Wisconsin Supreme Court – Page 25 – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

More Developments at the Wisconsin Supreme Court

Post author:Richard M. Esenberg
Post published:March 25, 2010
Post category:Wisconsin Supreme Court

I have to say that I was surprised by Justice Gableman’s decision to file a motion asking Justice Pat Crooks to recuse himself from his pending disciplinary case. I understand the rationale. Justice Crooks did make remarks pertaining to some of the issues in the disciplinary proceeding in the course of his writings in Allen v. State. Because he had not had the benefit of full briefing and oral argument, these comments might raise concern that he had prejudged the issue. His reference to the comments of Justice Gableman’s attorney and Justice Gableman’s failure to repudiate them might be seen as importing an extraneous matter into the disciplinary proceeding. What Jim Bopp said in the course of that proceeding and whether or not Justice Gableman denounces his comments has nothing to do with the issues in that proceeding which are limited to whether the Reuben Mitchell ad violated SCR 60.06(3)(c).

Judging Friday’s SCOWIS Decisions

Post author:Daniel Suhr
Post published:March 19, 2010
Post category:Criminal Law & Process Judges & Judicial Process Wisconsin Criminal Law & Process Wisconsin Supreme Court

On Friday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court released two opinions that reflect the court’s new jurisprudential direction. Allow me to focus on the opinion with a much greater discussion of jurisprudence. (The other is State v. Wood, a due process challenge to forced administration of medication in a state-administered facility to a person who had been found not guilty of a crime by reason of mental disease or defect.)

In State v. Smith, the Supreme Court upheld the state’s sex offender registration law for crimes which, in the particular instance, did not have an obvious sexual component. Smith had been convicted of false imprisonment of a minor, which is one of the crimes leading to sex offender registration. Smith brought as-applied equal protection and substantive due process challenges because his act of false imprisonment had no sexual motive or activity.

Fair Judges or Judge Shopping?

Post author:Richard M. Esenberg
Post published:February 16, 2010
Post category:Judges & Judicial Process Wisconsin Supreme Court

I had a couple of writing deadlines so I’m a bit late to the game on the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s extraordinary decision (or, more accurately, nondecision) in Allen v. State. The Court was not split on whether Justice Gableman should recuse himself in all criminal cases. No Justice held that he should. Three did not reach the issue and three, essentially, expressed the view that he is not required to do so.

Rather, the principal division was over whether the question of an individual’s Justice recusal could be submitted to the Court as a whole. Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justices Bradley and Crooks wanted more briefing on the issue but it seems fairly evident that they believe that a majority of the justices considering the issue can force a fellow Justice off a case if they believe (or are willing to say) that there is either a statutory or constitutional requirement for that Justice to recuse herself.

Justices Prosser, Roggensack and Ziegler disagreed. They believe that the only issue before the Court is whether the justice at who a recusal motion is directed has given it the proper consideration. They went on to conclude that Justice Gableman had done so and made it clear that they thought Allen’s motion was pretty weak tea.