 By Alexandria Staubach
The Wisconsin Supreme Court in mid-February heard oral arguments in four cases and issued numerous orders, including denial of a petition to skip the Wisconsin Court of Appeals regarding Dane County Circuit Judge Jacob Frost’s decision invalidating part of the public union collective bargaining law known as Act 10. The Court heard arguments in two civil cases and two criminal cases. Here’s the recap. State v. Luis A. Ramirez The Supreme Court’s many former prosecutors grilled counsel for Luis Ramirez about what constitutes a permissible delay on the part of the state and court system. Jennifer Lohr, Ramirez’s attorney, responded that the delay in Ramirez’s case was four times the minimum for presumed prejudice against a defendant. “It is the government’s duty to keep the justice system moving,” Lohr argued. The Court of Appeals found that the state acted with “cavalier disregard” for Ramirez’s constitutional right to a speedy trial. The state offered explanations for its many adjournments. Its counsel, John D. Flynn, argued that Ramirez was incarcerated on another conviction while the case was pending and that he only ever asked for a speedy trial without the assistance of counsel. The bulk of the court’s questioning centered on the meager circuit court record when it was rescheduling trial dates, but there were also differing views about the duration of delays, even if the delays were explainable. On one hand, Justice Janet Protasiewicz recalled her time as a prosecutor and said that in Ramirez’s case “the facts seem relatively simple” and should not have required much preparation to take to trial. Justice Jill Karofsky, on the other hand, recalled her time on the bench to say “the state did exactly what it should do” and that “for everyone one of the continuances for trial, there is a reason for it.” “What prejudice did your client suffer?” asked Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley. “He was going to be in prison for a very long time, his liberty interest was not even implicated,” she said. Lohr argued that the sheer duration of delay was sufficient to demonstrate prejudice to Ramirez. Ramirez, who was serving a prison sentence, was charged with battery after allegedly assaulting a correctional officer. Over the following 46 months, Ramirez saw his trial rescheduled several times, for reasons that included a prosecutor’s retirement, a courthouse remodel, scheduling conflicts, and his own pro se motions. “Pro se” representation occurs when a defendant represents himself without counsel. Columbia County Circuit Court Judge W. Andrew Voight had ruled that despite the many delays, Ramirez’s right to a speedy trial was not violated. Voight found that Ramirez’s motions, including for discovery and change of venue, were inconsistent with his expressed desire for a speedy trial. The Court of Appeals overruled Voight’s decision, stating that that while some of the delay was justified, the state acted in “cavalier disregard” for Ramirez’s right to a speedy trial. “What would you have us do with the words ‘cavalierly disregard’?” asked Justice Rebecca Dallet. “Cavalierly disregard them,” joked Karofsky in response. Dallet signaled where the court might land in its opinion, asking Flynn his thoughts on “something that was more like we focus on what the reasons for the delay are and we don’t require, as no case has required, that someone gave reasons for the length of time it took to reschedule the trial.” “I’d be perfectly happy with that,” said Flynn, smiling and then yielding the rest of his time on rebuttal. Scot Van Oudenhoven v. Wisconsin Department of Justice The Wisconsin Court of Appeals over the summer upheld the denial of Scot Van Oudenhoven’s handgun purchase application based on a previous misdemeanor domestic violence conviction that was expunged under Wisconsin law. Van Oudenhoven then took his case to the Supreme Court. In oral arguments, justices grappled with every aspect of the case. Justices Janet Protasiewicz and Jill Karofsky were passionate in their concern over whether the underlying expungement was valid in the first place, revisiting time and again Van Oudenhoven’s date of birth and date of conviction. Current state law permits expungement of an offense with a penalty of six years or less if it was not a violent felony and the defendant was under age 25, had no prior felony record, and requested expungement at the time of sentencing. At the time of Van Oudenhoven’s conviction in 1994, the age was 21, said Karofsky. She pointed out that she was at that time a prosecutor for crimes of domestic violence. Justices and parties discussed how Van Oudenhoven was older than 21 at the time of conviction and did not request expungement at sentencing. “If it were an illegal expungement, is it void?” asked Karofsky at the outset of oral arguments. Justice Brian Hagedorn grappled with the different meanings of expungement among the 50 states. At issue was whether a federal statute permitting a defendant whose criminal record has been “expunged or set aside” to obtain a handgun, covers defendants who have had their criminal records expunged in Wisconsin. Attorney Brian P. Keenan from the Wisconsin Department of Justice opposed Van Oudenhoven’s petition. He emphasized that under federal law, “all effects” of conviction must be erased. In Wisconsin, expungement only affects the court and public’s record of the crime, he said. “Here it just means that the record has been removed from the court files,” Keenan argued. “The conviction itself has not actually been expunged from anything,” he said. The court grappled with what Congress intended when including expunged crimes in the law providing restoration of firearms rights. Hagedorn cited a variety of sources, including legal website Justia Law and Black’s Law Dictionary, to say that “expungement” means something different in effectively every state. “It makes imminent sense to me,” said Hagedorn, that the Legislature used expungement to mean however a state defines expungement, as the converse effect would be that the law is “absolutely irrelevant.” Justice Rebecca Dallet asked Keenan whether the DOJ’s best argument was whether “the plain text of the statute is that the conviction actually needs to be expunged.” Keenan replied “yes.” There appeared to be no consensus among the justices regarding whether and to what extent “expungement” under Wisconsin law has the same meaning as in the federal statute. Service Employees International Union Healthcare Wisconsin v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission Oral argument in this case concerned whether the Wisconsin Employment Peace Act applies to the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Authority (UWHCA) and gives its employees collective bargaining rights notwithstanding the public union collective bargaining law known as Act 10. UWHCA was originally included under the Peace Act in 1996, but was later removed. In a case brought by UW healthcare workers, the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission and Dane County Circuit Judge Jacob Frost concluded that the Legislature’s statutory changes in Act 10 reflected a clear intent to exclude UWHCA from the Peace Act, meaning that its employees no longer have collective bargaining rights. The Supreme Court took the case directly, bypassing the Court of Appeals. The justices and parties focused on legislative intent to include or exclude UW healthcare workers when it enacted Act 10, with a new twist: asking the Supreme Court to ignore what the Legislature may have intended at the time of enactment (originalism) and instead focusing on the plain language of the law. UW healthcare workers brought a previous case in federal court and were unsuccessful. This time, they argued that they should never have been covered by Act 10 because they are closer to private employees than public employees. “There is an element of all of this that I must confess feels a little bit like the emperor’s new clothes, where everyone has a firm grasp on reality until a new tailor comes to town and says I’m going make you a garment that only the most sophisticated people can see,” argued attorney James Goldschmidt on behalf of UWHCA, which opposed the employees’ petition. Hagedorn was vocal during oral arguments and from the start asserted that the employees’ interpretation of law was “contrary to what all our cases say, at least in the last 20 years.” Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley also voiced opposition, saying “what your argument is asking this court to do, is back track off at least two decades of recent precedent.” Justices Rebecca Dallet and Ann Walsh Bradley were more open to the argument, but even Walsh Bradley told the employees’ counsel that the “legislative history is so strong here that if applied here your clients lose.” State v. Carl Lee McAdory WJI has been following this case since the summer of 2023. The case finally made it to a hearing in the Supreme Court. In Carl Lee McAdory’s case, a Rock County Circuit Court judge disregarded an appeals court order for a new trial and instead sentenced McAdory on a charge that had previously been dismissed. Prior coverage is here and here. McAdory was charged with eighth-offense operating under the influence (OWI) and eighth-offense operating with a restricted controlled substance (RCS). Blood testing showed he had cocaine and marijuana in his system when arrested. A jury found him guilty on both counts. OWI requires a showing that drugs in McAdory's system impaired his driving. RCS law makes it illegal to drive with any detectable drug in the blood, whether or not it affects the person's driving ability. Because Wisconsin law says McAdory could only be sentenced on one of the counts arising from the same conduct, the prosecutor moved to dismiss the RCS charge. The court sentenced McAdory on the OWI count. Typically, when a court dismisses a count, it cannot be retried or revived. And in McAdory’s case there was no argument that the circuit court’s dismissal was without prejudice—a legal mechanism which would permit the count’s resurrection. McAdory appealed his OWI conviction. The Court of Appeals held that the state repeatedly misled the jury about what the state had to prove for conviction on the OWI charge. The appeals court remanded with an order for a new trial. However, McAdory did not get a new trial on remand. Instead, the prosecution asked Judge Karl Hanson to revive the dismissed RCS count and sentence McAdory on that charge, which Hanson did. During oral arguments in the Supreme Court, the justices and the state’s attorney wrestled with whether McAdory and other defendants could receive a windfall for what was characterized by the state as a mistake. The state could have asked the circuit court to dismiss the more difficult to prove OWI charge and for a sentence on the RCS charge. That could have avoided grounds for appeal, as McAdory’s appeal hinged on the state’s failure to prove the drugs his system in fact impaired his driving. The state is asking the court to “rescue it from strategic decision-making gone awry,” argued McAdory’s attorney, Olivia Garman. “While the parties disagree on just about everything in this case, there’s one thing we can agree on, that the procedural history that got us here should never happen again,” argued John W. Kellis on behalf of the state in asking the court for guidance in a muddy area of law. Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Brian Hagedorn floated the idea of crafting an opinion that would instruct the lower court to dismiss one count, consistent with the statute, but without prejudice, which the law is currently silent about. Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradly suggested entering convictions on both counts but sentencing on only one.
0 Comments
 Lubar Center Director Derek Mosley (L) interviews Judge Brad Schimel (R) on Tuesday, Feb. 18, 2025, at Marquette University Law School. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Margo Kirchner Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel told a crowd straight out that he’s an originalist and that the “judicial branch was always intended to be the weakest.” In seeming contradiction, he also said that a judge should keep an open mind until all evidence and arguments are in. The remarks were made at a “Get to Know” forum held Tuesday afternoon by the Lubar Center at Marquette University Law School, hosted by Director Derek Mosley. A recording of the one-hour forum is available. Schimel, a Waukesha County Circuit Court judge, is competing with Dane County Circuit Court Judge Susan Crawford for an open seat on the Supreme Court created by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley’s retirement. Schimel said that running for the Supreme Court was not in his plans until the 2023 election campaign, during which time now-Justice Janet Protasiewicz’s comments while campaigning suggested in advance how she would rule. That campaign led him to run. Schimel said that “you have to commit as a jurist to have an open mind” and that “if you can’t make that commitment, you have no business putting that black robe on.” He said he would bring back objectivity: “no more prejudging stuff. Judges must set aside all the political noise to judge the cases before them, he said, adding “It’s liberating.” Originalism means the interpretation of a constitution or law in a way that jurists today believe the writers of the document meant when they wrote and passed it—in other words, its perceived original meaning. Three other Supreme Court justices have expressed their belief in originalism, meaning that Schimel's election to the court would make that a majority view. When pressed on originalism by an audience member who asked why Schimel thinks “the Founders had all this knowledge” that does not change over time, Schimel remarked that “the Constitution has to be an enduring document.” As for his judicial philosophy, in addition to being an originalist, he is a judicial conservative, which he said differs from a political conservative. He would “apply the law as written,” he said. He discussed how evictions are tough cases for him as a judge, but “it’s a contract” and “you don’t get to put your thumb on a scale,” he said. “It’s the law and you have to apply it.” An audience member asked Schimel what role he thought the government should have in a woman’s reproductive health. She prefaced her question with a statement that she is afraid of Schimel becoming justice because after she was the victim of a sexual assault, she feared an unplanned pregnancy. He responded that his children were unplanned pregnancies, which allowed his wife and him the ability to adopt them, and that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision put the decision in the hands of the people. “The body in control of this issue is the voters of Wisconsin,” he said, and told the woman he had no reason to fear him. “Judges and justices are disconnected” and do not make policy, he said in response to a question about lack of voter ability to change the law with “rigged” legislative districts. When asked about outside influence in the race to his benefit, in particular advertisement money and endorsements from Elon Musk, Schimel said he welcomed anyone who helps to get his message out but that he is “not running on anybody’s agenda.” “I can’t do anything to stop the money” coming in, he said. He referenced outside money supporting his opponent, too, from George Soros and the Illinois governor, and that “you can’t be for sale.” Schimel discussed his childhood and education, his work in a prosecutor clinic during law school, his first job in the district attorney’s office in Waukesha, and his eventual positions as district attorney, state attorney general, then judge. He said that “running for office is about making friends.” “I like that,” he added. Schimel’s term on the Waukesha County Circuit Court ends July 31, 2025, so if he loses the supreme court race he is out of the courts, which he noted at the forum. In response to Mosley’s questions about Schimel's proudest accomplishments, Schimel mentioned his work as DA in building a child advocacy center in Waukesha to help child victims and their families; his work as attorney general in developing a successful drug take-back program, an office of school safety, and a chaplain program for law enforcement; and as judge presiding over a drug treatment court. Treatment courts, which address underlying causes of crime and help those who are struggling to succeed, “are one of the best things we’ve ever done,” he said. Schimel noted that throughout his career he has learned that things are not black and white—most things are grey. He said that in criminal cases in the trial court the judge is the least powerful person in the room, as the prosecutor holds the power, until sentencing. When asked about what needs to change in the justice system, Schimel pointed to the need for more defense attorneys because defendants are waiting too long in custody awaiting appointment of counsel. He also would like people to pay more attention to the judicial system, especially by voting in the April judicial elections. An audience member asked how he reconciled wanting voters to pay attention with his prior statement that the judiciary by design is the weakest branch of government. Schimel said that the weakness comes from the Founders’ documents and that he saw no inconsistency in the statements. He did, however, indicate that the courts do have a role in deciding what executive powers are legitimate. Immediately following the event, a handful of reporters sought to talk with Schimel, but his campaign staffer said he was on a schedule and could not stay. The staffer said reporters should email him, but one reporter said he had tried that three times with no response from the staffer.
By Margo Kirchner
Voters in Jefferson County will not see a circuit court race on their primary ballots tomorrow, even though three candidates submitted a sufficient number of nomination signatures. Just prior to the printing of primary ballots, a judge ruled that candidate Cortney Iverson was not constitutionally eligible and struck her name from the ballot. Dane County Circuit Judge Stephen E. Ehlke found that Iverson has not been an attorney long enough to be elected judge in the spring 2025 elections. The Wisconsin Constitution provides that to be eligible for judicial office at the circuit court or higher levels, a person must be an attorney licensed to practice law in Wisconsin for at least five years “immediately prior to election or appointment.” Iverson was admitted to practice in Wisconsin in May 2020. She argued to the Wisconsin Elections Commission that because the term of office for circuit judge starts Aug. 1, she would meet the five-year requirement by the time she started the job. The Wisconsin Elections Commission certified her as a candidate even after challenges by the two other candidates in the race. Ehlke disagreed. He found that the key date for meeting the five-year requirement is the date of the election, and Iverson will have practiced for less than the required time on Feb. 18 (the primary) as well as April 1 (the general election). “Words and phrases are to be given their common and ordinary meaning and ‘election’ is, I think, a pretty well understood word no matter what dictionary you use . . . . It’s not assuming office, it’s the election,” he said during a hearing in the case. In his oral ruling, Ehlke found “there’s no question that this candidate is ineligible” and that Iverson “can’t cure that in any way, shape, or form because the five-year anniversary will occur in May after either the primary or the general election.” The “constitutional provision is quite clear that you have to have been licensed as an attorney for at least five years prior to the election. And election is either the primary or the general election in April. It is not when the person who has been elected then later assumes the office. Those are two distinct things,” he said. Ehlke ordered the elections commission to drop Iverson’s name and generate a new certified list of candidates for the primary and spring elections. He also barred the Jefferson County clerk from issuing any ballots to voters with Iverson’s name on it. Iverson sought to challenge Branch 2 incumbent Theresa Beck, who was recently appointed by Gov. Tony Evers. Jennifer Weber has been certified as a candidate to challenge Beck for Branch 2. Because just two candidates remain, they will appear on the April 1 ballot without a primary on Feb. 18.  By Margo Kirchner
Twenty-three organizations took out a full-page advertisement in Wednesday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel calling for voters to protect the Wisconsin Constitution by rejecting a proposed amendment on April 1 ballots. Wisconsin Justice Initiative and Wisconsin Justice Initiative Action joined the letter, together with other organizations committed to democracy and voter rights. Wisconsin Democracy Campaign spearheaded the group effort. “The fact that 23 organizations from across Wisconsin have come together on this issue speaks volumes," Wisconsin Democracy Campaign Executive Director Nick Ramos told WJI following publication of the ad. "We may come from different backgrounds and areas of focus, but we are united in our commitment to protecting democracy and ensuring that our constitution serves the people—not political interests. This kind of broad, collective action is exactly what Wisconsin needs to push back against attempts to undermine our rights and instead build a government that truly represents all of us,” Ramos said. The April ballot question will ask voters to enshrine in the Wisconsin Constitution the strict voter identification requirements that already are part of state statutory law. The letter first urges voters “to oppose this amendment and vote no, not just because of its content, but also because of the troubling precedent it sets” regarding the state’s most important governing document. “The Wisconsin Constitution is a foundational framework, meant to protect and reflect the shared values of our state. It is not, and should not be, a tool for political gamesmanship,” the organizations wrote. “Yet, in recent years, we have seen an alarming trend of constitutional amendments being rushed to the ballot—like a team coming to Lambeau Field and running a trick play on every down—to exploit the rules instead of respecting the spirit of the game. Our lawmakers, regardless of political party, should always create bills through meaningful public debate and bipartisan collaboration.” Proposed constitutional amendments must be approved by the Legislature during two consecutive legislative sessions. They then go to voters at an election the Legislature chooses. The April proposed amendment was quickly passed along party lines at the start of the current legislative session in January and placed on the first possible election date allowed by state statutes. The group letter also criticizes the content of the amendment itself. Wisconsin’s voter ID laws are some of the strictest in the nation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Placing them in the constitution will make it significantly more difficult to reverse course in the future. The amendment would affect voting rights for years and decades to come. “Amendments to the constitution should strengthen our democracy, solve real problems, and uplift all Wisconsinites—not erode democratic norms or serve narrow political interests. Unfortunately, the proposed voter ID amendment on the April ballot is another example of how our constitution is being used not to help but to hinder our interests,” the letter said. “(I)t risks creating more barriers for voters, especially for those who already face challenges in making their voices heard.” “(L)et us reject attempts to misuse our most sacred governing document for political advantage, staying true to the principles that make Wisconsin a model for effective, inclusive democracy,” the organizations wrote. The group asked legislators and readers to make Wisconsin “a state where our constitution is used to advance democracy, not undermine it. Inspired by the Wisconsin Idea, let us ensure our constitution and laws reflect the values and aspirations of all Wisconsinites, informed by fairness, research, and a commitment to the public good.” The writers pointed to Gov. Tony Evers’ recently proposed constitutional change to permit citizen-led amendments as a subject worthy of consideration, in comparison to the April proposed amendment. “We call on voters to reject amendments that limit their rights until they are empowered with the tools and power to advance their own reforms and champion amendments that truly strengthen our democracy,” they wrote. “Wisconsin deserves better. Let’s stop changing our constitution for political gain and start using it to make our state stronger, fairer, and more inclusive,” they concluded. By Alexandria Staubach Wisconsin Court of Appeals District 2 last week reversed Wisconsin Supreme Court hopeful and Waukesha Circuit Court Judge Brad Schimel’s decision siding with Elmbrook School Board leaders on open meeting violation allegations. Elmbrook School Board members Scott Wheeler and Jean Lambert face fines after the three-judge panel unanimously ruled in favor of plaintiff Leanne Wied.  Gundrum Presiding Judge Mark D. Gundrum wrote for the panel, joined by Judges Shelly A. Grogan and Maria S. Lazar.
The appeals court found that the school board operated under a “cloak of secrecy” in filling a vacant school board seat during COVID. Gundrum characterized the case as “an excellent example of the real-world impact of failing to adhere to open meetings law requirements.” In 2020, the school board sought to fill a vacancy during a meeting held by Zoom during the pandemic. Four candidates, including Mushir Hassan and Wied, vied for the job. During the meeting, Wheeler asked each board member to rank their first and second choices by email and send him their preferences. The email votes did not constitute formal votes but were intended to narrow the field, Wheeler said. According to Gundrum's opinion, no candidate received enough votes to be the first choice of four or more of the candidates. Nevertheless, Wheeler presented Hassan and Wied as the candidates for the board to consider. He did not announce or subsequently volunteer the results of the email vote. Ultimately the board was deadlocked three to three. Wheeler consistently voted for Hassan. On a third vote between Hassan and Wied, board member Glen Alliger, who had previously voted for Wied, switched his vote to Hassan. Before receiving all votes, Wheeler announced “We’ve got four votes for Mushir (Hassan) and two votes for Leanne (Wied),” which Wheeler said constituted a “consensus.” In fact, another member had also switched, but from Hassan to Wied, so the board was still deadlocked three to three. Wheeler then called for a formal vote, which Hassan won with five votes and one member abstaining. At no point were the results of any email votes read aloud or published in the online meeting to the entirety of the board or the public. Further, Wheeler never corrected the email vote tally, which after the meeting he characterized as an oversight. The actual numbers were disclosed only through subsequent open records requests, which produced the emails. Wied sued Wheeler and Lambert, alleging violations of the open meeting laws and another claim against the school district. Schimel sided with the defendants in circuit court. The court of appeals found that Schimel incorrectly removed Wied as the plaintiff because she had a “personal interest” in the case after having initiated a different suit against the district. Schimel also had found that Wheeler and Lambert’s actions did not constitute an “intent to hide something.” In reversing, the appeals court wrote that “Board members sharing their preferences with Wheeler in a manner that hid the same from the public and other board members was concealment that was initiated and invited by board president Wheeler.” Gundrum wrote that “the secrecy of Wheeler’s process allowed him to erroneously announce his own preferred candidate, Hassan, as having received four email preferences to advance for the subsequent up-or-down vote, and no one was in a position—at the time when it mattered, as opposed to after Hassan had already been selected, voted on, and seated as a new board member—to monitor the process.” Wheeler and Lambert remain on the Elmbrook school board with terms expiring in April 2026 and April 2027, respectively. Hassan's term ended in 2024. By Alexandria Staubach and Margo Kirchner Gov. Tony Evers has appointed significantly more women and people of color as judges than his predecessor did, shifting the makeup of Wisconsin’s judiciary. Of Evers’ 66 judicial appointments through 2024, 25 (38%) are persons of color and 36 (55%) are women. Among the appointments are Black, Indigenous, Latin, and Asian individuals. Evers’ appointments seem to show a concerted effort to provide litigants with state judges who are more representative of the state’s overall demographics than was previously the case. To achieve a more diverse bench, Evers in 2019 created a diverse Judicial Selection Advisory Committee, responsible for interviewing and recommending candidates for him to consider when he fills vacancies. Evers placed individuals from different backgrounds on the selection committee. Committee member Craig Mastantuono recently told WJI that Evers joined the committee at its first meeting and told them that judicial appointments were not to be rewards for donors or the politically connected. “I really think that says something about this governor,” he said. “It was very important to the governor to achieve a higher level of competency and diversity in the courts," Mastantuono said. The committee comprises 15 attorneys from different heritages, practice areas, and locations around the state. Mastantuono is first-generation Mexican on his mother’s side, a former officer of the Wisconsin Hispanic Lawyers’ Association, and a criminal defense attorney in Milwaukee. He has been on the committee during both of Evers’ terms. Other former and current committee members have come from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds. As for practice areas, current members include a retired circuit court judge, a deputy corporation counsel, a district attorney, a retired public defender, a University of Wisconsin Law School professor, an in-house corporate attorney, and law firm attorneys. They hail from New Richmond, Wausau, Neenah, Appleton, and Trempealeau and Portage counties, as well as the Milwaukee and Madison areas. Evers was “smart to access (a variety) of communities and put them at the table to recruit and recommend applicants,” Mastantuono said. Mastantuono noted that when the committee considers applicants, diversity involves not only gender, race, and ethnicity, but also practice area. Appointees are not predominantly prosecutors and large firm attorneys; they include public defenders and legal aid providers, among others. Attorneys gain “insight from sitting next to someone who struggles to pay the rent,” he said, and they can take that empathy with them to the bench as judges. “It’s a complete myth that there’s a trade-off between competence and diversity,” he said. “We’ve raised the competency and quality of the bench while achieving diversity.” Prior to the Evers Administration, Wisconsin had one of the least diverse or representative benches in the nation. A report by the American Constitution Society in 2016 gave Wisconsin an “F” grade, ranking the state 44th in the nation for judicial diversity. Among the report’s findings on Wisconsin’s judiciary, it found that white men were 41% of the state’s population but held 76% of judicial seats, while women of color were 9% of the population but held only 1% of judicial seats. The Walker Administration demonstrated a strong preference for conservative white men. A document provided by Evers’ office in response to WJI’s request for records created by the Walker Administration shows that of the 93 judges Walker appointed from 2011 to early 2019 only one was a person of color (Black) and just 23 were women.
Among the 69 white men Walker appointed were Brian Hagedorn to the Court of the Appeals in 2015, Daniel Kelly to the Supreme Court in 2016, and Brad Schimel to Waukesha County Circuit Court in 2018 (following his loss as the Republican candidate for attorney general that year).
Walker also appointed James Troupis to Dane County Circuit Court in 2015 and Vincent Biskupic to Outagamie County Circuit Court in 2014. Prior to his judicial appointment, Troupis had worked on the 2011 Republican redistricting maps and Act 10 public union bargaining legislation. In recent years, Troupis represented Donald Trump before the Wisconsin Supreme Court in an attempt to have the 2020 presidential election result overturned and was involved in the false Trump elector scheme. A decade prior to his judicial appointment, Biskupic was a district attorney embroiled in controversy over alleged deals for defendants who made donations to crime prevention and victim advocacy groups. Biskupic's brother was an attorney for the Walker campaign. Judges appointed by a Wisconsin governor run for election in the next available April election cycle. Nationally, the debate about diversity initiatives rages on. But President Joe Biden’s diversification of the federal bench—more than 60% of his appointees were women, with 37% being women of color—should be a lasting legacy. "Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Italics indicate direct quotes from the application. Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.  Name: Samantha S. Wagner
Appointed to: Brown County Circuit Court Appointment date: Aug. 28, 2024, to term ending July 31, 2025 (seeking election in April 2025) Education: Law School – Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri Undergraduate – University of San Diego, San Diego, California High School – Juan Diego Catholic High, Draper, Utah Recent legal employment: October 2012-present – Lead assistant corporation counsel, Brown County, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin General character of practice: As the Lead Assistant Corporation Counsel for Brown County, I am responsible for all child welfare cases in Brown County, including cases for children in need of protection or services, juvenile guardianships, termination of parental rights, and administrative substantiation appeal hearings. I supervise another attorney who assists in these cases as well as a shared paralegal. My office is in the Brown County Human Services building so I often have employees stopping by for an opinion on a wide range of topics including economic support issues, juvenile justice concerns, open records requests, and civil rights issues. On top of these responsibilities I am the HIPAA compliance officer for Brown County, which includes ensuring compliance at our Community Treatment Center, Public Heath Department, jail health services unit, employee benefits, and community programs offering health related services. Lastly, I chair the committee for supervised release placements under Chapter 980, and locate statutorily compliant placements while providing the public notice and an opportunity to participate in our committee meetings. Describe typical clients: As an attorney for Brown County, I could offer legal advice to or represent any of the over 1,600 employees. The focus throughout my career has been in the Human Services field, focusing on representing employees and handling legal matters in the Children, Youth and Families Unit, Economic Support Unit, Community Programs, Public Health, and the Community Treatment Center, including the inpatient psychiatric hospital. I have also provided legal advice to employees that work with Criminal Justice Services and work within the courthouse. However, in any case for a Petition for Protection or Services, I represent the public so my client is not an individual person, yet what the public would expect me to do in any given situation in accordance with the law. Throughout my time with Brown County there have been many employees that have come and gone, and I have learned how each employee operates in order to not only provide them the best advice, but to also make sure they feel heard. Most of the employees are in high stress job and do not always need a legal answer, but need support. I am the longest tenured attorney in my office by over four years, and given my length of service have the historical knowledge that is helpful with each of the employees I advise. Number of cases tried to verdict: Jury trial, 8 cases; bench trial, 19 cases List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: In re the Interest of [redacted] I was the Child in Need of Protection or Services (CHIPS) petitioner on behalf of Brown County for each of these four children. . . . As the CHIPS prosecutor it was my decision to file each of these petitions after receiving a referral from child protection for court jurisdiction due to concerns of physical abuse and inappropriate discipline being utilized in the home by the step-father to three of the children, father to [redacted]. It was determined that the step-father was having these children kneel in the corner on rice and forcing them to kneel in the corner for large periods of time as punishment. He was also whipping each of the children with a belt on a regular basis. The oldest child suffered from a seizure disorder and it was found that during an episode, the step-father kicked her in the abdomen and dragged her across the floor to her corner by her hair. The mother was aware of the abuse in the home, but was frequently at work. This case was open pending adjudication from August 27, 2021, to May 30, 2023, due to COVID scheduling, a maternity leave for one of the attorneys, and calendaring. While pending trial, there was also a companion criminal case for the father handled by the Brown County District Attorney’s Office. The bond in that case prevented him from having contact with any of the children. The mother chose to remain living with the father, which in turn prevented any of the children from ever being able to return home. One child went to live with his mother in another county, one child aged out of foster care, and the other two children are now under guardianships. This case is significant to me because in the end, after 21 months of the case pending for trial, I settled the case by allowing the mothers of the children to sign petitions requesting jurisdiction and placement of the children, primarily because they could not return under a criminal bond condition to their original family residence. By resolving the case in this nature, the abusive step-father was not held accountable in the CHIPS case, but the matter resolved short of a trial. I did this because I knew that the children would have to testify in the criminal case, and I did not want to put the children through the trauma of testifying in court with a jury present on more than one occasion. Also present would have been the abusive father, or step-father, who they had not seen in years. In handling the case this way I felt like I put aside some of my beliefs in accountability, yet did so knowing the outcome would be the same as if there was a trial. I had to consistently remind myself of the end goal for these children and to determine the route that would be least traumatic for the children. This is the way that many cases can be handled – knowing where you want to end up in a case, and then plan your route to get there. In re the Interest of [redacted] I was the Child in Need of Protection or Services (CHIPS) petitioner on behalf of Brown County for this child and acted as the attorney for Brown County Human Services in the Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) case and subsequent appeal. . . . In 2014, I filed a CHIPS case for a young boy, [redacted]. The case was referred to me by child protection for sexual abuse to the child by his father, and neglect by his mother due to concerns with alcohol abuse. Throughout this CHIPS case there were many external factors that impacted the CHIPS case from progressing forward. The father was originally charged with the sexual abuse and those charges were subsequently dismissed. This impacted the type of sex offender treatment he could participate in, which is turn interrupted the agency’s ability to move forward in contact. The mother continued to not work towards her sobriety and would waiver in her beliefs that the abuse was occurring. The child was suffering significant trauma responses that manifested in both emotional and physical ailments requiring medical attention. In October 2015 I filed a motion to suspended the father’s visits by court order prior to the Dispositional Order being entered, which was granted. The Dispositional Order was entered and after some time a Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) case was filed. I did not handle this particular case, but the court terminated the father’s rights. The mother had passed away while the TPR was pending. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision given the order suspending the visits was done prior to the Dispositional Order and therefore did not apply to the grounds used against the father. I then resumed the CHIPS Case. I immediately got back into court and filed to suspend the father’s visitation again because none of the concerns from the first order were rectified. This was a bit more challenging as now the father was in prison for an unrelated matter, but his conditions were crafted to essentially put the ball in his court on whether he wanted to participate. The second TPR case was filed and again the court granted the TPR. I then handled the second round of appeals, and the decision was upheld making this child eligible for adoption eight years after his original removal. I attended the adoption hearing on August 24, 2022, and it was by far one of the biggest celebrations in the courthouse that I have attended. This case is significant to me for a number of reasons but primarily because it is the epitome of perseverance. There were numerous child protection workers, attorneys, and judges on these files, but I was the one who was there upon initial removal and there at adoption day. It is important to understand that mistakes or oversights are going to be made, but when those are acknowledged you must pivot and move forward. I still see this now young man in the community and we catch up from time to time. He is thriving and doing well, and it reminds me to continue working hard even when you may stumble back, there is always a way forward. Supervised Release Committee and Brown County Case 21CV58 As the chair of the supervised release committee created under Chapter 980, I was the primary point of contact in this lawsuit against Brown County and others. . . . The case and all committee actives took place in January to May 2021. The supervised release committee was created so that when an individual being released under Wis. Stat. § 980.08 they are returned to their county of residence for placement, and not just any statutorily appropriate residence around the state. This committee contains representatives from different agencies. The primary responsibility of the committee is to locate residences that meet statutory criteria within the county and identify those properties and the landlord to the Department of Health Services (DHS) when an individual is granted supervised release. I have done a number of these over the years, and complications in the process can be increased when a new residence has to be located. There are also some individuals who may have additional criteria depending on their victims. In January 2021 the committee was tasked to find a residence with additional criteria that no children could live in adjacent properties. A residence in New Franken was located and purchased by a landlord. The committee was immediately contacted by a neighbor who was very involved with the Boy Scouts and used a portion of their property for Boy Scout storage. There was one meeting where approximately 50 members of the Boy Scouts, including children, came and talk to the committee about the use of the property and that the residence next door should not be used to house these types of individuals. The committee ultimately decided that the use of the property did not rise to the level to exclude the property and sent the residence to DHS as a potential option. Recommendations were made that extra safeguards could be put in place given the possible use next door by the Boy Scouts to retrieve their items from storage. The circuit court then approved the placement and release plan for the individual, and the property became occupied. This was a significant experience to me because not only did I have to act as chair of the meeting and listen to each member of the public speak, I had to remain impartial and consider every fact being presented and then review it in conjunction with the statutory requirements. While my personal feelings may have been different from my professional, there is a balancing of interests that must happen. The individual to be released had served his time, a court had approved his release, and it was not my job to place additional, non-statutory, barriers in the way. At every attempt I tried to educate the public about the supervised release program and ensure that every precaution was being recommended, but the right decision was made. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: In my current role I am responsible for providing legal advice and assisting in any civil rights complaints or grievances made against an employee that escalates outside of the internal county policy. For example, I handled a claim with the US Office for Civil Rights claiming that a foster care rate was unfairly set based on race. After presenting the agency with all of the information requested and argument as to why the rate was set a certain way, separate and apart from the foster parent's race, it was determine the county's actions were appropriate. I have handled other civil rights claims or employee grievances with the Department of Children and Families and Division of Safety and Professional Services. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). Apart from my work in child welfare, I am also the HIPAA Compliance Officer for Brown County and the Chair of the Supervised Release Committee. As HIPAA Compliance officer, I am responsible to ensure compliance with all County HIPAA policies with state and federal law, develop employee training, investigate potential breach incidents, and ensure the county's technical safeguards are in compliance. As the chair of the Supervised Release Committee, it is my role to locate properties that meet requirements for Chapter 980 offenders ordered to supervised release. I also provide public notice and run the committee meetings following open meeting and open records requirements. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: NA Previous runs for public office: NA All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: NA Professional or civic and charitable organizations: GRACE (Green Bay Area Catholic Education) Board of Trustees, trustee, June 2024-present 2025 Conference of Child Welfare and the Courts Planning Committee, member, June 2024-present Wisconsin Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, president, April 2018-present American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, State Chapters Committee, member, April 2018-present National Association on Counsel for Children, member, June 2023-present State Bar Mock Trial, Brown County, co-site coordinator, January 2021-present Brown County Bar Association Board, vice president, board member, January 2021-present CASA Presents Fundraiser Planning Committee, member, 2023-present Women’s Fund, Powerful Event, committee and volunteer member, 2023-present St. Norbert College Parish, Finance Council, Board Member, August 2020-present Willow Tree Child Advocacy Center, River Cruise Volunteer, 2022-present Notre Dame of De Pere Elementary, school volunteer, 2022-present 2021 Conference of Child Welfare and the Courts, planning committee member, 2020-2021 St. John the Evangelist Homeless Shelter, Green Bay, WI, Community Leadership Counsel, 2014-2016 Helping Hands, Thika, Kenya, volunteer, January 2009 Youth Works, Cairo, IL and Rosebud, SD, volunteer and chaperone, July 2008, July 2009 Gus Macker 3-on-3 Basketball Tournament, Wausau, WI, volunteer, June 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 Southern Sudanese Community Center, San Diego, CA, volunteer, August 2007-May 2008 International Rescue Committee, San Diego, CA, volunteer, January-May 2006 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: As a government employee I do not have the same opportunities as other attorneys to represent clients pro bono and assist them through the legal process. Instead, I have taken the opportunities afforded to me to train and educate the community about the child welfare system. Whether that is through trainings at child welfare conferences or with CASA, or through speaking with foster parents to understand the process, I believe that education is the best method to have the information disseminated throughout the community. Breaking down common misconceptions of the legal system has been something I have tried to highlight not only in presentations I've made, but in all of the volunteer programs I have been involved in. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I want to serve the citizens of Wisconsin, but more importantly the community of Brown County as the next Brown County Circuit Court Judge because I have spent the last 12 years working in this community. I have been involved in almost every aspect of the legal system seen in the courthouse. As the attorney prosecuting child welfare cases for the county, I am in the courtroom every day, practicing primarily in civil litigation. However, so often these same parents are also facing criminal charges, small claims cases, family law matters, or evictions. I am continuously working with cases where I may not be directly involved, but these other cases have tremendous importance in the case I am prosecuting. In the last three years I have been involved in the creation of Brown County's Family Recovery Court, which allows for parents with CHIPS cases, and possible criminal cases, to be heard under a treatment court model. This approach allows the Court to service the family as a whole. Working through this process has given me an appreciation for the judicial system, but also for efficiency. This is one of the reasons I want to be a Judge - to allow for efficiency in our court system and for each individual who steps in my courtroom to have their concerns or cases resolved in a thorough manner. Too many times I have had parents work hard to have their children returned to their care, to only then be sentenced and unavailable due to their incarceration. By looking at each party on a case in a wholistic manner, the court system can achieve their intended purpose no matter the case or cause. Apart from criminal cases, many people come to the courthouse on their own, and usually for the first time. They are often nervous or unsure how to proceed. They are also likely facing some of the hardest times of their lives, and this is important to remember and be cognizant of in each and every case. I have worked to honor this throughout my entire career and it is an approach I want to bring to the bench. I want to continue serving my community while trying to make some of the changes to allow the Brown County courts to evolve with our growing and ever changing community. Brown County is changing and I want to be part of that change. This community deserves someone on the bench who wants to constantly improve, constantly learn, and constantly question arguments made in order to make the best decisions possible. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. The State of Wisconsin has eleven federally recognized tribes within its borders, as well as a large number of Native American residents who belong to other tribes across the country. In 2023 these tribal members waited to see the fate of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in the United State Supreme Court decision for Haaland v. Brackeen. At question was the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act, which provides additional protections to Indian families after the historical removal of Indian children from their family homes and placement in boarding schools in the 19th and 20th centuries. The case itself did not just incorporate theories of ICWA and specific child welfare practices, but included analysis by the Supreme Court of the Indian Commerce Clause and anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment. The Petitioners were contesting the constitutionality of the ICWA and the additional requirements the federal government required of each state to treat children subject to ICWA to a higher standard than another children. The Supreme Court found ICWA to be constitutional under the Indian Commerce Clause, because this legislation does not just include the trading of goods, but also includes the government’s involvement with many different Indian affairs. To simplify the determination as to the anti-commandeering clause, since ICWA applies to any parties in a case subject to ICWA, not just the state, there is not a constitutional issue. The Court did decline due to lack of standing to analyze the challenges to enforcement of ICWA placement preferences, specifically an equal protection claim. In practice, this would have been the most impactful analysis in providing guidance for the application of ICWA in Wisconsin’s legal system. Throughout the majority opinion and in the oral arguments, the practice of ICWA and the child welfare system, was not the primary focus. By not addressing this issue, and arguably one that could have fractured the current Supreme Court, the door has been left open for future challenges. Regardless this decision was a win for the people of Wisconsin given the large Native American population, and specifically important for Brown County given the interactions the Oneida Nation and Menominee Tribe. These interactions are not only with cases subject to ICWA, but all interactions with state and local government and these sovereign Indian nations. Th findings in Brackeen only solidified the rights that Native American tribes possess to have their seat at the table. It confirms the continued practice of recognizing tribes as a sovereign entity, and in Wisconsin with a high population of Native American residents, this is very impactful. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: I have had the opportunity to practice in front of a number of judges throughout my legal career. One of these judges is the retired Honorable William M. Atkinson, who served Brown County from 1991 to 2019 and remains serving as a reserve judge. I met Judge Atkinson when he served on the juvenile rotation about five years into my career. I was astonished at how he was able to bring practicality to the bench and make decisions in a way that made sense to every one present. It was not that everyone appreciated his decisions, but you could not argue with the logic in his analysis. His interpretation of the law also incorporated an unseen sensibility. He allowed for parties to make their record, but only when the arguments were productive and relevant. He was respectful of parties’ time and it was clear he knew the gravity of his decisions. He did not waiver or delay in his decisions and his approach to the bench is something admired by many who entered his courtroom, even if they were unsuccessful in their cases. While not a traditional western judge, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a commissioner and the chair of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, is someone I greatly admire. After apartheid in South Africa the government searched for a way to respond to the human rights violations that had been committed by both the government during apartheid and those activists who challenged them. Archbishop Tutu approached this commission not only for accountability but to mend the fractures within his community, focusing on confession, forgiveness and restitution. When I was studying in South Africa and went to Robben Island, which was used as a prison during apartheid. I spoke with a former inmate, and now tour guide, who had witnessed Archbishop Tutu during his work on the commission. What I remember the most from this conversation was this man explaining the patience Archbishop Tutu had and the shared emotional response he had for both those seeking forgiveness and from those who were victims. This practice should be incorporated in courtrooms today, by understanding that when individuals are involved in the justice system, they are real people, with real emotions attached and should be treated with respect, regardless of why they are there. Lastly, I admire Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Most people admire her for strong will and solid conviction, but I admire her as a female in a male dominated field. She was able to find success in all areas of her life. Everyone is familiar with her as a Justice, but my admiration comes in her ability to find the balance. Even as a law student she was a mother of a young child and focused on the work when needed but then gave her child, and eventual children, the love and attention they deserved. Her practice of the law and her commitment to family is something any working parent, especially a mother, should admire. The proper role of a judge: On the surface, the role of a judge is to be a fair and impartial individual in the community who has the unique role to hear multiple sides of an issue, apply the correct standard of law, and come to a just solution. However, a judge’s job in practice is so much more. In a courtroom the judge is the one person who is able to have no motive, no preconceived notion, is able to listen carefully to all participants, question the positions and then make a sound decision. Any decision made by the judge significantly impact every aspect of a person’s life, no matter the case, and that duty should not be taken lightly. A judge should make sure everyone is heard and that all of the information is provided to make the best decision possible in every case. No judge should be afraid to ask questions and remain inquisitive about the issues being presented. A judge is not the expert on every case they hear, but as the evaluator of fact, they should try and understand every applicable aspect of a case. A judge is also a member in the community who can make decisions on behalf of every member of society. The decisions a judge makes in the courtroom where the law may not be as straightforward should be a reflection of societal expectations. As a public servant I am very aware that with every decision made, there will always be someone who is not satisfied. But if the decision is made based in the law and incorporating community expectations then the decision is sound. Providing the explanation of how you came to your decision is a practice that every judge should have and employ in their courtroom. The importance of a good record cannot be understated. Not only does it provide for individuals in the courtroom to gain an understanding of the court’s decision, but preserves that decision and rationale for any appellate use. Lastly a judge’s role is to uphold the law and ensure that each community member’s rights are respected and protected. The American judicial system provides these protections but they are only as good as their enforcement. Even if it means that a case may be dismissed on procedural defect or there is a substantial change in the outcome of a case, an individual’s rights under the law and constitution are paramount. It is the role of a judge, and of the legal system as a whole, to make sure that the law is implemented fairly and justly. Criminal justice reform activist moves closer to seat on Milwaukee's Fire and Police Commission2/3/2025  Krissie Fung, nominated for a seat on the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission, speaking at a town hall meeting at Mitchell Library on Jan. 28, 2025. Photograph by Emilio De Torre. By Alexandria Staubach
The Milwaukee Common Council’s Public Health and Safety Committee last week unanimously recommended Krissie Fung for a seat on Milwaukee's Fire and Police Commission. Krissie Fung was nominated by Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson to fill an FPC vacancy. Her nomination now proceeds to the Common Council for confirmation. Fung is associate director of the Milwaukee Turners, the city’s oldest civic group. She works on projects like Zero Youth Corrections, which supports work on system change to prevent youth from entering the criminal legal system. She recently spearheaded an FPC monitoring program that ran from June to December 2024. Fung made the rounds last week, participating in a town hall event at Mitchell Library on Tuesday and then testifying in front of the Public Safety and Health Committee at its Thursday meeting. FPC Executive Director Leon Todd introduced Fung at the town hall meeting. “I believe that Ms. Fung is extremely well qualified to represent the public in this role,” he said. Fung told town hall attendees that she was inspired to seek the seat in part by her work monitoring the FPC. She expressed concern over a lack of civic engagement with the FPC after state legislation took away its rule-making authority. She said she wants to increase the commission’s transparency and increase the public’s trust of and access to the commission. At the committee meeting, Alderwoman Sharlen Moore championed Fung as a unique pick, saying it was “so important that our commissions and our boards are diverse and represent an array of experiences.” Alderwoman Laressa Taylor asked Fung what unique contributions she would make on the FPC. Fung highlighted her work with many who are system impacted or formerly incarcerated and her own experiences with the justice system. She said she would give voice to those perspectives in civilian oversight. Alderman Scott Spiker asked Fung whether she would be able to demonstrate fairness in officer disciplinary hearings given the Turners’ history of advocacy regarding criminal justice reform and police. Fung said she desired to seek reform and that her ultimate goal of zero youth incarceration in Milwaukee will remain, but that she was committed “to work with the systems we have.” Alderperson Jose Perez asked Fung at the town hall meeting what she hoped people would say about her at the end of her term if confirmed. “I hope that folks would say I was fair in my careful consideration of everything that came before me,” Fung responded. By Alexandria Staubach A new Wisconsin Policy Forum report concludes that a dramatic decrease in arrests has not negatively impacted crime rates in Milwaukee. While the report does not provide a single explanation for the overall decrease in crime or arrests, it suggests that community-oriented solutions could be contributing to the decline. The report’s key findings were presented to Milwaukee’s Fire and Police Commission at a meeting last week. Milwaukee Police Department Chief of Staff Heather Hough suggested that instead of executing arrests, officers now have “more tools in their tool box for different outcomes.” She cited specifically the specialty task forces the department employs. Wisconsin Policy Forum’s Ari Brown highlighted at the same meeting that a decade ago among peer cities Milwaukee ranked number one in arrest rates and number seven in reported offenses. In 2023, though, the city ranked 10th among its 12 peers for both arrests and offenses, Brown said. Using Wisconsin Department of Justice data, the forum concluded in its report that MPD made fewer overall arrests year over year except in 2021. MPD made 51,175 arrests in 2012, falling to 9,061 in 2023, a decline of 82.3%. Traffic stops have also dramatically decreased, falling from 149,721 in 2015 to 27,715 in 2023. Reported instances of crime have declined in Milwaukee, helping to partially explain the arrest decline, the report said.  Graph from the Wisconsin Policy Forum report "Arresting Developments: How and Why Arrests and Citizen Contacts are Declining in Milwaukee." Whie violent crime rates, particularly homicides, remain elevated over numbers from the early 2010’s, they remain on a downward trend as well. The report indicates that MPD has focused more on combatting high-priority crime, which requires more significant officer resources. The report attributes some of the overall declining arrest rate to an increased focus on solving and addressing more violent crimes that “draw significant community and media interest.”  Graph from the Wisconsin Policy Forum report "Arresting Developments: How and Why Arrests and Citizen Contacts are Declining in Milwaukee." The report points to no single cause for the arrest rate drop off. However, the combined effect of decreased reported offenses, amorphous national “societal factors” in the wake of George Floyd’s murder, decreased traffic stops, decreased staff competing with elevated serious crime levels, leadership changes at MPD, and a 2018 settlement in the Collins case have all played a significant role. The Collins settlement of a lawsuit against MPD in 2018 over its stop-and-frisk practices, for example, called on MPD to track several data points about every traffic stop it makes. The forum’s report concluded that “there be can be no doubt that the Settlement’s fundamental intent to eliminate unjustified stops has, indeed, been a contributor to the reductions in both stops and arrest.” The report points to changes in leadership at MPD since 2018 as another significant factor. Former MPD Chief Edward Flynn emphasized data to measure officer performance—better performance reviews for more arrest made. Neither subsequent Chief Alfonso Morales or current Chief Jeffrey Norman use such measures to gauge officer performance. Brown was careful to say he did not believe Milwaukee needs to be making more arrests, but he highlighted that the sharp declines are worth closer examination. He said anecdotal evidence gathered from interviews suggested that MPS patrol officers now spend significant amounts of time shuttling detainees to medical services and watching surveillance footage. Because Milwaukee is duty bound to allocate significant resources to the recruitment, training, and hiring of new law enforcement officers as a result of 2024 state legislation, figuring out how to better use officer time was a “worthwhile” endeavor moving forward, Brown said. "Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Italics indicate direct quotes from the application. Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.  Name: Lukas L. Steiner
Appointed to: Crawford County Circuit Court Appointment date: July 26, 2024, to term ending July 31, 2025 (seeking election in April 2025) Education: Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh High School – Potosi High, Potosi, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: January 2020-present – District attorney, Crawford County, Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin January 2016-December 2019 – Attorney, McNamara, Reinicke, Vogelsberg & Helmke, Lancaster, Wisconsin January 2011-December 2015 – Attorney, Kopp McKichan, LLP, Platteville, Wisconsin August 2010-December 2010 – Attorney, Law Office of Attorney Luke Steiner, Platteville, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin General character of practice: I am presently the Crawford County District Attorney, and being the only lawyer in the office, I handle the prosecution of all criminal and most traffic violations in the county. I also prosecute nearly all government-related juvenile matters, in the county, including delinquency and CHIPS/JIPS cases. Describe typical clients: My current "clients" are the people of Crawford County, and I try to take care to remember that I work for everyone, and not let myself get sucked into the trap of focusing my efforts to appease law enforcement officials or our county's social workers, who investigate the cases that I prosecute. They do good work, and they are good folks, but they, like all of us, have their own agendas and viewpoints. I feel it is important, in this position, to try to identify and address the diverse concerns and perspectives of my constituents. Often, I must do that in the abstract, so a general sense of empathy and objectivity is required. I specialized, in my general practice, prior to becoming District Attorney, largely in criminal defense, so I feel I have a very strong foundational basis for competently handling criminal cases. I also practiced fairly extensively in family law, handling divorces and custody/placement disputes. My experience, in that area is recent enough, that I feel comfortable with my general competence in that area, as well. Number of cases tried to verdict: Appoximately 20-25, by jury trial. Approximately 100, by court trial. List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: In October, 2023, as Crawford County District Attorney, I prosecuted a felony impaired-driving case that involved a Defendant, who was found asleep, alone, in the driver's seat of his vehicle, on a country road, late at night. Judge Lynn Rider presided, and Attorney Daniel M. Key represented the Defendant. The case-in-chief was unremarkable, and went as one might expect, under these circumstances. The case became more remarkable, when the Defendant chose to testify, and claimed that he stopped on the country road and drank a large amount of liquor, while stopped. In my case-in-chief, I called the alcohol analyst, from the State Laboratory of Hygiene, and introduced the blood-alcohol test results. In response to the Defendant's testimony, I recalled the analyst, in rebuttal, and went through a "blood-alcohol curve" analysis to demonstrate that the Defendant's claim, specifically as to the amount, and time, that he claimed to have drunk the alcohol, was inconsistent with the reported test result. This trial was significant because it forced me to quickly assess the Defendant's claim against the evidence already introduced, and to adapt to address that unexpected testimony. I had experience with "blood-alcohol curve" evidence, as a defense attorney, and I was able to put that experience to use, more clearly and seamlessly than might have expected. The jury's verdict resulted in a conviction. In February, 2022, I prosecuted, and tried, domestic battery charges involving a reluctant victim. Again, Judge Rider presided, and the Defendant was represented by Attorney Jeffrey W. Erickson. Despite my, and my victim-witness coordinator's, best efforts, we were unable to convince the complaining victim to participate in pretrial preparation. The suspicion of spousal intimidation was historically documented, at least generally. I was well aware that the victim was reluctant to testify, but the evidence that the victim was assaulted was relatively clear. My direct examination was difficult, but I was able, using the recorded evidence, e.g., recorded statements and photographs, to tease out a basic recitation of particulars the assault. I believe that I did so with sufficient tact, that the victim's reluctance to testify noticeably waned during the course of my examination. That experience, itself, taught me several lessons, but is not primarily why this case was significant. On cross examination, the victim contradicted, in most material respects, the testimony the victim gave, on direct. The victim even went so far as to testify that the testimony, offered on direct, was untrue. I did my best to rehabilitate, on re-direct, and rested the State's case with a sense that the jury could “see the forest for the trees.” The Defendant chose to testify, and he admitted that he assaulted a bystander, for which he was also charged; however, with respect to that charge, the Defendant claimed self-defense. In his direct testimony, he did not testify to any facts relating to the assault of the reluctant victim. In my cross-examination, I fixated on the self-defense claim, and chose not to explicitly press the Defendant on his basic claim that he did not engage in assault of the reluctant victim. In addition to the fact that he offered no testimony regarding the reluctant victim's assault, I thought that the extent to which the reluctant victim's contradictory testimony had been addressed was adequate to support the argument that his unspoken claim that he did not assault the reluctant victim should be disbelieved. This case's primary significance arose in the context of closing arguments. In my closing, I addressed the Defendant's claim of self-defense, as best I could, and then I made the mistake of addressing his lack of testimony about the reluctant victim's assault, by essentially saying that if I were accused of such an assault, and I didn't do it, I would have so testified. The jury convicted, on the reluctant victim's assault, and acquitted on the charge, to which the Defendant claimed self-defense. My rash comment, in my closing argument, was made without objection, and led to an ineffective assistance of counsel challenge, which ultimately laid bare my folly. Had I simply questioned the Defendant about the particulars of the reluctant victim's assault, I could have commented on his responses; however, because I neglected to do so, and made the flippant comment I did, I had to concede that I improperly commented on a matter to which the Defendant had not testified. I conceded not only my error, but also my error's import, and agreed to the case being reopened, and the conviction being vacated. The ultimate significance of this case is that it demonstrates the care one must take to not let one's frustration cloud one's focus and judgment. I let my frustration, with the context in which testimony was introduced, control the manner in which I commented on that testimony, in a way that I would not have, had I taken more care to let my frustration pass, and been more diligent in my focus on the rules of evidence, as opposed to the particulars of the case and the trial. I have found, over the years, that I am a person who learns as much, and often more, from my failures and follies than from my successes. This case was a good example of that. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have not done much, except for administrative review hearings in the context of defending clients accused of impaired driving, as well as a few probation revocation hearings, for private clients, prior to becoming District Attorney. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). Most of my experience, prior to becoming District attorney, strictly involved litigation, as most of my clients did not have the resources to attempt both arbitration/mediation, as well as litigation, in the event of unsuccessful alternative efforts. I did infrequently counsel divorce clients in mediation. I acted as local counsel in a single instance of formal mediation of a civil dispute, with former-judge Patrick Fiedler, acting as the mediator. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: I have only participated in my own campaign, for my present term, as District Attorney. I ran unopposed, in 2020, so I did not engage in much of what would be considered campaign activities. To the extent campaign activities were conducted, I did them all. Previous runs for public office: District Attorney – Crawford County, elected November 2020 Public offices to which you were appointed or elected: District Attorney – Crawford County, appointed and then elected, January 2020-present All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: None listed Have you ever been party to a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff or a defendant? Shortly after my admission to the bar, circa 2010, I was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, in Winnebago County, for my drunken part in an altercation with my then-wife, and her sister. I took, and continue to take, full responsibility for my disorderly, irresponsible, and regrettable behavior. I entered into, and completed, a diversion agreement that involved participating in counseling, for several months. As a result, the case was dismissed, without entry of a conviction. Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Grant County Bar Association, president, 2014-2015 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: In my practice, prior to becoming District Attorney, I did not engage in what I would consider formal pro bono work, but I often took clients and represented them, as their circumstance dictated, knowing, from the outset of engagement, that I would be compensated less than fully. To the dismay of some of the partners, at the firms for which I worked, I never fully embraced the practice of law as a business-person, and never lost the, too-often youthful, idealism of law as a means to help people, more than as a means to build financial stability or accumulate wealth. I never considered the size of a client's fee-deposit/retainer, in determining the scope, or extent, of the services I provided them. Early in my tenure as District Attorney, colleagues would ask how I liked the position, and I often offered that I enjoyed, inter alia, not having to track my hours and being able to disregard the financial aspects of a private legal practice. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I want to serve the people of Wisconsin, and specifically, the people of Crawford County, as a judge, because I believe they deserve a judge who cares about their community. I first made Crawford County my home, when I began my appointment as District Attorney in January, 2020. Honestly, I was slightly apprehensive about moving to Crawford County because, in the surrounding area, including neighboring Grant County, where I was raised and had practiced law for the preceding 9 years, Crawford County was often, mostly jokingly, derided as being a less refined or sophisticated place. I have found those, again mostly, though not entirely, facetious derisions to be well off-base. My neighbors and contemporaries, here, are amongst the best people with whom one might hope to associate. I aim to be, hopefully as judge, a fixture in the Crawford County community for the rest of my career. To the extent that some of the specific quarrels with Crawford County’s criminal justice culture had merit, I have worked hard with local authorities to correct and improve the deficiencies I’ve encountered. It would be disingenuous of me to disclaim my own ambition as a basis for my desire to become a judge. A judge is, I believe, close to the pinnacle of this profession. I have studied and practiced the law earnestly for essentially my entire adult life, and I am motivated and aspirational, by nature. As District Attorney, for nearly the past 5 years, I have become acquainted with the local legal community, and as such, I believe that I am well, and perhaps uniquely, suited to foster a manner of continuity that I believe will be helpful to the continued function of our court system. To this point, I have been a member of Crawford County’s Treatment Court Program, which was in its relative infancy when I became District Attorney. The program has grown, during my involvement, and I am pleased to say that it is in a more robust, functional, and productive state than it was when I first became involved. That said, treatment courts are a relatively new, and unquestionably delicate, institution. I believe that a transition of my role, in that program, will facilitate the program’s endurance and growth. Most of all, I want to become the judge in Crawford County because I have a deep sense of commitment to the law as a societal bedrock. I am confident in the breadth and depth of my legal knowledge, as a foundation for the rigors of running the only circuit court in the county. I feel a sense of obligation, to both the law and to this community, and I welcome the challenge of fostering the continuation of, and improvement to, a fair and just system legal system here. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. Though it has, perhaps, become a cliché, in response to similar questions, I believe that Citizen’s United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), has, of any case issued in the past 25 years, had the most significantly deleterious impact on the manner in which elections are conducted, and even the manner in which elected offices have, subsequently, come to be executed. I take little issue with the decision, on its basic merits; however, its import is undeniable. The rapid expansion of spending on all manner of elections, in the wake of Citizens United, has impacted the political and social discourse, in this State, and this country, to an extent that I don’t expect was fully anticipated. In that regard, I believe it serves as a solemn reminder that judicial decisions often reach far past the interests of the litigants before a particular court. While judges certainly have a duty to decide the cases before them, I believe it also important that judges and justices give earnest consideration, to the fullest extent possible, to how their decisions might play out, in the real world. I believe that to be a commentary endorsing judicial restraint, rather than activism. The most recent contest for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court serves as an example. In the race for that seat, over $50 million was spent, in total, including over $20 million, by the candidates, themselves, a sum more than quadrupling the spending, by candidates, in the preceding election*. The influence of the often unclear sources of these expenditures is readily apparent. In that election, candidates, in ways, and to an extent, not previously seen, disregarded the long-standing principle of restraint in expressing opinions, and positions, on matters before, or likely to come before, the court. This has, in my estimation, eroded some of the foundational integrity of our courts. I firmly believe that those seeking, or seated on, courts have a duty to avoid even the appearance of having pre-judged any matter that jurist might be called upon to decide. While I recognize that contemporary funding of these races encourages, and in some respects even seems to mandate, broadcasting such explicit positions, I feel that those seeking judicial positions have a duty and obligation to refrain from succumbing to the temptation that has arisen from Citizens United. The positions subsequently taken, and proliferated, by PACs were, I think, easily conceived and expected; however, it is unfortunate that the same response now seems to be the norm for candidates. As to the contemporary manner in which elected offices are executed, Citizens United has led to far too many legislators, executives, and thankfully, to a lesser extent, judges, seemingly engaging in constant politicking, rather than simply performing the duties of the offices they hold. There is no simple remedy to the present state of affairs, short of significant campaign finance reform. That being unlikely, the proper path forward may simply be a renewed, and perhaps redoubled, commitment to basic principles of integrity that are consistent with the foundations of our governmental institutions. *See, e.g., “Wisconsin Supreme Court Race Cost Record $51M,” at https://www.wisdc.org/news/press-releases/139-press-release-2023/7390-wisconsin-supreme-court-race-cost-record-51m, (last accessed 5/27/24). Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Three of the judges I most admire include the three, before whom, I have most regularly appeared: recently retired, Judge Robert P. Van de Hey, Judge Craig R. Day, and Judge Lynn M. Rider. I count myself lucky to have been able to practice before such competent and prudent judges. By presiding over the vast majority of the cases I’ve handled, they have each played a role in my continued development as a lawyer and as a man. Each has done so in different ways. I am sincerely humbled that each of them so willingly endorsed my application to the bench. Judge Van de Hey had been on the bench for over 10 years when I first began my regular practice in his courtroom. I was initially, and continued to be, throughout my career, impressed at his expansive legal knowledge. He represented, and indeed he was, a judge who was never confused, or flummoxed, by even the most esoteric legal particularities. I have now practiced law for just slightly longer that J. Van de Hey had, when he was first appointed to the bench, and, throughout my career, I have considered his apparent expertise in all substantive areas of the law as an aspirational exemplar. Judge Van de Hey had a notably calm and reserved demeanor, on the bench, that I always found impressive, and which he always maintained, even when the proceedings before him occasionally became abnormally contentious or disordered. Judge Day is, frankly, the judge who I believe has most impacted my development as an attorney. He has done so by being a judge who clearly conveys his simple, and basic, expectation that lawyers, practicing in his court, do so efficiently and proficiently. I have often heard fellow lawyers complain, of Judge Day, as intimidating and overbearing, often, in terms that decorum demands I not repeat, here. I have never found that to be my impression, of him. He demands lawyers be prepared, concise, competent, and respectful – all qualities that good lawyers should aspire to possess, in abundance. Judge Day is also a thoughtful, intelligent, and eloquent man, and he takes care to explain his decisions, from the bench, clearly and comprehensively. That benefits the parties and the lawyers who practice in his court. I have a great deal of respect for Judge Rider, and I have a somewhat unique relationship with her, in large part due to the fact that I practice, in her court, nearly every day that she holds court. We have a unique professional relationship, being the lone judge and sole prosecutor, in a small county. We have worked together in Crawford County’s Treatment Court, as equals, which I believe is to her significant credit. Apart from her fairness and competence, I most respect Judge Rider’s compassion and empathy. She regularly make clear that she cares about the litigants, in her court, apart from the circumstances that brought them there. I try to emulate those qualities in my current practice, and hope to do so from her bench. The proper role of a judge: It may be a bit trite, but I believe, a judge is a shepherd of the law. In performing the, perhaps, primary task of hearing and deciding cases, a judge has a duty, above all, to fidelity to the law. A judge has a duty of impartiality and an obligation to ensure justice and fairness for the litigants who appear in that judge’s courtroom just as importantly, but only, in turn, to his duty to the law. Judges certainly have the authority, and in some instances, the obligation, even, to creatively apply the law to cases the judge hears; however, a judge must take care to never stray too far from the law’s strictures, in the judge’s endeavor to see that justice is done. A judge must be a willing and eager scholar. Our law is so voluminous, and ever-changing, that, as judge, one must accept that an adequate understanding requires continuous study. A judge cannot become complacent in his, or her, own grasp of the laws, procedural and substantive. In this regard, a judge must also be humble and willing to accept the law’s application, in various controversies, that may be presented in creative and perhaps novel ways. A judge must carefully entertain the law’s application, as may be suggested by litigants, while gauging the application against that judge’s own base of knowledge. A judge has an obligation to oversee, and direct, the procedural application of the law. That duty may be no more true, or expansive, as it is in a single-judge county. This requires a judge to supervise the conduct and performance of the court’s clerks and staff. I have gleaned that this is a delicate undertaking, and as such, a judge must be understanding of the personalities involved. A judge must be a leader, and set the tone, so to speak, for the entire legal community, in that judge’s jurisdiction. I have found that my own style of leadership, is by example. That requires integrity in a judge’s personal, as well as his professional dealings. A judge must set expectations for all who work and transact in the judge’s court, if that court is to function as designed. I firmly believe that a judge can, and should, play a significant role in the development of the members of the bar. Judges can do so by setting clear expectations and demanding quality work, through preparedness, professionalism, and candor. A judge must be patient, calm, and reserved, even under circumstances where the judge’s clear expectations are not met. This is perhaps most true in a judge’s dealings with unrepresented litigants. A judge has an obligation to promote free access to the court and, when dealing with unrepresented parties, a duty to help them navigate the complicated legal process. Judges can, and must, do this without giving advice or hinting at prejudgment. Finally, a judge must be a bastion of integrity. Particularly in a small community, like Crawford County, the judge never ceases to exist in his professional capacity. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed