judges across the state as an Assistant District Attorney and Assistant Attorney General over the past 25+ years. In those courtrooms, I saw firsthand the judicial demeanor and conduct that worked well, and the attitudes that did not. A judge should be punctual, prepared, knowledgeable, impartial, respectful, and ethical. A judge, particularly in Waukesha, should not be afraid of a large caseload and a high-pressure environment. My years as a prosecutor have prepared me well for this role by exposing me on an almost daily basis to this environment. I am not afraid of working hard, making tough calls, and always acting ethically. I know how to manage a huge calendar of cases, and I would run an efficient courtroom.
 
Second, I have worked closely with law enforcement, victims, and defense attorneys, giving me a balanced perspective on the real-world impact of judicial decisions. I have seen the emotional toll the system takes on victims, and I recognize the importance of ensuring defendants’ rights. Even though I spent this time as an advocate for the people of Wisconsin, I have always strived to do what is right because of the immense power I have as a prosecutor. It is a responsibility I never take lightly. While handling thousands of cases, I feel like I have consistently built a proper perspective to best litigate and resolve cases. Giving up my advocacy role will be the most difficult part in this transition, but I know I will retain proper perspective and judgment.
 
Third, my expertise with digital evidence and adherence to the 4th Amendment is greatly needed on the bench in Wisconsin. In years past, digital evidence was used primarily in internet crimes and child pornography cases. It has now become important evidence in almost all criminal prosecutions and many civil cases. I have seen a vast discrepancy in experience among judges when it comes to digital evidence. I embraced my role helping fellow prosecutors in this area, and I could do the same for my judicial colleagues. I would be the best fit for this greatly needed unique role as a trainer, consultant, and colleague.
 
I have always embraced the responsibilities that I have as a prosecutor, and I would similarly embrace my responsibilities as a judge. I know I would be a fair and impartial umpire, calling balls and strikes as the arbiter of facts and law. My career has prepared me for this next step in service to my community. I would be honored to serve the citizens of Waukesha County as a member of the bench.
 
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.
 
I am choosing Carpenter v. U.S., 585 U.S. 296 (2018) for this question. Carpenter represents a few positives and a few negatives and signals the direction I think the United States Supreme Court will continue to travel when and if it decides another important 4th Amendment digital evidence case.
 
First, a negative. Carpenter was a 2018 decision based upon 2011 fact pattern. By the time the decision was released, the technology involved was almost obsolete. The cell site location information of Carpenter had been surpassed by GPS and other location tracking with exponentially better accuracy. The amount of our personal data available commercially and to the government is greater by many factors. This decision shows the inability of the Supreme Court to keep up with changes in technology and puts the onus on the circuit courts to apply 4th Amendment requirements as technology changes and the government’s reach extends, without the benefit of legal precedence or legislation.
 
A positive takeaway from Carpenter is that the Supreme Court recognized our right to privacy in our movements and our data, at least to a point. Read with Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), the Supreme Court acknowledged that cell phones, and the data contained therein or in the cloud, are just different than other traditional targets of government search and seizure. The decision rightly requires the government to act in accordance with the 4th Amendment by obtaining a search warrant for location data, even though it is turned over to and kept by third parties. The government cannot take shortcuts in accessing this data. The Supreme Court was correct to reason that this cell phone data is qualitatively different such that it deserves a new classification of records, although it remains unclear what the extension of this special treatment will be. Carpenter also gives standing to the individual to challenge search and seizure of this data.
 
Given the ubiquitous nature of cell phones and the expansive availability of consumer data which tracks our location every minute of every day, even when our phones are “off,” courts will continue to be confronted with the challenge of weighing police access to third party records for investigative purposes against a citizen’s right to be free of not just government surveillance but also commercial surveillance. This decision is important for both privacy rights and the government’s access to records. Carpenter requires courts to continue balancing the individual’s right to privacy in ways not seen before and be aware that “voluntary” commercial surveillance must not equate to government access to private records. A court must also appreciate the vast amounts of data accessible via warrants and ensure that the warrants are only approved if they are limited in scope and particularity. 
 
Describe your judicial philosophy. 

Judges should serve the community in a way that encourages confidence in the legal system. Inherent in this approach is the necessity to afford all who appear respect and due consideration, applying the law and weighing the facts presented in a fair and impartial manner.
 
I am guided by the Preamble of SCR 60: “Our legal system is based on the principle that an independent, fair and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that govern us.” The first part of this sentence, relating to an independent and fair judiciary, is reiterated in the subsequent SCR 60 rules.
 
First and foremost, I would be a fair and impartial jurist. While I am to ensure the rights of defendants, victims, plaintiffs, and other parties are preserved and respected, I do not advocate on their behalf. I weigh arguments, assess cases, and make rulings unaffected by bias, prejudice, or passion. If parties are to respect the judiciary, this is crucial.
 
Of equal importance is the second part of the Preamble’s opening: “…interpret and apply the laws that govern us.” The judiciary must be separate from the executive and legislative branches. As a judge, I do not make laws. I cannot interpret laws to suit my personal beliefs. I must only apply the law as written. If a higher court has already rendered an opinion on a particular law, then that legal precedent must also be respected. I would not serve the people of Waukesha by making my own laws.
 
I also subscribe to the judicial philosophy of Originalism. I’ve worked with enough high-tech Constitutional issues to know that technological advancements are making the application of strict textualism extremely difficult. Originalism allows for an understanding and interpretation of the Constitution’s text as meant by the framers. It does not allow for judicial activism or changing laws based on the whims of current trends.
 
Regarding the “competent” adjective in the Preamble, my experience in practicing before many judges across the state has afforded me the opportunity to see what works well and what doesn’t when running a courtroom. Three consistent themes emerged from the well-run courts: preparedness, efficiency, and respect.
 
A judge should be prepared for arguments by being familiar with the issues of a case. That preparedness is necessary to question the litigants and to make informed rulings. If the judge runs an efficient courtroom by being punctual and keeping a well-maintained calendar, the litigants will be better served. Of equal importance, in service to the citizens who rely on the court system, a judge should extend respect to all who appear before him/her.
 
Litigants look to the legal system for justice and conflict resolution. The judge is the face of that system. Trust or faith in the system is lost if the judge is unable to uphold these high standards of conduct. I will be an honorable representative of the system. 
 
Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.
 
State v. Eddie Tipton, State v. Robert Rhodes, Dane County Case Nos. 16CF2604, 16CF2605. As lead Cyber Crime prosecutor at the Department of Justice, I represented Wisconsin’s interests in the multi-state lottery fraud perpetrated by Eddie Tipton and his best friend Robert Rhodes. Tipton was a programmer and security expert at the Multi-State Lottery Association in Iowa. He was responsible for creating the software for the random number generator computers used to pick lottery numbers. By installing malicious code into the machines, he was able to predict winning lottery numbers on certain days of the year.
 
In December 2007, Rhodes purchased the winning ticket for the December 29, 2007, WI Megabucks Lottery game worth $2,000,000 by using pre-selected numbers provided by Tipton. Tipton and his conspirators, including his brother, were also responsible for fraudulent lottery wins for millions of dollars in Iowa, Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Coordination between Iowa, Colorado, and Wisconsin was essential to complete the investigation. The machines used in the Wisconsin lottery were recovered and forensically analyzed, and Tipton's code was cracked.
 
I led the entire case from investigation to sentencing, working closely with the Iowa Attorney General to discover the criminal pattern, flip witnesses, and break up the conspiracy. Rhodes pled guilty in Wisconsin and provided testimony against Tipton. Tipton then pled guilty in both Wisconsin and Iowa. The case was the subject of a New York Times Magazine article: Reid Forgrave, The Man Who Cracked the Lottery, New York Times Magazine, May 3, 2018. This case was significant because of the scope of the criminal conspiracy, the amount of loss involved, the technical expertise required to understand the scheme, and, most importantly, the fact that our DOJ team, working with the Wisconsin Lottery, was integral in discovering and stopping the criminal enterprise.
 
State v. Daniel Steffen, Polk County Case No. 21CF67. Steffen, a former Polk and Burnett County prosecutor, was convicted of three counts of Representations Depicting Nudity on April 27, 2023, after a jury trial. Steffen, while an ADA in Burnett County, had an ongoing sexual relationship with a female defendant who was on a deferred prosecution agreement prosecuted by Steffen and his office. The Division of Criminal Investigation got its initial tip and began investigating Steffen for misconduct in early 2020. I drafted multiple warrants for communications and location records and gave advice to our agents throughout the course of the investigation.
 
Upon execution of the final warrants in Steffen's home, investigators discovered videos of Steffen engaged in sex with the female defendant, made without her knowledge. Investigators also uncovered a similar video with a second victim. I first-chaired the trial with one of our junior AAGs. The case was significant because of the extensive warrant work done during the multi-year investigation, my close involvement with the agents in putting the pieces of the communication and location records together, and the impact on the profession of prosecuting an ADA who was exploiting his office for personal gain in arguably the most abusive way possible. 
 
Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.
 
During law school, I was an in-house legal clerk for a national insurance agency. My casework and legal research focused on insurance defense issues. I also clerked at a civil law firm for one semester before joining the firm as an associate for a year. That civil practice involved contract, employment, and personal injury work. Those cases were in circuit court and small claims.
 
Since October 1999, I have been a Wisconsin prosecutor, practicing almost exclusively criminal cases in state circuit courts. I have handled thousands of cases and tried well over 100 jury trials. Early on in my career, my experience was in domestic violence, general felony, gun, felony drug, and violent felony cases. I also spent one year prosecuting termination of parental rights cases, which share many aspects with civil litigation proceedings.
 
As an Assistant Attorney General for 15 years, I prosecuted election fraud, public corruption, felony drug, homicide, and Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) cases. I developed a specialization in ICAC cases and became the lead ICAC resource prosecutor in Wisconsin. I also prosecuted Sexually Violent Persons Commitment cases and then supervised that team. Those cases are quasi-criminal/civil and are litigated in circuit courts.
 
For the past 19 months, I have been an Assistant District Attorney in Fond du Lac County. I have a general criminal caseload, with cases ranging from simple misdemeanors to complex felonies and homicides.
 
I have litigated a handful of criminal appeals cases throughout the course of my career. 
 
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 most challenging aspects of my career as a prosecutor has been handling internet crimes against children (ICAC) cases. These cases are uniquely difficult – not just because of the legal complexities involved, but because of the emotional and psychological toll they take on everyone involved, from investigators to prosecutors to judges.
 
Adversity comes in many forms. First, there is the vicarious trauma – repeatedly reviewing graphic evidence, listening to victims' statements, and working alongside law enforcement officers and analysts who themselves struggle with the weight of these cases. The risk of burnout is high, yet walking away is not an option when justice for vulnerable children is on the line. To manage this, I remained committed to the mission while also implementing safeguards – encouraging peer support, seeking mental health resources, and ensuring that my team and I had the resilience to continue this work effectively.
 
Another challenge was facing judges (or other prosecutors) who were reluctant to impose mandatory minimum sentences for offenders who preyed on children. Some viewed these crimes as less severe than hands-on offenses, failing to grasp the profound harm caused by the creation and distribution of child exploitation material. In those cases, I had to stand firm, advocating forcefully for victims and educating the court on the long-term impact of these crimes. I presented expert testimony, victim impact statements, and legal arguments that underscored why these sentences were necessary – not just as punishment, but as protection for other children at risk. I also successfully defended the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s mandatory minimum sentence for these crimes around the State, and the briefs I developed were used by prosecutors when facing similar motions.
 
Despite the emotional and legal challenges, I never wavered in my commitment to holding offenders accountable. True courage in this work means showing up every day, fighting for justice despite the toll it takes, and ensuring that the most vulnerable members of our society – children – receive the protection they deserve. 
 
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?
 
Impartiality is a core requirement for any judge when presiding over a case. If the judge cannot be an impartial determiner of the facts and applier of the law, then that judge cannot rule on the case. Campaign contributions could potentially result in a judge, in certain circumstances, determining that he/she can no longer be impartial.
 
The Wisconsin Statutes and Code of Judicial Conduct both provide guidance for when a judge can no longer preside over a case. The statutes focus more on a judge’s financial interest in the outcome of that case, while the ethical rules require recusal when the judge makes public statements about the issues in a case or there is reason to question the judge’s ability to remain impartial. Any analysis under these rules, though, must be on a case-by-case basis.
 
I cannot prejudge one way or the other whether a contribution from a donor or indirect supporter would create a conflict. I can promise that I would take this issue seriously and would analyze any potential conflict if it arises. I owe that to the litigants, the public, and the judiciary.
 
As for contribution limits, that is not for a judge to say. I abide by the laws as written and passed by the Legislature, and the rules imposed by the government entities empowered to pass those regulations. If those rules and statutes are Constitutional, they should be respected. 
 
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” in its purest form can only be delivered by God. A judge cannot know what is in a person’s heart or mind. Judges will always be limited by imperfect knowledge, the facts presented to the judge, and the constraints of the law. But to deliver the best justice possible, a judge must ensure that all individuals, whether victim, defendant, litigant, or other party, receive fair and impartial treatment under the law as written. This requires a consistent application of legal principles, commitment to due process, impartiality, and humility.
 
For example, when sentencing a defendant, a judge must consider the seriousness of the offense, the character of the defendant, and the need to protect the public. Where a jury must only evaluate the defendant’s actions in the present, a judge must assess character (an examination of past behavior) and risk to the public (an estimation of future conduct). A judge can only use the evidence and arguments presented to him/her in evaluating these sentencing factors. No judge can see into the soul of a defendant when assessing character, nor can a judge exactly measure a defendant’s risk of recidivism or a desire to change. The range of punishment is defined by the laws written by the Legislature.
 
To mitigate these challenges, judges must approach their role with impartiality, humility and a reverence to the law. If a judge is acting within the law, the judge is not affected by public sentiment or outside influence. If a judge is acting with impartiality and humility, the judge is not affected by bias, prejudice, anger, or other outside perceptions.
 
Judges must give careful consideration to all decisions made in court and ground all decisions in the law and the Constitution. A judge should treat litigants fairly and respectfully and allow them to be heard. 
 
Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.
 
Throughout my prosecution career, I have worked very closely with many prosecutors and law enforcement officers. I have also spent much of my career training prosecutors, law enforcement, and judges and both the state and national levels.
 
Because of this background, I have earned the trust of many officials who know my commitment to public safety and protection of the law. For example, I have the endorsement of Judge Brad Schimel, the former Waukesha District Attorney and Wisconsin Attorney General. He trusts that I will be an exceptional representative for the people of Waukesha County. I also have the endorsements of other District Attorneys like Eric Toney (Fond du Lac), Barry Braatz (Washington), and Sue Opper (Waukesha, retired). They know the contributions I have made to public safety over the past 25 years and trust that I will continue that on the bench.
 
I am also honored to have the endorsement of law enforcement, too. The Waukesha County Police Chiefs’ Association, the Waukesha Deputy Sheriffs Labor Union, and the Milwaukee Police Association all endorse me. Having worked closely with many of these brave men and women over my career, it means a lot to have their trust now. They have made me the choice of law enforcement in this race. 

---