Meet the candidates for Waukesha County Circuit Court Branch 6

In Waukesha County, Zach Wittchow and Fred Strampe vie for an open seat. The election is April 1.

The candidates are listed in the order shown on the Wisconsin Elections Commission's candidate tracking form; the order does not in any way reflect a preference or endorsement by Wisconsin Justice Initiative, which is nonpartisan.

Wittchow is a prosecutor in the Waukesha County District Attorney's Office. He graduated from Marquette University Law School in 2014.

Strampe is an attorney at Borgelt, Powell, Peterson & Frauen in Milwaukee. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1997. His resume is here.

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.

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

Wittchow

Zach Wittchow

Why do you want to become a judge? 
 
As a prosecutor, I have the best job in the world - I fight for crime victims and protect the weak, I work with law enforcement to solve important problems, and I never have to act against my conscience. Leaving this career has not been a decision I’ve made lightly. But it is the right decision, for many reasons.
 
First, I’ve made a long-term commitment to Waukesha County. My wife and I have lived here since 2014. All three of our girls were born in Waukesha, and all three will go to school in Waukesha. So I have a vested interest in making sure Waukesha County remains a safe, prosperous place to live and raise a family. I believe my best chance at accomplishing this goal is to serve as a circuit court judge.
 
Second, I believe those who have demonstrated leadership and professional accomplishment owe a duty of service to their community. There are some counties in Wisconsin where experienced lawyers shy away from the bench, either because it would be a pay cut, or because they simply don’t want to be saddled with the onerous responsibility of fixing the judicial system’s problems. But I believe the judicial system can maximize its positive impact on our community only when qualified lawyers with an authentic connection to their community step up to serve on the bench. I’m running for judge to make sure Waukesha County’s legal issues remain in good hands.
 
Finally, I’m running for judge because I believe strongly in the separation of powers within our state government and the checks and balances that separation provides. As the next generation assumes leadership roles in the executive and legislative branches, as well as in business, philanthropy, and regulatory agencies, it will become increasingly important to have an independent judiciary committed to upholding the Constitution, protecting our rights, and holding people accountable.
 
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’d prefer not to say which case had a positive or negative impact on Wisconsinites, because to do so would signal my approval or disapproval with the policy outcomes of the case.
 
But if we modify the question to instead simply ask which case has had a significant impact (eliminating “positive or negative”) on Wisconsinites, several come to mind. It’s impossible to objectively measure a case’s impact, so here are just a few examples:
 
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled the 2nd Amendment provides an individual right to bear arms for traditionally lawful purposes such as self defense. The case served as a catalyst behind Wisconsin’s 2011 enactment of concealed carry via permit.
 
In Fabick v. Evers, 2021 WI 28, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the governor did not act lawfully when he extended multiple states of emergency, which in turn granted him extraordinary powers by statute. The case was impactful because it represented the court acting as a check against an overreaching executive branch.

Describe your judicial philosophy. 
 
Big picture, my judicial philosophy is one of judicial restraint. Judges should interpret and apply the law, not make it. As a judge, I will remain tethered to the United States and Wisconsin Constitutions. 
 
In daily practice, I will ensure that the parties in my courtroom are treated fairly. But it’s important to keep in mind that fairness cannot be measured in outcomes. Instead, fairness comes from an equal opportunity to pursue justice through a predictable, efficient process, while abiding by predetermined rules that apply evenly to all parties. To that end, I will hold parties accountable to the rules of evidence, the rules of criminal and civil procedure, and to the rules of professional conduct for attorneys.  I will leave legislating to the legislature. I will leave enforcement to the executive branch. I will exercise judicial restraint, and in my courtroom, parties will know their cases will be decided by the letter of the law, not the whim of the judge.

Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.
 
Case #1: The Waukesha Christmas Parade case, Waukesha 2021CF1848.
​On November 21, 2021, a man fleeing from a domestic incident drove through the Waukesha Christmas Parade. He killed six people, injured dozens more, and traumatized thousands of witnesses. The case garnered national attention and sparked a state constitutional amendment to reform Wisconsin’s bail practices.
 
With DA Sue Opper and Deputy DA Lesli Boese, I served on the team that prosecuted that man. We navigated many complex legal issues. From the initial charging decisions to opposing a motion to change the trial venue, we litigated issue after issue, always keeping our goal of securing justice at the forefront of our mindset.
 
The case went to trial in the fall of 2022. I delivered the opening statement and questioned about one third of the witnesses. These included several experts, as well as the attacker’s ex-girlfriend, who was a victim of his domestic violence. I also cross examined several defense witnesses. The jury returned guilty verdicts on all 76 counts. The attacker was sentenced to six consecutive life sentences plus hundreds of years of consecutive confinement.
 
Case #2: rather than naming a specific case, I’ll simply refer to a class of cases I’ve prosecuted under Wis. Stat. s. 940.02(2), Wisconsin’s Len Bias law. These are some of the most complex cases in criminal law in terms of the scope of the investigation and litigation involved. The cases almost always involve nuanced hearsay and confrontation clause issues. They usually feature difficult decisions about cooperators - how much consideration to grant (e. g. a reduction in charges, a lighter sentencing recommendation, etc), to whom (e.g. a co-user or a middle man), and in exchange for what (e.g. information provided to law enforcement, trial testimony, etc).
 
The cases are significant not just for their legal complexity, but for the frequency with which they occur. Over the past ten years it hasn’t been uncommon for Waukesha County to experience nearly, and sometimes more than, 100 drug overdose deaths per year. Clearly this crime trend is here to stay, and given the significant public health and safety issues at play, it will be essential for Circuit Court judges to know how to deal with the legal issues frequent in these types of cases.  
 
Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.
 
Criminal: I have worked for more than 10 years as a prosecutor in Wisconsin. I spent nearly 5 years in the Milwaukee DA’s Office where I was assigned to the drug team, the gun team, and then HIDTA. In 2019 I moved to the Waukesha DA’s Office, where I have handled a general caseload as well as a position within the narcotics team. I have conducted at least 56 jury trials. Most of those were felony cases, with a few misdemeanor OWIs. I have also litigated hundreds of evidentiary motion hearings and argued thousands of sentencing hearings.
 
I do not have significant legal experience as an advocate in civil litigation or administrative proceedings. I have worked several civil asset forfeiture cases, but those have always resolved with the corresponding criminal case.
 
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.
 
I’ve handled a large number of domestic violence cases where the victim’s goals change while the case is pending, often shortly before trial. As a prosecutor, my client is the State of Wisconsin, not any individual victim. With that in mind, I often continue to prosecute the case because I understand that a victim’s short-term and long-term interests can often contradict each other. However, I’ve had to balance the duty I owe to my client with a duty owed to crime victims to treat them with dignity, respect, courtesy, and sensitivity. See Wis. Stat. s. 950.01. 
 
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?
 
No, I wouldn’t support a rule requiring judges/justices to recuse themselves in every case where a party donated or indirectly supported the judge’s election.
 
First, Wisconsin’s judges are elected, and one of the tenets of democracy is the electorate holding accountable those who are elected. When a judge recuses, the judge removes themself from the accountability equation. The better practice is for a judge to remain impartial to the extent possible, and to make the recusal decision based on the specific facts in each case.
 
Second, the most obvious problem with such a rule in practice is the inevitable result that any party who wishes to force a judge off their case could simply make a contribution to that judge’s campaign committee.
 
Last, and most importantly, such a rule would be a significant departure from the recusal rules already in place. I would refer the audience to Wis. Stat. s. 757.19 and SCR 60.04(4). The comment below SCR 60.04(4) is particularly helpful.
 
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.]
 
One obstacle I’d like to highlight here is the lack of attorneys willing to accept State Public Defender appointments. The reasons for this problem are many, and are probably best left to the legislature to resolve. But the shortage has exacted a huge cost in Wisconsin. Indigent defendants have faced delays due to this shortage. Many remain confined, unable to post cash bail. Equally as important is the impact these delays have on victims, who are forced to wait for justice at no fault of their own. 
 
Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.
 
When employers conduct job interviews, they gain valuable insight from applicants’ references. In that same vein, voters may benefit from a list of a candidate’s endorsers. My list is as follows:
 
Waukesha County Circuit Court Judges:
-        Michael O. Bohren, Branch 1
-        Jennifer Dorow, Branch 2
-        Ralph M. Ramirez, Branch 3
-        Lloyd Carter, Branch 4 (retired)
-        J. Arthur Melvin III, Branch 5
-        Brad Schimel, Branch 6
-        Patrick Haughney, Branch 6 (retired)
-        Cody Horlacher, Branch 7
-        Michael P. Maxwell, Branch 8
-        Michael Aprahamian, Branch 9
-        Jack Pitzo, Branch 12
-        Laura Lau, Branch 12 (retired)
 
Wisconsin Court of Appeals:
-        Maria S. Lazar, District II
-        Shelley A. Grogan, District II
 
Law Enforcement:
-        District Attorney Lesli Boese
-        District Attorney Sue Opper (retired)
-        Sheriff Eric Severson
-        Sheriff Arnie Moncada (retired)
-        Sheriff Dan Trawicki (retired)
-        Waukesha Deputy Sheriffs Association
-        Waukesha County Police Chiefs Association
-        Milwaukee Police Association

---

Strampe

Fred Strampe

​Why do you want to become a judge? 
 
My name is Fred Strampe and I am a candidate for Waukesha County Circuit Court Branch 6. Thank you to the Wisconsin Justice Initiative for the opportunity to share more about my background and commitment to public service.

My dedication to serving others began with my appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point, where I learned the importance of integrity, leadership, and accountability. After graduation, I served as an Infantry Officer in the U.S. Army, leading diverse teams and tackling complex challenges. Following my military service, I built a legal career spanning over two decades as a civil litigator, eventually serving as president of my law firm, where I led with a commitment to fairness and excellence in the practice of law. I was later appointed to serve as a Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge, where I presided over more than 600 criminal cases and numerous trials.

In addition to my legal career, I have spent years as a high school football referee right here in Waukesha County, officiating local games and even two WIAA State Championship matchups. Whether on the field or in the courtroom, I know that making the right call requires experience, fairness, and the ability to uphold the rules with integrity.

I’m running to return to the bench because experience matters. Waukesha County deserves a judge who understands the complexities of the law, applies it fairly, and has a proven record of protecting our community. I am also dedicated to establishing the Waukesha County Veterans Treatment Court to ensure that those who have served our country receive the support and resources they need.

If you’d like to learn more about my background and campaign, please visit www.StrampeForJudge.com. If you have any questions or would like to reach out, you may email me at [email protected]

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 believe Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), which Wisconsin adopted through Wis. Stat. § 907.02(1) and Siefert v. Balink, 2017 WI 2, has had a significant impact on the people of Wisconsin—despite many being unaware of its effects. By adopting the Daubert Standard, Wisconsin shifted considerable authority from juries to Circuit Court judges. Under this standard, judges must determine whether an expert’s testimony is reliable before it can be presented in court. While courts emphasize that this does not replace the jury’s role, litigants whose cases are dismissed due to their expert being deemed unreliable would likely disagree.

Although Daubert and Siefert outline multiple factors a court may consider when evaluating expert testimony, the Siefert decision makes it clear that a trial court may apply "some, all, or none" of these factors (¶ 64). Furthermore, Siefert establishes that a judge should not accept expert testimony solely based on an expert’s credentials (¶ 75). However, the decision also notes that an expert’s "personal knowledge and experience" can satisfy the reliability standard (¶ 78). Ultimately, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that a circuit court’s decision to admit or exclude expert testimony will only be reversed if the court abused its discretion (¶ 93).

The standard set in Siefert grants Circuit Court judges tremendous power in cases involving expert testimony. In many trials, at least one party will challenge the opposing side’s expert. Once challenged, the judge has broad discretion to exclude the testimony based on "all, some, or none" of the relevant factors identified in Daubert and Siefert. If a judge finds a plausible reason to exclude the testimony, the decision will likely withstand appeal.

Given this broad authority, the selection of Circuit Court judges is perhaps more consequential than many Wisconsinites realize. The power to admit or exclude expert testimony can have profound effects on the outcome of cases, for better or worse. Many citizens may not be aware of the extent to which these judicial decisions shape case results. Therefore, it is critical that Circuit Court judges approach challenges to expert testimony with careful analysis. Unreliable expert testimony should be excluded, but when testimony is disallowed, judges should provide a clear record explaining their reasoning. This transparency helps the public understand the court’s decision and reinforces confidence in the judicial process.     
 
Describe your judicial philosophy. 
 
The proper role of a Circuit Court Judge is to uphold and enforce the law—not to create new law. The judiciary must remain faithful to the law as written while ensuring its application is fair, impartial, and consistent. Every litigant deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, regardless of the case’s outcome.

While not everyone will leave the courtroom satisfied with the decision, they should leave knowing that they were heard, that the process was fair, and that the law was applied without bias or favoritism. A judge’s responsibility is to ensure justice is administered with integrity, to uphold the rule of law, and to foster confidence in the judicial system. My commitment is to apply the law evenly, respect all parties before the court, and safeguard the fairness and impartiality that justice demands. 
 
Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.
 
Local Government Property Insurance Fund (LGPIF) v. Lexington Insurance Company
I represented the Local Government Property Insurance Fund (LGPIF) in a high-stakes insurance coverage dispute arising from a fire at the Milwaukee County Courthouse in July 2013. LGPIF, which insured Milwaukee County, determined that the fire was a covered loss and paid over $17.4 million in claims. LGPIF then sought reimbursement from its reinsurer, Lexington Insurance Company, under the terms of their reinsurance agreement.

Lexington refused to pay, arguing that the damage resulted from an electrical failure—an excluded cause under the policy. To recover the reinsurance benefits, LGPIF filed suit. Alongside co-counsel Barbara O’Brien, I was responsible for all written discovery, expert retention, depositions, and pre-trial motions. My role focused on assessing the damages sustained at the courthouse and analyzing competing expert opinions on the fire’s cause and its resulting impact. The case was highly complex, involving extensive forensic and engineering testimony. The matterwas ultimately settled just before trial.
​
Holder et al. v. Fraser Shipyards
I represented Capstan Corporation, the owner of Fraser Shipyards, in a major litigation involving four related cases with 70 plaintiffs—shipyard workers alleging exposure to hazardous lead levels while working on the HERBERT C. JACKSON, a Great Lakes freighter owned by Interlake Steamship Company.

The plaintiffs, employees of Fraser Shipyards in Superior, Wisconsin, claimed that lead paint on the vessel was disturbed during renovations and that Fraser, Capstan, and Interlake failed to implement proper safety measures. Many plaintiffs alleged serious health conditions, including traumatic brain injuries, memory and processing issues, and physical injuries from lead exposure.

I assumed representation of Capstan just months before the Holder case was set for trial. My responsibilities included investigating the claims, managing written discovery, conducting depositions, retaining experts, and handling various procedural and discovery motions. I also prepared motions in limine and pre-trial submissions. The Holder case was settled less than a week before trial, and the remaining cases were resolved after extensive discovery.
 
Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.
 
Throughout my career, I have developed extensive experience in both civil and criminal litigation. As a civil litigator for over two decades, I represented clients in complex cases across Wisconsin, handling matters ranging from product liability and environmental contamination to insurance disputes and contract breaches. I have tried cases in both state and federal courts, argued before the Wisconsin appellate courts, and presented cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. My work has involved all aspects of litigation, including written discovery, depositions, motions, trials, and appeals.

On the criminal side, my experience as a Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge gave me a deep understanding of the criminal justice system. I presided over felony and misdemeanor trials, ruled on motions, conducted evidentiary hearings, and sentenced hundreds of defendants. These experiences reinforced my belief in fairness, due process, and ensuring the law is applied consistently.

Additionally, I have handled cases involving administrative proceedings, navigating regulatory and compliance matters that intersect with both civil and criminal law. My broad legal experience gives me a well-rounded perspective on the bench, ensuring that justice is served in every case. 
 
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 April 2023, I lost my election and was required to leave my position as a Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge. The loss was both disappointing and discouraging, as I deeply valued the opportunity to serve the community. However, rather than dwelling on the setback, I took time to reflect on the experience and reaffirm my commitment to Waukesha County. I recognize the importance of having experienced judges who can uphold the rule of law while ensuring that everyone is treated with fairness and respect.

Instead of walking away, I chose to face this challenge head-on. I remained dedicated to my goal of returning to the bench, knowing that my experience and commitment to justice are needed in Waukesha County. My response to this election loss reflects how I approach adversity in all aspects of life—I assess the situation, learn from it, and dedicate myself to overcoming obstacles. My perseverance in this campaign is a testament to my determination, resilience, and commitment to serving the people of Waukesha 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?
 
The Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to recuse themselves in situations where a reasonably informed person knowledgeable about judicial ethics would reasonably question the judge's ability to be impartial. However, this standard lacks sufficient clarity and guidance. The Code of Conduct should be amended to establish more specific criteria for recusal to ensure transparency and public confidence in the judiciary.

I do not support setting a specific dollar amount as a threshold for mandatory recusal. The impact of a contribution varies significantly depending on the level of the court and the overall campaign funding landscape. For example, a $1,000 donation could represent a substantial percentage of contributions in a circuit court race but would be relatively insignificant in a state supreme court election where millions of dollars are spent. A one-size-fits-all approach fails to account for these differences.

Instead, the judicial code should be revised to provide clearer guidelines on when recusal is necessary. This amendment should also include an enforcement mechanism, such as a panel of former judges tasked with evaluating potential conflicts and determining when recusal is warranted. Establishing a more structured and transparent process will help maintain public trust in the fairness and integrity of the judiciary. 
 
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.]
 
I believe true justice is best defined as enforcing the law in a fair and impartial manner, ensuring that all individuals are treated equally under the law. However, judges face several significant obstacles in achieving this goal, with one of the greatest being bias—both conscious and unconscious.

Bias can stem from obvious factors such as race, gender, age, or ethnicity, but it can also be influenced by less apparent factors like clothing, tattoos, socioeconomic status, place of residence, or prior interactions with law enforcement. Regardless of the source, judges must be constantly aware of the potential for bias—both their own and that of others within the justice system—and take steps to ensure that decisions are based on facts and not personal perceptions or stereotypes.

To deliver true justice, judges must ensure that similar conduct by similar parties is treated consistently and fairly. This requires vigilance in identifying situations where individuals may be receiving different treatment under the law, understanding the reasons behind those discrepancies, and actively correcting any unjust disparities. Judges not only have a duty to administer justice impartially but also to ensure that all actors within the justice system—attorneys, law enforcement, and court personnel—are upholding these same principles.

Addressing these challenges requires ongoing judicial education, self-awareness, and a commitment to transparency in decision-making. By fostering a justice system that prioritizes fairness and impartiality, judges can work toward ensuring that true justice is not only served but also recognized and trusted by the public.
 
Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.

Waukesha County has one of the largest veteran populations in Wisconsin—yet we lack a Veterans Treatment Court (VTC). As a West Point graduate, U.S. Army veteran, and former judge, I know firsthand the challenges veterans face, and I’m committed to making this change for Waukesha County.

VTCs divert eligible veterans from the traditional criminal justice system and use evidence-based practices to treat and rehabilitate those struggling with alcohol, drug, or mental health conditions. These courts improve public safety, reduce recidivism, and help veterans regain stability and purpose in their lives.

The trauma associated with military service is undeniable, with veterans facing high rates of PTSD, anxiety, depression, and substance abuse. Tragically, they are almost twice as likely as the general population to die by suicide. I’ve seen firsthand these challenges that our veterans face—both in service and in the justice system. That’s why I’m committed to establishing a VTC in Waukesha County to provide the structure, support, and accountability they deserve.

The election is on April 1, 2025, and I hope to earn your support and your vote. You can learn more about my campaign at strampeforjudge.com

---