Meet the candidates for Winnebago County Circuit Court

In Winnebago County, Judge Teresa Basiliere is not running for reelection. Three candidates vie for the open seat, meaning there is a primary on Tuesday, Feb. 20. 

Eric R. Heywood, currently a Winnebago County Circuit Court commissioner and previously a public defender and prosecutor, received his law degree from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2010. His resume is here. 

Michael D. Rust, currently a Winnebago County Circuit Court commissioner and previously a mediator and practicing attorney, received his law degree from Marquette University Law School in 2006. His curriculum vitae is here.

LaKeisha D. Haase's State Bar of Wisconsin listing states that her employer is "HLG" and that she graduated from Marquette University Law School in 2011.

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 Gov. Evers uses when he is considering judicial appointments. 

Heywood and Rust provided questionnaire responses. Their answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.

Haase did not answer WJI's questionnaire, but WJI's "Evers' judges" post about her is here. She was appointed to Winnebago Circuit Court in December 2020 but did not win reelection in 2022.

Heywood

Eric R. Heywood

Why do you want to become (or retain your position as) a judge?

I am running to be judge in Winnebago County Circuit Court, Branch 1 to make a bigger impact in our community. I grew up here and am raising my daughters here with my wife. I want to keep Winnebago County a safe and stable place to raise a
family.

My first experience in Branch 1 was many years ago at the adoption ceremony when my brother became my legal sibling. I saw that judges have the great honor of building families and helping communities. After working with Habitat for Humanity as an AmeriCorps volunteer before law school, I dedicated my career as an attorney to public service.

I have extensive courtroom experience working as a prosecutor, public defender, and judicial court commissioner. I developed diversion programs, treatment courts, and mental health law resources. I have been selected to train attorneys through over fifty presentations in criminal, mental health, and juvenile law based on my legal expertise. My broad background allows me to see cases from multiple perspectives and make fair decisions.

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.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court addressed the standard to extend an involuntary mental health commitment in Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277. I believe this decision positively impacts the people of Wisconsin.

The D.J.W. decision addresses the stigma that people with mental illness are dangerous. The law does not allow the assumption that an individual with mental illness is dangerous at the start of an involuntary mental health commitment. A separate showing that an individual was recently dangerous must be made in addition to establishing that the individual has a mental illness and is treatable. A mental health commitment allows the government to temporarily intervene with mental health treatment when an individual has been recently dangerous.

Prior to D.J.W., the commitment could be extended without a new showing of dangerousness. Commitments were routinely extended because there were limited ways to refute past dangerousness. This had the effect of equating mental illness with dangerousness.

D.J.W. now requires that courts must find current dangerousness in order to extend a mental health commitment. The decision requires a showing that if treatment were stopped, the individual would become dangerous. This balances government involvement to stop the temporary intervention once the dangerousness has been addressed.

Combating the stigma that mentally ill individuals are dangerous benefits the people of Wisconsin. More individuals would seek mental health treatment without the stigma barrier. Mentally ill individuals in crisis will be more willing to seek help without fear of permanent government involvement in their lives. Our communities function better with an understanding of mental health without stigma.

Describe your judicial philosophy.

I believe the role of a judge is to apply the current law to the individual facts of a case to make impartial decisions that are legal, fair, and consistent. A judge should treat people with fairness, dignity, and respect to maintain trust in the court process. A judge must take the time to learn the specific facts of a case by allowing all parties the opportunity to be heard.

I believe in the rule of law and equal access to justice – that no one is above the requirements of the law and no one is below the protections of the law. My philosophy is judicial minimalism, that judges should apply current law and precedent to the individual facts to resolve the narrow issues in controversy in a case without making a broader decision than necessary.

Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.

As a judicial court commissioner, I presided over a case where the defendant was accused of killing his parents. I set bond after considering the defendant’s connection to the area, flight risk, and protection of the public. I heard evidence presented at the preliminary examination and ruled on legal objections before making a probable cause bind-over decision in the case.

As a prosecutor, I worked on scene at the investigation of a drug delivery homicide. A young woman overdosed on heroin the night she was released from jail after serving a drug possession sentence. After consulting with law enforcement at the death scene, I drafted search warrants and preservation requests to obtain evidence for prosecution. The investigation led to the federal prosecution of a heroin drug delivery ring with multiples defendants. The case showed me the importance of keeping dangerous drugs like heroin and fentanyl out of our community. The overdose death taught me that courts need more tools in addition to incarceration to address addiction and relapse.

Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.

As an attorney, I handled more than three thousand cases, including over twenty jury trials and hundreds of court trials. I gained experience in criminal and civil litigation when I was a prosecutor, public defender, and public interest attorney. My litigation experience includes motion practice, evidentiary hearings, and trials in criminal, juvenile, family, mental health, guardianship, traffic, eviction, small claims, asset forfeiture, and restitution matters.

In administrative proceedings, I litigated over fifty criminal revocation hearings before Administrative Law Judges with the Division of Hearings and Appeals. I have also litigated administrative hearings for mental health commitment transfers with the Department of Health Services.

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.

When I was a public defender, I represented individuals regardless of wealth when their liberty was at stake. This included representing individuals facing involuntary mental health commitment. I recall an instance where I represented an individual who wanted to make voluntary treatment decisions on her own instead of extending her involuntary mental health commitment. My duty as counsel for the individual was to zealously represent her choices and liberty interest.

I faced opposition encouraging me to act contrary to the individual’s choice and instead insert my opinion about her best interest. However, I exhibited courage to adhere to my duty to zealously represent the individual’s choice and litigate the matter. The Court of Appeals reviewed the commitment decision, clarified the required level of evidence to extend a commitment, and reversed the commitment.

To assist other attorneys facing similar situations, the public defender’s office selected me for a new role as mental health practice coordinator. I developed online resources, provided training, and engaged in outreach about mental health law.

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? 

To connect with the community during an election, a judge often relies on the combined support from others for community outreach. Other individuals are free to donate their money, resources, or time to support a candidate. It is important that judicial candidates follow the campaign finance requirements to report money and resource contributions. This open reporting maintains public trust in the transparency of elections and elected officials.

Wisconsin law presumes judges can remain impartial. Judges must recuse themselves under circumstances listed by the Wisconsin Statutes and the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules. Judges must also recuse themselves when there is a reasonable appearance that the judge cannot act impartially in a matter. The parties may waive the disqualification after disclosure of the issue.

Disclosure of a donation of money or other resources assists the judge to remain impartial and allows the parties to address recusal. I do not believe every case involving a donor necessitates recusal. The judge must analyze recusal on a case-by-case basis and disclose the factors to the parties. Judges should ensure any donations comply with campaign finance requirements. Judges must recuse themselves when they have a financial interest in the outcome.

What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them?

True justice means all individuals would be treated fairly and equitably in court. Judges must ensure no one is above the requirements of the law and no one is below the protections of the law. This begins with access to counsel, which faces the obstacle of delays in appointed counsel. Defendants, victims, and communities suffer when there are delays in cases. Courts, the legislature, and state agencies should work to ensure timely appointment of counsel.

A judge should explain the decisions made in court so individuals feel heard and know the judge considered the facts presented. A judge should help the parties understand the process of how the judge applied the law to the facts to reach a fair result.

True justice means avoiding bias or prejudice in decisions. Judges should use evidence-based decision making and risk assessment to make fair decisions. Judges should consider additional tools like bond monitoring programs and treatment courts for just outcomes.

Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.

My qualifications to be judge come from the experience I gained from my choice to always work in public service for our community. My decisions from the bench would be based on that same commitment. The retiring Branch 1 judge, the Honorable Teresa Basiliere, endorsed me for her position.

Rust

Michael D. Rust

Why do you want to become (or retain your position as) a judge?
 
The focus of my legal career has been on helping people resolve conflicts. I started out as a litigator, but switched to mediation in order to help people resolve more conflicts. In mediation, mediators try to help parties resolve their own disputes without needing to use the Courts. However, mediation cannot resolve every conflict.
 
About two years ago, I made the decision to move on with my conflict resolution career and became a court commissioner. Many attorneys and parties who have practiced in front of me have commented about the thoughtful and respectful approach that he brings to the bench.
 
Now, the people of Winnebago County have the opportunity to bring those same skills and same attitude to the role of a judge. In this new role, I will still be helping people to resolve conflicts, just in a different way.
 
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.
 
As a trial court judge (or as a candidate for that position), it is not our role to challenge the decisions of appellate courts. That creates anarchy and distrust of the court system.
 
To be clear, there are decisions that I have disagreed with. There are decisions that I personally believe were decided for political reasons and not based on law or the facts of the case.
 
However, my personal beliefs are not why I am running for judge. The more that judges take political positions or want to use the role of judge to make change in our community, the more that public trust in the judiciary erodes. I am running to be a judge that will be neutral and not legislate from the bench.
 
Describe your judicial philosophy.
 
Trial courts do not make the law or policy. It is the role of the trial court to act as a neutral to apply the law to the facts of the individual case.
 
Sometimes called judicial minimalism or judicial restraint, I believe this judicial philosophy is most respectful to the American system of government. It is the role of the legislature, not the judiciary, to make and change the laws.
 
Trial court judges should not be placing their "thumb on the scale" to make change in our community. Judges must be neutral and apply the law as it was written by the legislature and approved by the Governor or President.
 
Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.
 
Every case is the most significant case. It is the most significant case to the litigants and the victims.
 
My experience as a mediator and circuit court commissioner highlights my ability to treat every case that is in front of me as the most significant case. Whether a mediation about a $17 landscaping bill, a multi-million dollar business dissolution, an underage drinking ticket, or a minor guardianship in the aftermath of a murder-suicide, every case and every person in the case must be treated with the same respect and dignity.
 
I will listen to the victims, the witnesses, the parties, the experts, and the attorneys to determine the facts of the case in a neutral manner. I will then apply those facts to the law created by the legislative process.
 
Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.
 
Judges are not advocates. The skills of advocacy are not the same as the skills of neutral decision makers. To paraphrase a late comedian, farming and cooking both have to do with food, but the skills of a master chef do not make for a good farmer.
 
I have served as a civil litigation attorney and done court trials in both state and federal courts as well as jury trials in state courts. I have mediated disputes throughout the United States and have provided professional training internationally.
 
I have personally mediated over 2,500 cases with a very high success rate in every area of law. I have overseen the mediation of roughly 5,000 additional cases as well. I served as one of only two dozen mediators for the Wisconsin Special Education Mediation System, and also served as one of the three co-leaders of that organization.
 
My experience in working in litigation proceedings led the State Bar of Wisconsin to award me the 2022 Lifetime Legal Innovator Award.
 
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.
 
Unfortunately, instances of challenge do come up in the professional arena. This is again where my experience in conflict resolution and listening can be, and has been, essential in effectively handling the situation. I will share a brief story to illustrate my point.
 
On one occasion, I was holding a trial on a restraining order (order of protection). This was a delicate situation as the parties were also in the midst of a divorce, criminal proceedings, and civil litigation as well. As the testimony and objections were being offered, argued, and ruled upon, one party became so frustrated that they approached the other party’s table in an aggressive manner. The other party took the opportunity to ask additional questions to antagonize. A sheriff’s deputy was on the way to intervene, but I was able to redirect the situation solely by talking to the parties. No violence ensued. No additional aggression took place in the courtroom. By directly engaging in a conversation with the aggressor, I was able to deescalate the situation and we were able to finish the trial. My calm, assertive, and respectful demeanor was enough to make that happen. (And both parties even apologized to me at a later hearing and thanked me for how I handled the scenario.)
 
I have the skills to treat people with compassion and respect, even when they are not doing the same to me.
 
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?
 
There are laws and ethics rules in Wisconsin that require recusal by judges. I have been an international trainer on professional ethics for over 12 years. I believe that it is essential that judges and attorneys apply the ethical rules consistently and transparently.
 
I do think that direct and indirect campaign support can cause concerns about bias with a judge. I will be transparent about these situations and will take requests for recusal seriously. I will faithfully apply the ethics rules.
 
I have shown my commitment to legal ethics through my appointment by the Wisconsin Supreme Court to serve on the Board of Administrative Oversight of the Office of Lawyer Regulation, where I continue to serve today.
 
What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them? 
 
One of the greatest obstacles is the public’s lack of faith and trust in the judiciary. Because candidates for judicial office and judges have become so vocally political and want to bring change through “legislating from the bench”, the litigants do not believe that they are receiving a fair trial or that the judge has actually listened to them before ruling on the case. This will not be me.
 
Also, the frustration that I see from parties when they come to court, only to be told that they need to go to a different court for this issue, and another court for that issue, is palpable. I believe there are opportunities to work with stakeholders to develop a more comprehensive approach to the legal issues facing victims and families.
 
For instance, a scenario where a married couple has a physical altercation that leads to a divorce filing. The same parties may be in court with 4 or more different judicial officers based on the same scenario. (E.g. criminal court for the physical altercation, restraining order based on the physical altercation, eviction due to the disturbance the altercation created, and family court for divorce - with the possibility for more depending on exact circumstances.) With or without attorneys, it can be overwhelming and frustrating for parties and victims to be told that their concerns cannot be addressed in one proceeding, they need to wait for a different hearing.
 
When you add this frustration to the lack of faith in an impartial judiciary, being able to deliver true justice to the parties is difficult - but not impossible.
 
Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.
 
Neutrality is a cornerstone of why I am running for judge, but neutrality does not mean that I do not care about the community. I have been actively working to make positive change in Winnebago County for years, through community action and service.
 
I am a proud member of the Rotary Club of Oshkosh and was elected to be their President in 2019-2020. I served on the Board of Directors of the Oshkosh Area United Way and was elected to serve as Board Chair as well. I am the Founder and Co-Producer of TEDxOshkosh that puts on a TED-style conference about Ideas Worth Sharing from the local community to the world through the TED platform. I serve on the Core Team of the Oshkosh Civility Project.
 
In the professional arena, I was selected to the National Academy of Distinguished Neutrals (I did resign from that honor when taking the bench as court commissioner). I am a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation. I served as Section Chair for the Dispute Resolution Section of the State Bar of Wisconsin, President of the Wisconsin Association of Mediators, and as International President of the Association for Conflict Resolution. I was also Founding Co-Chair of the Civil Legal Aid Alliance of Wisconsin.
 
I am a proud father of three amazing kids and we all adore our rescue aussiedoodle, Coco.