Winter2011

H I G H L I G H T S

2 Retirements3 Awards4 “Daubert” rule5 Veterans programs

6 Wisconsin Connects9 State Law Library celebrates 175 years10 People17 Leadership

The

Thi

rd B

ranc

ha

publ

icat

ion

of th

e W

isco

nsin

Jud

icia

ryVol 19 No 1

www.wicourts.gov

The Feb. 15 primary electionnarrowed down the list of

candidates remaining for one seaton the Wisconsin Supreme Courtand seven circuit court seats.

Justice David T. Prosser Jr. andAssistant Attorney GeneralJoAnne F. Kloppenburg arecompeting for a 10-year term onthe Wisconsin Supreme Court.Candidates Marla J. Stephens,director of the State PublicDefender’s Appellate Division andJoel Winnig, a Madison attorney,

were eliminated in the primary.Prosser was appointed to the Supreme Court by Gov.

Tommy G. Thompson in 1998,and elected to a 10-year term in2001. Before joining the SupremeCourt, he served on the WisconsinTax Appeals Commission and 18years in the WisconsinLegislature, including two yearsas Assembly Speaker.

Kloppenburg has been a litigatorand prosecutor at the WisconsinDepartment of Justice since 1989,serving under past AttorneysGeneral Don Hanaway, JimDoyle, Peg Lautenschlager andcurrent Attorney General JB Van

Prosser, Kloppenburg advance from primary

see Primaries on page 19

Atty. JoAnne F.Kloppenburg

Justice David T. Prosser

On the day they took theoath of office, state

legislators immediately faced aspecial session agenda called byGov. Scott Walker. Within thefirst few weeks, the Legislaturepassed eight new bills, most ofthem dealing with economicdevelopment and job creation.Also included was a billaffecting several areas of civillitigation.

As has been widely reported,the special session was stalledby controversy over theGovernor’s proposed budget repair bill, Special SessionSenate Bill 11 and Assembly Bill 11. Other legislation hastemporarily been slowed down because of the legislative

standoff over the budget repairbill.

On March 1, Walkerintroduced his 2011-13 biennialbudget bill, which proposessignificant changes tosentencing provisions includedas part of the 2009-11 statebudget (2009 Act 28), to courtfunding and to the way JusticeInformation System Surchargefunds and victim witnesssurcharge funds are distributed.Additional information will bemade available by the Director

of State Courts Office in upcoming Informational Bulletins.

Legislative session, budget process underwayBy Nancy Rottier, Legislative Liaison

see Budget on page 15

Preliminary budget summary availableDirector of State Courts A. John Voelker has released apreliminary summary of court-related fiscal provisionsincluded in 2011 Senate Bill 27/Assembly Bill 40, theGovernor’s 2011-2013 biennial budget companion bills.The summary is available on the court system Intranet.Non-fiscal items such as changes to sentencing and aproposal related to court self-help centers are beinganalyzed and will be reported in upcoming bulletins.Questions about the impact of changes related topensions and sick leave are best addressed on anindividual basis. Employees are asked to contactHuman Resources with questions.

Former Supreme Court justice passes awayFormer Justice William A. Bablitch passed

away on Feb. 16 in Hawaii after a longillness. He was 69 years old – just two weeksshy of his 70th birthday.

“When I think of Bill Bablich, I think of aRenaissance man,” Justice N. Patrick Crookstold the Wisconsin Law Journal. “He had somany interests and was so good at so manythings. We have lost a great jurist and a greathuman being.”

Bablitch was a lifelong public servant. Hebegan his law career in 1969, when he waselected to the post of Portage County districtattorney in his beloved hometown of StevensPoint. In 1972, he ran for the Wisconsin Senate

and was elected to represent a district thatencompassed much of central Wisconsin. In theSenate, he served as both president pro temporeand majority leader, and was particularly proudof his role in the reorganization of the courts in1978. He also took great pride in his work torevise Wisconsin’s sexual assault laws.

Bablitch was elected to the Wisconsin SupremeCourt in 1983. He brought to the court a wealthof knowledge and experience as a formerprosecutor, legislator and Peace Corps volunteer.His diverse interests – fishing, cooking,gardening – found their way into many of the

Justice William A.Bablitch see Obituaries on page 14

Winter2011

2

“We can compromise on budgets, but we cannotcompromise on justice”- Hon. Thomas J. Moyer, Former Chief Justice,

Ohio Supreme Court

Courts across the nation, including Wisconsin, are feelingthe effects of budget cuts. For example, the chief justice inNew Hampshire suspended civil jury trials for a period oftime to save money. In Georgia, courts have taken tosoliciting vendors for free pens and pencils. Examples likethis have caught the attention of the American Bar

Association (ABA).In response to the growing

number of situations wherebudget cuts have significantlyaffected court operations, theABA president created the TaskForce on Preservation of theJustice System. The mission ofthe task force is to developrecommendations and strategiesto address one of the most criticalissues facing the legal profession,the underfunding of the justicesystem. This issue has

jeopardized state and federal courts’ ability to operate as anindependent branch of government. The Task Force held apublic hearing on the opening day of the 2011 ABA midyearmeeting in Atlanta, and heard a number of disturbing storieson how cutbacks have affected the courts.

With a looming $3.6 billion deficit and additional cutsproposed for state and county governments in Wisconsin,the state court system’s ability to provide justice willbecome increasingly difficult. Recognizing this criticalissue, the State Bar of Wisconsin has taken a role in

bringing together criminal justice system stakeholders. Thegoal of bringing together representatives of such groups asthe judiciary, the clerks of circuit court, defense counsel,prosecutors, the Wisconsin Counties Association (WCA)and others is to have, to the extent possible, a unifiedapproach and message in communicating the consequencesof budget reductions.

On Jan. 31, the first stakeholders meeting took place at theBar Center in Madison. Chief Justice Shirley S.Abrahamson gave the keynote address. The discussionfocused on the systemic issues that result when any one ofthe stakeholders doesn’t have sufficient resources. Inaddition, the attendees talked about a common message andstrategies on how to work together in communicating themessage.

One immediate result of the meeting was thatAbrahamson received an invitation to be part of aroundtable discussion at the WCA Legislative Forum duringFebruary. This provided an opportunity for the Chief todiscuss the importance of the partnership between the courtsand the counties. As part of the discussion, she emphasizedthe theme “justice is the business of government.” Thistheme originates from a conference the ABA had a coupleof years ago on the critical role of fair and impartial courts,and it seems fitting to use it in communicating thefundamental need to adequately fund the courts.

It is clear that in the coming months as budgets arediscussed at the state and local level, everyone in their ownway will need to advocate for the needs of the justicesystem – sometimes individually, sometimes as aninstitution, and sometimes together with justice systempartners. All of these approaches will be necessary if we areto maintain the system’s ability to protect individual rightsand ensure public safety for the people of Wisconsin. n

THE

TH

IRD

BR

AN

CH

Director’s column: Advocating for justiceBy A. John Voelker, Director of State Courts

A. John Voelker

RETIREMENTS This edition of The Third Branch notes the retirement ofJudge Patrick M. Brady, Marathon County Circuit Court,and longtime court system employee Lynne Bruley. Look tothe spring edition of The Third Branch for retirement storieson Judge Harold V. Froehlich, Outagamie County CircuitCourt; Judge Robert A. Hawley, Winnebago County CircuitCourt; and Judge William M. McMonigal, Green LakeCounty Circuit Court, among others.

Judge Brady toretire from MarathonCounty bench

After serving two terms,Marathon County Circuit CourtJudge Patrick M. Brady will notseek reelection this spring.

Brady was first elected to thebench in 1999, and reelected in2005. Prior to his election, heserved as a municipal judge forthe city of Wausau and the

village of Rothschild and as a court commissioner forMarathon County. He also worked in private practice. Aveteran of the U.S. Air Force, Brady received his law degreefrom UW Law School.

CCAP pioneer to retireAfter 30 years with the court system, Lynne Bruley will

retire in March. In 1981, Bruleybegan working as a register inprobate for Jackson CountyCircuit Court Judges LouisDrecktrah and Robert Radcliffe.In 1991, she left the JacksonCounty Circuit Court to workon the implementation of newtechnology in the original ninecounties to use CCAP.

“Back in the late 80s, peoplewould come from the Directorof State Courts Office to theRegister in Probate Seminars

Judge Patrick M. Brady

Lynne Bruley

see Retirements on page 22

THE

TH

IRD

BR

AN

CH

Winter2011

3

AWARDS

On Jan. 6, the Supreme Courthosted new legislators

participating in the WisconsinLegislative Council’s orientationprogram, which is held at the start ofeach new legislative session. With 38new members elected in 2010, this isone of the largest classes of newlegislators. There are eight new statesenators and 30 new staterepresentatives.

Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamsonwelcomed the legislators and discussedthe interactions between the legislativeand judicial branches. She alsointroduced court staff, includingDirector of State Courts John Voelker,Legislative Liaison Nancy Rottier andPublic Information Officers AmandaTodd and Tom Sheehan. The sessionpresented the opportunity to explainvarious court programs, such asConsolidated Court AutomationPrograms (CCAP) and Judicial Ride-Along.

After the formal presentation, all ofthe Supreme Court Justices greetedlegislators in the Supreme Courthearing room. Legislators also touredthe Supreme Court chambers andgathered in the conference room for ashort discussion of Supreme Courtprocedures. n

Supreme CourtJustices greet newlegislators in theSupreme CourtHearing Room. Fromleft, Justice AnnetteKingsland Ziegler,Justice Michael J.Gableman, Rep.Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green), Rep.Travis Tranel (R-Cuba City), Rep.Mike Kuglitsch (R-New Berlin), Rep.Dean Knudson (R-Hudson) and Rep.Erik Severson (R-Star Prairie)

Supreme Court participates in new legislator orientationBy Nancy Rottier, Legislative Liaison

Dykman receives ‘LifetimeAchievement Award’

The Wisconsin LawJournal presented formerDistrict IV Court ofAppeals Judge Charles P.Dykman with its annualLifetime AchievementAward on Feb. 16.Dykman, who retiredlast year, was recognizedfor the impact his careerhas had on theWisconsin legalcommunity.

Dykman was firstelected to the appellate

Judge Charles P. Dykman

Pho

to c

redi

t:W

isco

nsin

Law

Jou

rnal

Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamsonswears in Gov. Scott Walker, pictured with his wife, Tonette, andsons, during an inauguration ceremony at the State Capitol onJan. 3.

Pho

to c

redi

t: Ja

y S

alvo

, leg

isla

tive

phot

ogra

pher

Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson explains the Court’s procedures in theSupreme Court Conference Room. From left, Rep. Elizabeth Coggs (D-Milwaukee), Rep. Mike Kuglitsch (R-New Berlin), Rep. Joseph Knilans (R-Janesville), Rep. Roger Rivard (R-Rice Lake), Rep. Howard Marklein (R-SpringGreen), and Rep. Travis Tranel (R-Cuba City).

see Awards on page 13

Winter2011

4

THE

TH

IRD

BR

AN

CH

Editor’s note: This is the first of several blog entries postedby Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge John J. DiMottoon the topic of Daubert, the reliability rule for theadmission of expert testimony as provided in 2011Wisconsin Act 2. The blog entry was posted Jan. 27;Daubert became effective on February 1, 2011. Subsequentblog entries on Daubert and other legal topics can be foundon DiMotto’s ongoing blog Bench and Bar Experiences at:http://johndimotto.blogspot.com/

By the passage of Senate Bill 1 during the recent 2011Special Legislative Session called for the purpose of

addressing tort reform, Wisconsin is poised to join thefederal courts and the majority ofstates by adopting the Daubert“reliability” Rule for theadmission of expert testimony.No longer will Wisconsin rely onthe Walstad “relevancy” rule,rather Wisconsin judges will nowtake a more active “gatekeeper”role in the first instance. Doesthis mean that seismic changesare on the horizon or will thechange be subtle at best? Toanswer this question requires abrief look at the differences

between the Walstad “relevancy” rule and the Daubert“reliability” rule.

But first, a little history.In Frye v. U.S., 293 F.2d 1013 (D.C. CA 1923), the D.C.

Court of Appeals adopted the Frye test or “generalacceptance.” Under this test, expert opinion based on ascientific technique is inadmissible unless the technique isgenerally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientificcommunity.

In Watson v. State, 64 Wis.2d 264 (1974), the WisconsinSupreme Court rejected an argument by defense counselthat the “general acceptance” standard of Frye governs theadmissibility of expert opinion in Wisconsin. The Courtcited to McCormick, Evidence, which is critical of the Fryerule, and stated that in Wisconsin, we follow the wide-openrule of cross-examination to test credibility.

In State v. Walstad, 119 Wis.2d 483 (1984), the WisconsinSupreme Court reiterated that the Frye test is foreign to theWisconsin Rules of Evidence section 904.02, which setsforth that all relevant evidence [evidence having a tendencyto make the existence of any fact that is of consequence tothe determination of the action more probable or lessprobable than it would be without the evidence] isadmissible. Thus, for over 47 years, Wisconsin has opted touse a “relevancy” standard with respect to the admission ofexpert testimony.

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509U.S. 579 (1993), the United States Supreme Court(SCOTUS) addressed the viability of the Frye test. InDaubert, SCOTUS stated that the Frye “general acceptance”test was superseded by the adoption of the Federal Rules ofEvidence and held that nothing in rule 702 establishes“general acceptance” as an absolute prerequisite toadmissibility nor did it incorporate the “general acceptance”

standard. SCOTUS held that before admitting experttestimony the trial judge must decide under Rule 104(a)whether the expert is purporting to testify as to scientificknowledge that will assist the trier of fact to understand ordetermine a fact in issue and that this entails a preliminaryassessment of whether the reasoning or methodologyunderlying the testimony is scientifically valid and ofwhether it can properly be applied to the facts in issues.SCOTUS further set forth factors to consider in making thedetermination. SCOTUS made it clear that this is a flexibleinquiry and that this rule will not create a “free for all” andthat vigorous cross examination, presentation of contraryevidence and careful instructions on burden of proof aretraditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky butadmissible evidence. (In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,526 U.S. 137 (1999), SCOTUS made it clear that theDaubert “reliability” Rule applies to all expert testimony,not just scientific expert testimony.)

In State v. Peters, 192 Wis.2d 674 (Ct. App. 1995), theWisconsin Court of Appeals considered whether the Daubert“reliability” Rule affected the Walstad “relevancy” Rule andheld that it did not. The Court did state that while Wisconsinconfines itself to determination of relevancy, that Wisconsintrial judges do serve a limited and indirect “gatekeeping”role, albeit, oblique. The court stated that scientific evidencecan be rejected, though relevant, if it is superfluous, a wasteof time, other 904.03 reasons, the jury does not need it,evidence is inherently improbable, or the area is not suitablefor expert opinion [ie. public policy reasons such aspolygraph tests]. The Court further stated that this list is notan exhaustive inventory of grounds to refuse to admitrelevant evidence and indicated that although Wisconsintrial judges do not evaluate the reliability of scientificevidence, they may restrict it through a limited gatekeepingfunction.

Today, by virtue of the amendments to 907.02 and 907.03,the Walstad “relevancy” Rule has been superseded by theDaubert “reliability” Rule (as amended by changes in 2000).

As a result, Wisconsin trial judges now must be“gatekeepers” as to all expert testimony as to both relevancyand reliability. Absent a stipulation, Wisconsin trial judgesshould conduct a 901.04 hearing outside the presence of thejury to determine whether expert testimony will or will notbe admitted. In that hearing the trial judge will be guided byDaubert factors and others from cases subsequent toDaubert.

The Committee Note on Rules - 2000 Amendmentdiscusses the fact that Daubert sets forth a non-exclusivechecklist for trial courts to use in assessing reliability ofexpert testimony and further discusses that other courts haveadded to the checklist. The checklist discussion in theCommittee Notes includes:

1) Whether the expert’s technique or theory has beentested.

2) Whether the technique or theory has been subjected topeer review and publication.

3) The known or potential rate of error.4) The existence and maintenance of standards and

controls.

see Daubert on page 22

Judge John J. DiMotto

Daubert rule arrives in Wisconsin By Judge John J. DiMotto, Milwaukee County Circuit Court

THE

TH

IRD

BR

AN

CH

Winter2011

5

Aprogram to address the unique issues facing veteransand active-duty service personnel in the criminal justice

system celebrated its second anniversary in January withtwo important developments: the opening of the ChippewaValley Veterans Treatment Court in Eau Claire, andWisconsin’s first veterans court graduation, which tookplace in Rock County.

The veterans initiative is a newer facet of the courtsystem’s Effective Justice Strategies (EJS) program, whichaims to identify sentencing alternatives that will reducerecidivism, improve public safety and save tax dollars bytargeting the root causes of crime. The focus on veteransbegan in January 2009, shortly after the State PublicDefender’s Office and Department of Veterans Affairs held aday-long conference to explore issues related to veterans inthe criminal justice system.

Honoring Wisconsin’s first veterans court gradThe first veterans court graduation took place in the Rock

County Circuit Court, where Casey Johnson of Beloit, anIraq War veteran, was honored for his successful completionof a program through the Rock County Veterans TreatmentCourt. Johnson successfully completed alcohol treatmentand anger-management classes, and the charges against him(battery and disorderly conduct) were dismissed during a

graduation ceremony. “It was a great

day,” said JudgeJames Daley, abrigadier general inthe Wisconsin ArmyNational Guard anddecorated Vietnamveteran who directsthe program. “Caseyworked hard, andeveryone involved inthe program learned agreat deal that willhelp us as we moveforward.”

Daley said the RockCounty court iscurrently handlingseven other cases,including fourdiverted from Dane,

Jefferson, Lafayette and Winnebago counties. “The need isthere, and we want to do our best to meet it,” he said.

The state’s fourth veterans courtAcross the state in Eau Claire, dozens of people gathered

at the courthouse for a ceremony marking the opening of thenew Chippewa Valley Veterans Treatment Court. TheChippewa Valley court, serving Eau Claire, Chippewa andDunn counties, is the fourth of its kind in the state. Theothers are located in Rock, Iron and La Crosse.

Like the other three courts, Chippewa Valley is designed

to provide a coordinated response to the unique needs andrisks of veterans and active-duty service personnel in thecriminal justice system. The program assigns a mentor toeach participant and works closely with VeteransAdministration (VA) service providers.

Chief Judge Benjamin D. Proctor, who will preside in thecourt, explained that a veterans court program can reducerecidivism and save money. In remarks quoted in the EauClaire news media, Proctor said 278 people in the local jaillast year said they were veterans.

“Which would you prefer?” he asked. “An ongoing cycleof criminals, or someone who has a chance to be aproductive citizen?”

The big pictureChief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson outlined the

statewide initiative and highlighted recent milestones in aletter to Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary KennethBlack. She told Black that the need for veterans programsbecame clear during her 72-county tour of the state’scourthouses in 2008 and 2009.

Rock County Circuit Court JudgeJames P. Daley congratulates CaseyJohnson, Beloit, Wisconsin’s firstVeterans Treatment Court graduate.

Wisconsin court system veterans initiative grows with launch of Eau Claire programBy Amanda Todd, Court Information Officer

Chief Judge Benjamin D. Proctor, Eau Claire County CircuitCourt, explains the concept behind the new Chippewa ValleyVeterans Treatment Court during a ceremony at the EauClaire County Courthouse in January.

Pho

to c

redi

t:Th

e Ja

nesv

ille

Gaz

ette

Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, right, joinedDeputy Chief Judge Gregory A. Peterson, District III Court ofAppeals, left, and Chief Judge Benjamin D. Proctor, EauClaire County Circuit Court, at ceremony to mark the openingof the Chippewa Valley Veterans Treatment Court.

see Veterans on page 16

Winter2011

6

THE

TH

IRD

BR

AN

CH

Judge Flanagan visits women judgesin Bangladesh By Judge Mel Flanagan, Milwaukee County Circuit Court

Like many of my colleagues, I love to visit courts inforeign countries. This usually requires finding the

courthouse and walking in toobserve. On my visit toBangladesh in November of2010, I wrote in advance tothe Bangladesh WomenJudges Association (BWJA),and I was very glad that I didso. Bangladesh is a terriblypoor country and is amongthe most densely populatedcountries in the world.Simply functioning is agreater challenge there thananywhere I have been andmy custom of finding thecourthouse and walking in toobserve was not going towork in Bangladesh.

I was in Dhaka,Bangladesh to visit my daughter who was employed thereby UNICEF. Dhaka is the capital of Bangladesh, and thepopulation is estimated to be over 12 million in the cityalone. The traffic, dense population, and weather presentbig challenges, but most difficult was the expectation thatwomen will be accompanied everywhere by a male relative.

While in theory the courts are open to the public, thepractice is quite different. There is barely enough roominside for the attorneys and staff, so the public is rarelyallowed to enter. Thankfully, the general secretary of theBWJA, Judge Sharmin Nigar, took me under her wing andprovided me with a fascinating tour of the court system. Tobegin with she arrived at my residence with a car and maledriver. We proceeded to the courthouse which was abouttwo miles away, and the trip took about two and a half hours– at best about one mile an hour through traffic. It would beeasier, although a lot hotter, to walk, but women walking isnot well received. Judge Nigar spoke excellent English andtranslated the proceedings for me as we observed criminal,civil and family court matters. The courts were extremely

hot but it was the attorneys who wore robes – not the judges. I was struck by how similar the issues, arguments and

decisions were to the cases we have in Wisconsin. Therewere also many differences. In a divorce proceeding, thewife appeared to be around 14, while the law does not allowmarriages before 18. She was seeking a divorce due to

“excessive” domesticviolence, but her future didnot offer her many options. Itwould be unusual for herfamily to take her in, and thereare no shelters or publicservices for women in hersituation. Judges have toapply Islamic, Hindu orBangladesh law as determinedby the parties. The womenjudges that I observed duringmy visit were strong,intelligent and very capable. Itwas so interesting to me thattheir public and private livesmust be so very different.

A highlight of my visit wasdinner with 10 woman judges

from the BWJA at a Chinese restaurant. It was a very rareexperience for all. Women, as a group or alone, rarelyventure out at night in public. My visit provided the perfectopportunity and everyone seemed to enjoy the event. Liquoris not allowed in public but to my amazement, we were eachserved a plate of betel nut leaves following our meal. Thebetel nut is popular in South East Asia and known to be amild intoxicant when chewed.

I was very honored to be the guest of the BWJA andthrilled to meet at dinner a founding member, JusticeNazmun Ara Sultana. In 1975 Justice Sultana became thefirst woman judge appointed to a court. She was also thefirst woman justice in the Appellate Court, where she stillserves with eight women justices at this time. Currently sheis awaiting confirmation to the highest Supreme Court ofBangladesh, where again she will be the first woman on thecourt. She is an inspiration to her colleagues and continuesto be a very strong advocate for women’s issues inBangladesh. n

WISCONSIN CONNECTS

Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Mel Flanagan met withmembers of the Bangladesh Women Judges Associationduring November 2010 while in the country to visit herdaughter in Dhaka.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief JusticeShirley S. Abrahamson traveled to ItalyDec. 13-14, 2010 to participate in aconference on the topic of judicialcooperation among state courts inEurope and the United States.

The Conference, held in SanDomenico di Fiesole, was jointlyorganized by the Robert SchumanCenter for Advanced Studies, the DwightD. Opperman Institute of JudicialAdministration of the New York UniversitySchool of Law and the Network ofPresidents of the Supreme JudicialCourts of the European UniversityInstitute.

Pho

to C

redi

t: To

rrey

Whi

tman

, NY

US

choo

l of L

aw

THE

TH

IRD

BR

AN

CH

Winter2011

7

Justice Bradley joins IJA Board ofDirectors

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradleyhas been selected to serve on the board of directors of

the prestigious InternationalJudicial Academy (IJA).IJA is a non-profit educationalinstitution with offices inWashington, D.C. and BuenosAires, Argentina that provideseducation programs for judges,court administrators, ministry ofjustice officials, and other legalprofessionals from around theworld.

IJA programs include seminars,conferences, study tours,symposia and exchange/internprojects.

As one of 19 board members,Bradley will help guide the direction and programs of theorganization. Her involvement with IJA began in 2005,when she was among 22 state and federal judges from theUnited States who convened for the first annual Sir RichardMay Seminar on International Law and International Courtsin The Hague, Netherlands.

Since then, she has taught internationally on behalf of theacademy and contributed to its newsletter, InternationalJudicial Monitor.

“Being involved with the International Judicial Academyhas been a very rewarding and educational experience.Serving on the board of directors will allow me to furtherthe academy’s laudable goals of educating judges andimproving the administration of justice in countries aroundthe world,” Bradley said.

Bradley was first elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Courtin 1995 after serving 10 years as a circuit courtjudge in Marathon County. She was appointed aUniform Law Commissioner in 2004 and isactive on the Joint Editorial Board onInternational Law of the Uniform LawCommission and the International Section ofthe American Bar Association.

Judge connects with Turkishcounterpartsby Judge Todd W. Bjerke, La Crosse County Circuit Court

During October 2010, my wife and Itraveled throughout Turkey. We spent

several days in the city of Antalya, which has apopulation of over one million. We were ableto visit a public library (my wife is a youthservices coordinator for the La Crosse CountyLibrary) and the courthouse. It took us overfive hours to find the main branch of the publiclibrary, as most everyone we asked had littleknowledge as to where it was located. Once wefinished with a personal tour there we took a

taxi to the courthouse.After we entered the courthouse, we located a guard who

could speak some English, to counter my wife’s ability tospeak some Turkish. The guard finally understood what wewanted – to see a Turkish court in action. He took us to acourtroom and had us wait outside while he went inside tospeak to the bailiff about the proceeding and whether wecould come in. While we were waiting, a local attorney,who could speak very good English, asked us if we neededassistance, as he thought that we were foreigners in somesort of trouble. We assured him we were fine, and explainedthat I was an American judge interested in seeing theTurkish judicial system. He said he wished to speak to usfurther when we were finished inside. The guard came backout and tried to explain what was going on. He could not gethis point across, and then asked to borrow my wife’sEnglish-Turkish dictionary. He found the word he wastroubled with and then told us that there was no “suspect”inside and asked if it mattered to us. We assured him thatwas not a problem for us. He then ushered us inside, and wewatched the proceedings.

There was a prosecutor (to the far left) and three judgesseated at the bench. The golden image of Mustafa KemalAtatürk, the father of modern Turkey, was prominentlydisplayed on the wall behind the bench. The male judgewas questioning the various witnesses as he paged back andforth in his binder of police reports and statements.

People were emotional, and at one point several wereejected from the courtroom. After the judge questioned thevarious witnesses the bailiff escorted them all out of thecourtroom, and my wife and I got up to leave. At that point,we were told that the courtroom was being locked and wewere to have tea with the courtroom officials. We werehonored. The attorney we had met earlier was brought intothe courtroom and we had a conversation with the male

WISCONSIN CONNECTS

Justice Ann WalshBradley

see Wisconsin Connects on page 8

La Crosse County Circuit Court Judge Todd W. Bjerke visited a courthouseand met with local court officials and lawyers while in the city of Antalya,Turkey in November 2010.

Winter2011

8

THE

TH

IRD

BR

AN

CH

Lincoln County celebrates courthouseaddition, renovationOn Feb. 26, Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice

Shirley S. Abrahamson joined local judges and LincolnCounty officials in Merrill to celebrate a ribbon-cutting andopen house ceremony for a newly renovated courthouse.

The $1.8 million, two-story project added space andupgraded technology in one of the state’s most historiccounty courthouses.

“This building is on the National Register of HistoricPlaces, and at the same time, it is the most technologicallyadvanced courthouse in the Ninth Judicial District. It was along time coming, but well worth the wait,” Abrahamsonsaid.

The project drew rave reviews, at least from the WausauDaily Herald, which opined Feb. 28: “It’s a beautifulbuilding, and residents of Merrill can be proud of it. Themodern upgrades and new equipment that were part of therenovation, including a two-story addition and significantremodeling, were made carefully to preserve the building’shistoric feel.”

Two new holding cells adjacent to the courtroom willmake it possible for prisoners to take a different route intothe courtroom than the general public. New technologyincludes cameras in all of the courtrooms, a videoarraignment system, and a projection system for displayingevidence to the jury. The building had been closed since lastAugust, and court hearings have been held in Wausau andMedford during the renovation.

Other judges at the ceremony included Chief JudgeGregory E. Grau, Marathon County Circuit Court, DeputyChief Judge Neal A. Nielsen, Vilas County Circuit Court,Judges Jay R. Tlusty and Glenn Hartley, both of Lincoln

County Circuit Court, and Reserve Judge Michael J. Nolan. The Daily Herald noted that the project had come in with

a small surplus. “The $164,000 left over will go towardthings like new light fixtures and landscaping. Therenovations certainly weren’t cheap, but coming in under-budget is always better than running over.” n

Posing alongside county and local court officials, including Chief Judge Gregory E. Grau, Chief Justice Shirley S.Abrahamson makes the ceremonial cut to mark the opening of a new addition to the Lincoln County Courthouse, which is onthe National Register of Historic Places.

judge. He asked questions of me and I asked questionsabout the proceedings, which, I found, involved a homicide.

The suspect was not in the courtroom, as often happenswhen it is inconvenient for the authorities to get the personthere. The suspect’s attorney was present, but had no visiblerole on the day I observed the proceedings. The defense baris concerned that the prosecutor is elevated to a position ofdignity equal to the judges by allowing him to sit with them

at the bench. The visit ended when the male judge asked hislast, and “most important” question, “how much money do Imake as a judge in America.”

After we left the courthouse, we accompanied theattorney, Ozan Yilmaz, to his office where we met hiscolleagues and discussed Turkish justice further. n

WISCONSIN CONNECTS continued from page 7

Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson spokeat a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the newly renovated LincolnCounty Courthouse in Merril on Feb. 26.

THE

TH

IRD

BR

AN

CH

Winter2011

9

The legislation that established the territorial governmentof Wisconsin contained a short but significant provision

that appropriated $5,000 to be spent on the purchase of alibrary for the accommodation of the legislative assemblyand the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The territorial act wasapproved on April 20, 1836 – giving the State Law Librarynot only the basis for its existence, but also reason tocelebrate its 175th anniversary in 2011.

According to a 1936 New York Times story published inhonor of the library’s 100th anniversary, Congress agreed tofund this library because “it was thought the Legislature ofthis distant state would need the assistance of books,particularly law books.” It’s interesting to note that this wasthe first instance of Congress appropriating funds for aterritorial library – and it served as a precedent for later actsestablishing other new territories. Just two years later,Congress appropriated funds for a library for the territory ofIowa.

That first $5,000 would roughly be equal to $100,000today, and so the committee that was appointed to purchasethe books had a relative fortune to spend. Peter Hill Engle,speaker of the first territorial House of Representatives,traveled to Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia andpurchased approximately 1,500 volumes, two-thirds ofwhich were law or law-related, thus setting the focus of thelibrary as clearly legal. In 1866, this focus was codified by

Ch. 119, Laws of1866, which stated,“no books shallhereafter bepurchased for thestate library, exceptlaw books ofreference, and workson political scienceand statistics.”Although thecollection was toremain solely legal,the library continuedto be called the StateLibrary until 1977,when the name waschanged to the StateLaw Library. In fact,the glass transoms

above what used to be the front doors of the Library in theCapitol still bear the “State Library” stencil.

The Library’s first home was in Burlington – now locatedin Iowa, but at the time part of the Wisconsin Territory.Burlington served as the location of the meeting of thesecond territorial Legislature. When the seat of stategovernment moved to Madison, the library moved with itand was located in the State Capitol. The library was firstadministered by the Legislative branch, and the statelibrarian was appointed by the Legislature. From 1836 to1875, no fewer than 12 different men were appointed to theposition of state librarian. In 1875, control of the State

Library was transferred to a board of trustees composed ofthe Supreme Court justices and the Attorney General. Thatsame year also saw the founding of the Wisconsin HistoricalSociety, to which most of the general works in the StateLibrary’s collection were transferred, further solidifying itslegal focus. But not until 1977 was legislation enacted toabolish the board of trustees; give the Supreme Court fullauthority over the Library; and officially change the nameWisconsin State Library to Wisconsin State Law Library -finally reflecting that it had been alegal collection for over 100years. (Laws of Wisconsin 1977,Chapter 29, Section 1393, whichalso changed State Librarian toState Law Librarian.).Interestingly, since 1876 onlyseven people have served as StateLibrarian, or State Law Librarian:John R. Berryman (1876-1906);Gilson R. Glasier (1906-1956);Edwin C. Jensen (1957-1969);William Knudson (1969-1974),Marcia J. Koslov (1974-2000);Jane Colwin & Julie Tessmer(acting Co-State Law Librarians 2000-2003); and JaneColwin (2003 – present).

In 1999, the State Law Library moved out of the Capitolwhen the Capitol restoration project, ongoing since 1987,finally reached its quarters in the East Wing. It occupiedtemporary space in the 1 E. Main Street office building (nowhome to the Legislative Reference Bureau) while the RisserJustice Center was built, and in January 2002, the librarymoved into that facility, located just off the Capitol Squareat 120 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.

Although the library’s name and location have changedover the years, what hasn’t changed is its commitment toserve the officers of the court, government employees,attorneys, and the public. Along the way it has embracednew tools – ballpoint pens, typewriters, microfilm andmicrofiche, photocopiers, fax machines and computers, toname just a few – and provided access to new productsdeveloped to make legal research easier, such as keynumber digests, loose-leaf services, CD-ROMs, DVDs,LexisNexis and Westlaw, the Internet, GPO Access,HeinOnline and LegalTrac. And yes, through it all, thelibrary has still bought books - and will continue to do so,since it is not yet possible to preserve our legal history andprovide access to a wide variety of legal information bysolely depending on the Internet or fee-based onlineresources.

1836-2011: The State Law Library Celebrates175 Years of ServiceBy Jane Colwin, State Law Librarian, and Connie Von Der Heide, Director of Reference & Outreach Services

see WSLL on page 19

Jane Colwin

Winter2011

THE

TH

IRD

BR

AN

CH

Supreme Court JusticePatience Drake Roggensackvisited Racine County’sAlcohol and Drug TreatmentCourt on Jan. 19 to observe thespecialty court process.Roggensack told the RacineJournal Times that she visitsdifferent courts around thecountry because she has nothad first-hand experience as atrial judge. Prior to serving onthe Supreme Court, she servedas a Court of Appeals judge.

“Alternatives toIncarceration” was the coverstory for the January issue ofWisconsin Counties Magazine.The issue featured an article oncounty jail alternatives by RockCounty Sheriff Robert D. Spoden, a progress report on theTreatment Alternatives and Diversion Grant Program byRay Luick and Adam Blust of the Wisconsin Office ofJustice Assistance, and a piece on Rock County’s VeteransCourt by Rock County Circuit Court Judge James P. Daley.

Also included was an article on the Effective JusticeStrategies Subcommittee of the Planning and PolicyAdvisory Committee, submitted by Supreme Court ChiefJustice Shirley S. Abrahamson, Executive Assistant to theChief Justice Theresa Owens, and Policy Analyst MichelleCyrulik. The article discusses the subcommittee’s goals ofidentifying and exploring programs that will improve publicsafety and reduce incarceration.

Several of the subcommittee’s efforts include the CriminalJustice Council, which allows members of the criminaljustice system to collaboratively problem solve; the Assess,Inform and Measure (AIM) pilot project, which providesjudges with information on offenders’ risks and recidivismrates; the “Enhanced Public Safety: Effective JusticeStrategies” Research Project, which will measure the effectsof judicial strategies across the state; and the Chief Justice’sCriminal Justice Mental Health Leadership Initiative, whichexamines and assesses the needs of people with mentalhealth issues in the criminal justice system.

On Jan. 17, District IV Court of Appeals Judge Paul B.Higginbotham was presented with the Governor’s 2011

Martin Luther King, Jr.Heritage Award at thestate Capitol.Higginbotham’s careerhas been filled with“firsts.”

“Dane CountyExecutive Rick Phelpsappointed me the firstDane County MinorityAffairs Coordinator,which allowed me toget my hands deeplyinto social justiceissues,” he told TheCapitol City Huesnewspaper.

He went on tobecome the firstmunicipal judge in

Madison before being elected to the Dane County CircuitCourt in 1994.

“It was really meaningful for alot of folks who came to court,”he told The Capitol City Hues.He was the first AfricanAmerican on the Dane Countybench. Higginbotham said it’s ashame there currently isn’t morediversity on the bench.

In 2003, then-Gov. Jim Doyleappointed Higginbotham to theDistrict IV Court of Appeals,making him the first (and still theonly) African American appellatejudge in Wisconsin.

The success of the WinnebagoCounty Safe Streets program was the focus of two separatearticles in the Oshkosh Northwestern. The program, whichtargets offenders whose crimes are motivated by addiction,offers treatment and monitoring in place of jail time. Thepositive effect the program had led former Gov. Jim Doyleto sign a bill that would expand the program to othercounties across the state,according to one of the articles.

“It’s amazing looking at thesepeople when they first come in towhen they finally graduate,”Winnebago County Circuit CourtJudge Scott C. Woldt told thepaper about the drug courtparticipants. “It’s a tremendouschange they’ve done.”

According to the Northwestern,the program, which began in2006, has had a 9.6 percentrecidivism rate and has saved thecounty over $1 million by havingfewer offenders serve jail time. Woldt, along with fellowWinnebago County Circuit Court Judge Barbara Hart Key,has been providing information to other counties.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Patience Drake Roggensackobserved Racine County’s Alcohol and Drug Treatment Court onJan. 19. Before the hearing, Roggensack met with the court team,which reviews case files in advance.

10

PEOPLE

Pho

to c

redi

t:M

ark

Her

tzbe

rg/T

he J

ourn

al T

imes

Gov. Scott Walker presents District IV Court of AppealsJudge Paul B. Higginbotham with the Governor’s 2011Martin Luther King, Jr. Heritage Award

Judge Scott C. Woldt

see People on page 11

Judge Paul B.Higginbotham

THE

TH

IRD

BR

AN

CH

Winter2011

11

Dodge County was one of thecounties to follow the Safe Streetsmodel with its alcohol court. TheDodge County court focuses onreducing drunk driving by offeringoffenders treatment for theiralcohol abuse.

“The common thinkinghistorically was to throw the bookat them,” Dodge County CircuitCourt Judge Brian A. Pfitzingertold the Northwestern. “When Iwas campaigning, I used to saythat if you think 30 days in thecounty jail is going to cure analcoholic, you’re thinkingcompletely wrong.”

“Drug courts are a smart way toaddress the problem of non-violent offenders who commitcrimes driven by drug addiction,”Dane County Drug TreatmentCourt presiding judge and CircuitCourt Judge John W. Marksontold the State Bar of Wisconsin’sInside Track. Dane County’s wasthe first adult drug courtestablished in Wisconsin.

According to Inside Track,Rock County has found a way toassist veterans facing criminalcharges through their veteran’scourt, without having to rely onthe county for funding (seeseparate Veterans Courts story onpage 5).

“The beauty of veteran’s courtis that treatment for those eligibleis paid for by the Department ofVeterans Affairs. Funding doesnot come from the county,” RockCounty Circuit Court Judge

James P. Daley told the State Bar. In Eau Claire County, single mothers can find assistance

through the Alternatives to Incarcerated Mothers court, thestate’s first specialty courtprogram for single mothers,Inside Track reports. The countyboard recently approved fundingfor the court to hire a full-timecoordinator.

“The community sees lesscrime and fewer victims as aresult of this court, and thefinancial benefits associated withless foster care and reducedincarceration,” Eau Claire CountyCircuit Court Judge Michael A.Schumacher told the State Bar’snewsletter.

Law students in Dane County are providing help for those

facing foreclosures, the WisconsinState Journal reported. TheForeclosure Answer Clinic bringscitizens facing foreclosuretogether with UW Law Schoolstudents to provide them withinformation about the foreclosureprocess and make them aware ofresources available to them.

The clinic is offered twice amonth at the Madison City-County Building and is madepossible by the Dane CountyForeclosure Prevention Taskforce,the Dane County Bar Association,and the UW Law School. ClinicalAssistant Professor Sarah Orr supervises the clinics atwhich her students and lawyers from the communityvolunteer.

“It’s a lot of emotion and can bedifficult,” Orr told the StateJournal. “I always fall back onthe idea that we are providing aservice to people.”

Walworth County has alsofound a way to face its mountingforeclosure crisis, according tothe Janesville Gazette. WalworthCounty Circuit Court Judge JohnR. Race told the Gazette he had afour-foot high pile of foreclosurelawsuits in his chambers. Theanswer was the Walworth CountyForeclosure Mediation Program.Thanks to the work of Atty. JohnMaier and other area attorneys,the volunteer program wascreated to help homeownersnavigate the complex foreclosureprocess through mediation.

“In many cases, mediation leadsto people keeping their homeunder new financial terms,although it sometimes meansfinding a graceful exit for thehomeowner,” Maier told theGazette.

Wisconsin Eye’s LegallySpeaking discussed the issue ofcourt interpreters in Wisconsin inan episode aired Dec. 20. DistrictII Court of Appeals Chief JudgeRichard S. Brown, MilwaukeeCounty Circuit Court Judge PaulR. Van Grunsven, CourtInterpreter Program ManagerCarmel Capati, and AssistantState Public Defender CatherineDorl addressed the Committee toImprove Interpretation and

see People on page 16

Judge Brian A. Pfitzinger

Judge John W. Markson

Judge Barbara Hart Key

Judge James P. Daley

Judge Michael A.Schumacher

Judge John R. Race

Chief Judge Richard S.Brown

Judge Paul R. VanGrunsven

PEOPLE continued from page 10

Winter2011

12

THE

TH

IRD

BR

AN

CH

New State Bar brochure for divorce litigantsBy Ann M. Zimmerman, Statewide Pro Se Coordinator

The State Bar of Wisconsin Family LawSection is offering the Wisconsin court

system free copies of the new brochure,“Choosing a Process for Divorce,” which isdesigned to be shared with all divorcing parties.According to Atty. Susan A. Hansen, past chairof the Family Law Section, “The brochuredescribes the divorce options available todivorcing parties and the involvement of familylawyers in each process. It explains the valueof legal advice, describes the dispute resolutionprocesses of mediation and collaborativepractice, and introduces limited scoperepresentation.”

The Bar is also making available a link to thebrochure for the Wisconsin court system’s Website and other county Web sites that request it.To order free copies of the brochure or torequest the link, please contact Salud Garcia,State Bar of Wisconsin, at (800) 728-7788

extension 6190, or at sgarcia@wisbar.org. A number of Wisconsin judges and court

commissioners played a role in thedevelopment of the brochure, including JudgesMichael J. Dwyer and Mary Triggiano inMilwaukee County. “The courts and Bar havea mutual interest in assuring informed decision-making and enhancing the efficientadministration of the court system whilecontinuing to improve access to justice. Thisinformational pamphlet is designed to helpWisconsin citizens understand the availabilityof options for resolving their divorce issues andthe valuable role family lawyers can play in theprocess,” Dwyer noted.

The Bar suggests distributing the brochure asa handout with all newly filed cases, providingit to local self-help programs and using it inany other way that can help inform the public.n

Columbia County students engage with courtBy Susan K. Raimer, Columbia County Clerk of Court

The Columbia County Circuit Court has alwaysbeen active in youth leadership and government

activities, and in the recent months, we have hostedthree events.

On Nov. 17, a group of 14 students participated inthe FLAG (Future Leaders Active in Government)program sponsored by Columbia County andorganized by UW-Extension. This one-day programfocused on job shadowing and interviews with courtstaff, observation of court activities, discussionregarding government careers, and a meeting withcounty board supervisors for a review of citizenshipresponsibilities.

In January, the Youth Leadership Group sponsoredby the Portage Area Chamber of Commerceparticipated in a one-half day mock trial withColumbia County Circuit Court Judge James O.Miller, Clerk of Circuit Court Susan Raimer, District Atty.Jane Kohlwey, Atty. Mark Lawton, Officer Scott Oelke, and

Court Reporter Margie Kurtz. The 24 students were roleplayers, along with the court staff, as the defendant,counsel, witnesses, jurors, and bailiffs, and re-enacted a trialfrom jury selection through the deliberations/final verdicts.It was a tremendous learning experience for all of us.

Finally, a 12-team Mock Trial Invitational was held inJanuary in the courthouse, with students preparing for andpresenting both sides of the same case. They were critiquedby Judge Daniel S. George, Judge Alan J. White, Attys. PaulJohnson and Tim Henney, and school staff.

We look forward to our annual American Legion YouthGovernment Day in April, the various tours andobservations of the county circuit court system conductedby Columbia County schools, and Juror Appreciation Monthin September, where activities may include our youth aswell. n

Participants listen to the court give instructions for the Portage AreaChamber of Commerce mock trial

Students are sworn in for the Portage Area Chamber ofCommerce mock trial.

THE

TH

IRD

BR

AN

CH

Winter2011

13

At its January meeting, the Supreme Court’s Planningand Policy Advisory Committee (PPAC) discussed

recent outreach efforts to increase communication to courtsystem stakeholders, such as the newly developed From theFront Lines electronic newsletter. The newsletter isdistributed following each quarterly PPAC meeting andhighlights an activity or initiative related to one of PPAC’sfour critical issues.

The first newsletter featured Judge John P. Anderson,Bayfield County Circuit Court, and his experience being ajudge in an AIM (Assess, Inform, and Measure) pilotcounty. Our most recent newsletter focused on court fundingand featured perspectives from Chief Judge Jeffrey A.Kremers, Milwaukee County Circuit Court, and Chief JudgeDarryl W. Deets, Manitowoc County Circuit Court.

PPAC has begun planning for a plenary session at thisyear’s Judicial Conference and created a Judicial ConferencePlanning Workgroup to work specifically on this effort.Members of the Judicial Conference Planning Workgroupinclude PPAC members Judge Edward E. Leineweber,Richland County Circuit Court; Judge Alan R. Bates, RockCounty Circuit Court; Atty. Kelli Thompson, WisconsinOffice of the Public Defender; and Planning SubcommitteeChair Judge Michael J. Rosborough, Vernon County CircuitCourt.

Planning Subcommittee welcomes new membersThe Planning Subcommittee welcomed two new members

in January. Judge Patrick J. Madden, Iron County CircuitCourt, and Judge Kathryn W. Foster, Waukesha CountyCircuit Court, were appointed by Supreme Court ChiefJustice Shirley S. Abrahamson.

Members of the subcommittee are working on two largescale projects. The first is the completion of the work on theCritical Issues 2010 – 2012 report. The PlanningSubcommittee will be meeting with PPAC at the end ofMarch to identify and prioritize objectives for future workfor each of the four critical issues: self-represented litigants,court system funding, sentencing reforms and alternatives,and alcohol- and drug-related offenses. Results from thisjoint meeting will be submitted to the director of statecourts.

At the same time, the subcommittee is embarking on along-range planning process to develop the court system’sbroad strategic goals. The subcommittee is working ondeveloping a focus group format that would enable it togather detailed information from focus group participantsabout court system processes, state and local programming,and unmet needs and resource gaps.

Additional information about PPAC, its subcommitteesand initiatives can be found at:http://wicourts.gov/about/committees/ppac.htm n

Questions about PPAC and its subcommittees may beaddressed to Shelly Cern in the Office of Court Operations,(608) 266-8861 or michelle.cern@wicourts.gov

PPAC launches newsletter, welcomes newPlanning Subcommittee membersBy Shelly Cern, PPAC Policy Analyst

AWARDS continued from page 3

court in 1978. He continues to serve as a reserve judge, aswell as on the Board of Bar Examiners, where he writesquestions for and grades the Bar Exam. He is also a facultymember of the UW Law School.

“I did not want to give up the law when I retired from thebench,” Dykman told the Law Journal.

Dykman is a former chair of the Judicial Commission, anda former member of the Fairchild Commission on JudicialElections and Ethics, and the Executive Committee andPlanning Committee of the Judicial Conference.

Past recipients of the Lifetime Achievement Awardinclude Reserve Judge Thomas H. Barland and ReserveJudge Michael N. Nowakowski.

Milwaukee judge is ‘Leader in Law’Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge Mary M. Kuhnmuench

was named a 2011 Leader in Law by the Wisconsin LawJournal at an awards dinner on Feb. 16.

Kuhnmuench, who was first elected to the bench in 1998,serves as the secretary of the Executive Committee of theJudicial Conference as well as on the Executive Committeefor the Milwaukee County Circuit Court. She is currentlythe presiding judge of the Milwaukee County Circuit CourtDomestic Violence Division.

She has previously been honored with a citation from theTask Force on Family Violence, a special commendation

form the U.S. Department ofJustice Office on ViolenceAgainst Women, a MilwaukeeCounty Community JusticeResource Center Gavel Award,and the Mentor of the YearAward from the Association forWomen Lawyers.

In supporting the nominationof Kuhnmuench, fellowMilwaukee County Circuit CourtJudge Mary E. Triggiano told theLaw Journal: “She is extremelyhardworking, compassionate,dedicated to her work, familyand friends, and goes the extra yard to help people withouthesitation.”

This is the ninth year the Law Journal has recognizedjudges and attorneys around the state who have had asignificant impact on Wisconsin law. Past recipients haveincluded Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Joseph M.Donald, Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Randy R.Koschnick, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge RichardJ. Sankovitz, and former District II Court of Appeals JudgeNeal P. Nettesheim. n

Judge Mary M.Kuhnmuench

Winter2011

14

THE

TH

IRD

BR

AN

CH

On Friday, Dec.17, 2010, nearly 200 judges, courtcommissioners, assistant district attorneys, public

defenders, private bar defense attorneys and pretrial servicestaff gathered at Marquette University Law School’sEckstein Hall for Pretrial Justice: Legal Foundations andEvidence-Based Decision-Making. The conference waspresented through technical assistance from the Bureau ofJustice Assistance and the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI),Washington, DC.

“This was a terrific opportunity for all of the stakeholdersto learn about the best practices and look at how we’redoing in Milwaukee County,” said Chief Judge Jeffrey A.Kremers. “My thanks go to Holly Szablewski and BethBishop Perrigo for coordinating the program and to DeanJoseph Kearney, Assistant Dean Dan Idzikowski and therepresentatives from PJI for making this possible.”

The program was structured to provide maximum time forcollaboration and interaction among the participants withthree break-out sessions: one for judges and judicial courtcommissioners, one for prosecutors and one for defenders.All were facilitated to allow participants to talk through theday’s discussion about the law, standards, screening and riskassessment, and voice any concerns about policy or practice.

Lindsey Carlson, general counsel, PJI, provided anoverview of the current state of policy and practice inWisconsin, and specifically Milwaukee County, includingWisconsin bail laws, Milwaukee County jail issues, currentpretrial practices in Milwaukee County and MilwaukeeCounty’s current pretrial risk-assessment and evidence-based tools.

Senior Judge Truman Morrison, III, D.C. Superior Court,and Steven Jansen, chief operating officer of the Associationof Prosecuting Attorneys, presided over a session designedto provide attendees with an opportunity to walk through aset of scenarios and examine decision points, their ownchoices, and their reactions with the group at large.

Other presentations included an overview of extantpretrial research, evidence-based practices, performancemeasurement for pretrial screening and risk assessment andmatching non-financial conditions of supervision to risk andreducing failures to appear. Attendees also examined casestudies where these tools are incorporated. There was also adiscussion of Milwaukee’s participation in the Evidence-Based Decision-Making for Local Criminal Justice Systemsproject and a brief review of national standards on pretrialrelease, as published by the American Bar Association andthe National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies.

The group then discussed next steps and nationalresources. During this session, each group described thechanges they are committed to implementing, based uponthe day’s events and discussions. The two most significantchanges involve: 1) the use of a validated risk assessmenttool and the training to be able to set bail or conditions ofbail that are reasonably related to the risk posed by thedefendant, either to not appear for court or to re-offend; and2) a revised and reasonable preventative detention statutethat would be used for those defendants who pose too high arisk and should not be out on bail. National resources andtraining available to assist in implementing these steps willbe discussed by PJI. n

Justice stakeholders gather for ‘pretrialjustice’ conferenceBy Beth Bishop Perrigo, Deputy District Court Administrator

As an attorney, Judge Edward F.Vlack had a law office across the

street from a fire department. In August2000, Vlack decided to join as avolunteer, thinking it was a great wayto serve his community. The followingyear, he was elected to the St. CroixCounty Circuit Court bench.

Today, Vlack continues to serve as avolunteer for the River Falls FireDepartment, as an assistant chief andtraining officer. In his role as trainingofficer, he’s responsible for selectingtopics, overseeing and putting intoplace the weekly trainings for alldepartment members.

“What I really enjoy about it,” Vlacksaid, “is as a volunteer, once that pagergoes off and you walk through thatdoor, it doesn’t matter who you are,what you do, or who you know.”

Despite having to carry a pager withhim everywhere, Vlack said the dutiesof both positions have never come intoconflict. He has never had to leave thecourtroom to fight a fire, nor has heever had his judicial responsibilitiesinterfere with his role as a firefighter.

“It’s the best second job in theworld,” Vlack said. “It’s so differentfrom what I do during the day.” n

Judge Edward F. Vlack

Judge puts out fires in and out of courtroom

OBITUARIES continued from front page

opinions he authored. “When Justice Bablitch retired from the court in 2003, he

hoped to dedicate a great deal more time to three priorities:his family, fly fishing and golf,” Chief Justice Shirley S.Abrahamson said. “Although his retirement was tragically

brief, I am happy to say that he was able to follow thesepassions in his beautiful adopted home state of Hawaii.”

He is survived by his wife, Ann Milne, a daughter, Bulleh,and grandchildren. n

THE

TH

IRD

BR

AN

CH

Winter2011

15

Registration is open for the 2011 Wisconsin Summit onChildren and Families. The 2011 Summit will be held

on May 11 - 12, 2011, at the Wilderness Resort, GlacierConference Center in Wisconsin Dells. This educationalprogram is a follow-up to the first Summit held in 2008 andwill be replacing the 2011 Juvenile Law Seminar.

Additional details and online registration for the 2011Summit can be found at:http://guest.cvent.com/d/hdqbw7/1Q

The 2011 Summit is intended to foster collaborationamong courts, tribes, and social service agencies by bringingtogether child welfare professionals to focus on strategies toimprove outcomes for Wisconsin children and families. Theconference content will emphasize effective engagement ofchildren and families to achieve timely permanence.

Topics that will be addressed at the 2011 Summit includethe Wisconsin Indian Child Welfare Act, evidence-basedpractices related to engaging families where mental health ordrug disorders are present, motivational interviewing,educational outcomes for children in foster care, andengaging fathers in child protection cases. Two optionalevening activities available to attendees include a screeningof the documentary Aging Out and a Talking Circlefacilitated by two Tribal Judges.

Providing the closing presentation at the 2011 Summit isAndrew Bridge, author of Hope’s Boy – A Memoir. AndrewBridge spent 11 years in the Los Angeles County foster caresystem and went on to earn a scholarship to Wesleyan,become a Fulbright Scholar, and graduate from Harvard

Law School. Bridge’s memoir is the true account of his lifewith his mother, a young mentally ill woman, of her effortsto keep and care for him, and of his life in foster carewithout her from age seven to 18. He has spent the majorityof his legal career representing impoverished children acrossthe country.

The 2011 Summit is made possible with federal grantfunding awarded to the court system as part of theChildren’s Court Improvement Program and is co-sponsoredwith the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families. n

For additional information, please contact Michelle JensenGoodwin, Children’s Court Improvement Program Director,at michelle.jensen-goodwin@wicourts.gov.

2011 Summit on Children and Familiesregistration opensBy Michelle Jensen-Goodwin, Court Operations

The new act affecting civil litigation is 2011 WisconsinAct 2, which took effect on Feb. 1. It makes variouschanges relating to civil actions, expert testimony, healthcare provider records, and applicability of certain criminalpenalties to health care providers. The act’s provisionsaddress:lWisconsin law regarding the opinion of lay and expert

witnesses to Federal Rules of Evidence 702, essentiallyadopting the Daubert standard. (See Judge John J.DiMotto’s article on the Daubert standard on page 4).lState product liability law, including creating specific

requirements for bringing product liability actions underthe theory of strict liability against manufacturers andagainst sellers and distributors and specifying howdamages are apportioned based upon the injured party’slevel of contributory negligence.lLimits on noneconomic damages in lawsuits against

various providers of long-term care such as nursinghomes, hospice centers and assisted living facilities.lCaps on punitive damages at $200,000 or two times

compensatory damages, whichever is greater (except fordrunk driving).

lRequirements to the use of the risk-contribution theory.lProvisions that permit the court to hold a party or a party’s

attorney liable for costs for frivolous claims at the trialand appellate level.lThe confidentiality of health care quality improvement

reviews, including provisions to make incident oroccurrence reports confidential and to prohibit their use inany civil or criminal action against any health careproviders.lA three-year statute of limitations on actions against long-

term care providers.lExemptions for health-care providers from criminal

prosecution for death or bodily harm to a patient thatresulted from the provider’s negligent conduct.The main focus of the Legislature during the next few

months is expected to be enactment of the 2011-13 statebudget. The Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee willspend the next three months studying and making revisionsto the 1,345-page bill. The companion budget bill numbersare Senate Bill 27 and Assembly Bill 40. n

Budget continued from front page

Winter2011

16

THE

TH

IRD

BR

AN

CH

“In county after county, I learned that we needed to do abetter job of identifying combat veterans in court andconnecting them with available services,” Abrahamsonwrote. “In some counties, there was a sense that veteransmight be best served through specialized court programstailored to meet their unique needs. I brought these concernsand ideas back to Madison, and the work began.”

Abrahamson emphasized that the veterans initiative wouldnot be possible without strong partners across the criminaljustice system and in the VA.

“Much work remains,” she told Black, “but I am confidentthat we shall continue to find new and more effectivestrategies for responding to the unique needs of combatveterans, for we owe them – and their communities – noless.”

Veterans Justice Outreach Specialists

The Veterans Administration in 2009 authorized each VAmedical center to hire a Veterans Justice Outreach Specialist(VJOS). These individuals are able to connect veterans withneeded services, serve as members of treatment court teamsand provide brief reports to the court.

The purpose of the initiative, according to VA materials, is“To avoid unnecessary criminalization of mental illness andextended incarceration among veterans by ensuring that

eligible veterans in contact with the criminal justice systemhave access to Veterans Health Administration (VHA)mental health and substance services.”

While the Wisconsin VA is continuing to fill thesepositions, several VJOS have been named. The VJOScurrently available to work with veterans involved in thecriminal justice system in Wisconsin are:Madison: Ed Zapala, Edward.Zapala@Va.gov or (608)320-2095Milwaukee: Linda Tiso, Linda.Tiso@va.govTomah: Garry Hebel, Garrett.Hebel@va.gov or (608) 372-7706Minneapolis: Faith Weiss, Faith.Weiss@va.govIron Mountain, Michigan: Michael Matwyuk,Michael.Matwyuk@va.gov or (906) 774-3300 (ext. 32552or 32541)

Vets program info available

A new handout that provides an overview of Wisconsin’sveterans court initiative is available in hard copy and on theweb.

The handout describes the various county-based programsand provides contact information for each. It’s available onthe Web atwww.wicourts.gov/about/organization/programs/docs/altveterans.pdf or by calling (608) 266-1298. n

Veterans continued from page 5

Translation in the Courts; the Court Interpreter Program; theimportance of equal access; the need to locate interpretersfor rare languages; and how the certification program forcourt interpreters has greatly improved the quality ofservices for limited English speaking individuals. Theprogram can be viewed at:www.wiseye.org/Programming/VideoArchive/EventDetail.aspx?evhdid=3470

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had thechance to experience Wisconsin duck hunting, thanks toChief Judge Donald R. Zuidmulder and Judge William M.Atkinson, both of Brown County Circuit Court. Scalia wasin Green Bay to give the inaugural address for the GreenBay chapter of the St. Thomas More Society on Oct. 20,

2010. The society is made up oflawyers and non-lawyers whoshare the common goal offostering justice in thecommunity.

After Scalia asked the bishopabout duck hunting, Atkinson setup the hunt on the west shore ofGreen Bay. Scalia and Atkinsonset out on ATVs at daybreak, tobe joined later by Zuidmulder.

Zuidmuler said they had atremendous west/southwest windthat day that made things a bittough at times, but it was a

wonderful hunt. The group shot between 10 and 12 ducks,including some species Scalia said he had never huntedbefore.

“It was a great time,” Zuidmulder said. “We talked about

hunting. There was not muchdiscussion about search andseizures.”

The old saying goes “a way toa man’s heart is through hisstomach.” Dodge County CircuitCourt Judge Brian A. Pfitzingerbelieves that holds true forjurors, too.

“Being a juror is a tough job,”Pfitzinger told the MilwaukeeJournal Sentinel. “We bringthem in whenever it’s convenientfor us to talk in front of them.Then we drag them back out and

we lock them in a room.”As a way of showing his appreciation for the time and

dedication, he asks his jurors one important question at thestart of every trial: chocolate or carrot. Cake, that is.

“This stuff was homemade,” former juror Sue Sukopptold the Journal Sentinel of the judge’s baking. “It was morethan just really good. It was exceptional.”

“It’s a dual purpose – to thank the jury, and for me it’s astress relief. I can run the beater until the eggs won’t haveit,” Pfitzinger told the paper.

A water main break outside the Waukesha CountyCourthouse didn’t stop justice from being served, but itrequired a longer walk to the restrooms, the MilwaukeeJournal Sentinel reported. The Feb. 9 break caused theWaukesha Water Utility to shut off the water to the building,but workers and visitors to the courthouse were able to usethe facilities at the neighboring Administration Building,according to the Journal Sentinel. n

PEOPLE continued from page 11

Chief Judge Donald R.Zuidmulder

Judge William M.Atkinson

THE

TH

IRD

BR

AN

CH

Winter2011

17

LEADERSHIP

Mentoring allows judges to share experienceThe mentoring program for new Wisconsin circuit court

judges is intended to shorten the learning curve of newjudges and to facilitate a smooth transition onto the bench.The Wisconsin Committee of Chief Judges adopted amentoring program in 1988.

In 2007, the program was updated by a subcommittee ofthe Committee of Chief Judges, including member JudgesBenjamin D. Proctor, Eau Claire County Circuit Court; GaryL. Carlson, now a reserve judge; and J. Mac Davis,Waukesha County Circuit Court. District CourtAdministrator Patrick Brummond and former District CourtAdministrator Gregg Moore also served on thesubcommittee. A mentoring guide now available on thecourt system’s Intranet, CourtNet, was published in 2008.

The mentoring program timeline is flexible to allow forindividual circumstances, but identifies specific actions tobe taken during the time period between election orannouncement of appointment (or even earlier), during thefirst two weeks and during subsequent months in office.

Under the program, the Chief Judge appoints a mentorand directs the new judge to participate. The district courtadministrator meets with the new judge and, in cooperationwith the chief judge, completes specific district orientationtasks and responsibilities.

The Third Branch asked recent participants in the programto share their perspective.

In this example of “cross-district” mentoring, Judge JamesDuvall, Buffalo and Pepin County Circuit Courts, served asprimary mentor for Pierce County Circuit Court JudgeJoseph D. Boles, who was elected in 2010. St. Croix CountyCircuit Court judges Edward F. Vlack III and Scott R.Needham, assisted as mentors, and other judges continue toserve as resources when called.

On being a judge and mentorby Judge James J. Duvall, Circuit Courts of Buffalo and Pepin counties

Newly elected judges aresmart, hard-working, capablepeople with vast knowledge andexperience in the law. In otherwords, they don’t have a clueabout what it is like to be ajudge. Working with thementoring program was a goodreminder of where we all started.

Just as there is the “practice oflaw,” there is a “practice” ofbeing a judge. Mentoring a newjudge is not primarily about thelaw, it is about introducing the mindset of being a judge. Afair starting point may be a comment I once received froman experienced trial attorney as we waited for a verdict. Hesaid he looks for three things in a judge: First, a judge musttreat everyone in Court with respect; second, a judge mustcontrol the courtroom; and third, a judge must make adecision.

A mentor can help a new judge develop his judicial

personality, his instinct for the correct outcome, and hisjudgment. The bench has a different point of view, muchmore passive than an attorney. After years of being theplayer on the field, you become the referee in the reviewbooth. A Judge watches the action, instead of creating it.During my first jury trial as a judge, I made an objectionfrom the bench – luckily at the same time as an attorney.With some embarrassment, I promptly sustained theobjection.

The act of mentoring involves helping a new judge dealwith the mundane. When I started, I thought the issue Iwould have to guard myself against was ego, but I havefound my biggest challenge is patience. The verboseattorney, the hoary excuses for bad behavior, the unskilledpro se litigant are all more of a daily challenge than the finescholarly legal point. A large portion of our job is sayingthe magic combination of words, processing cases, anddealing with the routine. Mentoring is about helping thenew judge see our important role in the ordinary case,challenging the new judge to give everyone their say, and tonever forget, to the persons involved, their case is the mostimportant case in the world.

Our Wisconsin Judicial College is a wonderful resource,providing the best training in the nation. But a person maybe on the bench for months before having a chance toattend. A new judge from his first day on the bench needsto know how to take a plea, how to decide a placementdispute, and how to do all the things experienced judgesroutinely do every day. Perhaps some of the informationfrom the Judicial College could be collected in a handbookfor new judges so they may immediately benefit from thisvaluable resource. Until then, the mentor must fill the newjudge’s toolbox with checklists, bench outlines, and otherresources to help them find the right result from the firstday, guiding them on which tool to select and how muchforce to apply.

I recently had the privilege of mentoring Judge Joe Bolesand traveled to his bench in Pierce County for a week.Together we reviewed the scheduled cases, spotted issuesand discussed procedures, but Judge Boles did his owncalendar from the first day. I found that mentoringexperience so much more beneficial than having himshadow my bench. The types of cases, the people involvedand the procedures used were all those Judge Boles wouldbe encountering in his own court. It also changed thedynamic, so that he was doing his job in his own court withmy help, rather than him trying to be me in mine.

The mentoring program creates on ongoing relationshipfrom which both participants benefit. If you want to learnsomething, teach it. I thank Judge Boles for the opportunityhe gave to me. Mentoring creates a relationship of trust andsharing. Whether in a single-branch county, or one withmany, we tend to not be open and involved enough witheach other. We each are better when we share with other.

A new judge must adjust to many lifestyle changes, whichmay be shared with a mentor. A judge’s schedule is rigidand locked in months in advance. Suddenly you are anemployee, answering to a County Board, dealing with staff

Judge James J. Duvall

see Leadership on page 18

Winter2011

18

THE

TH

IRD

BR

AN

CH

over which you do not have the same control as in privatepractice. Your relationship with your former office staff andyour former clients virtually disappears, creating a very realsense of loss. People don’t even call you by your name anymore. Attorneys may find your jokes funnier now, but youare not the same as the others. There is a “separateness.”

But once in a while a judge can make a difference in away no one else can. A mentor and a new judge remindeach other of the important work we do in people’s lives andin preserving the fabric of our society. Mentoring reminds ushow lucky judges are, what a wonderful job we have andhow much we can do if we just try.

On being mentored as a new judgeby Judge Joseph D. Boles, Pierce County Circuit Court

After six months in office as the Pierce County CircuitJudge, I have reflected on the mentor program and howimportant it was to my start as a trial judge. This programwas instrumental in getting my judicial career off on the bestpossible footing. It helped me feel comfortable on thebench right away. The psychological aspect of the transitionfrom attorney to judge was one I hadn’t considered. Beingan advocate is quite differentfrom being a decision maker. Mymentors helped me transitionfrom lawyer to judge with somedegree of ease.

I was quite fortunate to haveJudge James Duvall, CircuitJudge for Buffalo and PepinCounties, as my first mentor.Judge Duvall was available toassist me in my own countyduring that frightening first week.He was available to discuss allmatters of which I was unsure.He was able to observe meworking in my own courtroom and offer good-naturedsuggestions for improvement. He gave me a complete setof written procedures he had prepared to aid him inhandling all types of cases. He also suggested I rely on theBench Books. His procedure manual and the Bench Booksgave me a reliable and easy-to-understand method of dealingwith many of the cases which came before me.

More important than the written materials was JudgeDuvall’s positive attitude and willingness to make me feelcomfortable. He put me at ease and was always available tocounsel me when I ran into a difficult situation or a difficultperson. He is still, even after six months, continuing tomentor me by being available to answer questions and helpme through difficult situations.

Most important, Judge Duvall has become a friend.District Court Administrator Patrick Brummond set up my

mentor schedule. He did a masterful job of ensuring that Iwitnessed many different types of cases and calendars, aswell as different judges with different styles andpersonalities. Pat has been wonderful to work with and isalways available. He is happy to answer all my questionsand direct me to the proper resource.

Pat also scheduled me for two days in St. Croix County,

where I spent one day each withJudges Edward F. Vlack andScott R. Needham, who are bothtalented judges. They havedifferent styles and differentpersonalities; both are veryeffective. Both Judge Needhamand Judge Vlack sat with me ontheir respective benches. Iobserved them, and they allowedme to handle certain routinematters on their calendars. Thisexperience was extremelyvaluable. I think that the mostimportant thing I learned fromthe judges in St. Croix Countywas that I would develop my ownstyle on the bench that wouldreflect my personality.

Other judges were available tohelp me by taking my calls andanswering my e-mails. I wasamazed at the friendlywillingness of judges in my areato be available to help mewhenever I needed it. JudgesEric J. Lundell and Howard W.Cameron, St. Croix Circuit Court;Judge Timothy M. Doyle, BarronCounty Circuit Court; Judges Robert H. Rasmussen andMolly E. GaleWyrick, Polk County Circuit Court; JudgesWilliam C. Stewart Jr. and Rod W. Smeltzer, Dunn CountyCircuit Court; and Judge Lisa K. Stark, Eau Claire CountyCircuit Court were all enthusiastic about being available toanswer questions and give advice.

My experience in the Mentor Program was wonderful. Ican’t think of one negative experience I had in the program.It was a great learning experience and, at the end of theprogram, I felt prepared to hear the cases on my calendar.

On developing the mentoring planby Patrick Brummond, Seventh Judicial District CourtAdministrator

One of the pleasurable challenges of a chief judge anddistrict court administrator is developing a meaningful

mentoring plan for a new judge.Before any planning or assigningof a mentoring judge or judges,the chief judge and district courtadministrator gather as muchpertinent information as possibleabout the new judge’s personality,interests and needs. This istypically done quickly throughtelephone conversations,orientation meetings and the newjudge’s self assessment. Withthat information in hand, the chiefjudge and district court

Judge Scott R. Needham

Judge Joseph D. Boles

Judge Edward F. Vlack

Patrick Brummond

LEADERSHIP continued from page 17

see Leadership on page 19

THE

TH

IRD

BR

AN

CH

Winter2011

19

administrator select a mentor judge or judges who bestmatch the needs of the new judge. In the Seventh JudicialDistrict, we prefer to designate a number of mentor judgeswith one of them serving as the primary mentor.

Once the mentor judges are designated, the calendars ofall of the participating judges, including the new judge, arereviewed to identify court hearings, calendars and trials thatmay be helpful to the the new judge. The goal for the twoweeks of mentoring is to provide the new judge the greatestopportunity to observe and hear a wide range of mattersunder the tutelage of the mentor judges. We always attemptto include some intake calendars, a juvenile calendar and ajury trial.

A mentoring schedule is developed to allow the new judgeto observe or hear a proceeding alongside a mentor judge.Because court calendars often change, alternative calendarsalso are identified to accommodate schedule changes. Thisprovides the new judge and mentors the flexibility to adjustthe plan on the fly to maximize the mentoring experience.Finally, the mentoring schedule identifies reserve judgecoverage that will be needed for the new judge or mentor’scalendar.

The mentoring schedule for Judge Boles was tailored to

enhance his individual mentoring experience. For example,on days that Judge Boles’ court calendar provided a goodsample of experiences that met his needs as a new judge, hisprimary mentor judge, Judge James Duvall, Buffalo andPepin County Circuit Courts, traveled to Pierce County.This provided Judge Boles the opportunity to getcomfortable in his own courtroom with his legal community,staff and litigants.

Judge Boles’ mentoring experience also was rather uniquein that it involved mentoring across district lines in St. CroixCounty. Pierce County is in the northern reaches of theSeventh Judicial District, and it has much in common withSt. Croix County, where Boles spent a day each alongsideJudges Vlack and Needham.

They share bar associations, state public defenders andmany litigants. Mentoring across district lines not onlyrequired the enthusiastic cooperation of the St. Croix Countyjudges, but also of the District Ten Chief Judge Ben Proctorand District Court Administrator Scott Johnson. With theirassistance and a general assignment from Director of StateCourts John Voelker to grant Judge Boles the authority tohear cases in St. Croix County, the cross-district mentoringexperiment was a success. n

Hollen. She has taught at the UW Law School.The spring general election is scheduled for April 5.Circuit court races are as follows:Columbia County (Judge James O. Miller, retiring):Timothy C. HenneyW. Andrew Voight

Green Lake County (Judge William M. McMonigal,retiring):Mark T. SlateJon R. Wilsnack

Marathon County, Branch 5 (Judge Patrick M. Brady,retiring)Sandra J. Marcus Michael K. Moran

Milwaukee County, Branch 18 Judge Pedro Colon (incumbent)Christopher R. Lipscomb

Polk County, Branch 2 (Judge Robert H. Rassmussen,retired)Jeffrey L. AndersonDaniel P. Steffen

Sheboygan County, Branch 3Catherine Q. DelahuntJudge Angela W. Sutkiewicz (incumbent)

Winnebago County, Branch 6 (Judge Robert A. Hawley,retiring)Daniel J. BissettEdmund J. Jelinski n

Primaries continued from front page

LEADERSHIP continued from page 18

The staff of the State Law Library is very proud andexcited to celebrate this special milestone, and will beoffering a variety of special activities throughout the year.Significant historical moments will be highlighted in thelibrary’s monthly newsletter, WSLL @ Your Service.Birthday cake will be served at the Library on April 20, anda special after-hours celebration will take place later in theyear. Since librarians are pack rats by nature, some fun andinteresting things that have been collected over the past 175years will be placed on display in the library throughout theyear.

Library staff, with the help of volunteer Carol Hermann, isalso digging through boxes of library files and catalogs inorder to compile a more complete history, and to create aninteractive timeline of library “firsts” and other significant

events that will be placed on the library’s Web site. As partof that effort, the staff is collecting people’s favoritememories of using the library to post on the library’s Website and compile in a special 175th anniversary publication.The Third Branch readers are heartily encouraged to submitcomments and anecdotes through the library’s Web site,http://wilawlibrary.gov/about/celebrate.html. n

Sources:5 Stats. 10, sec. 17, April 20, 1836Wisconsin’s Pioneer Library, New York Times, February 9,19365 Stats. 235, sec. 18, June 12, 18381977 Laws of Wisconsin Act 29, section 1393.

WSLL continued from page 9

Over the past five years technology in the Wisconsincourts has been changing rapidly. The main focus has

been on creating efficiencies for the courts, justice partners,attorneys, and the public through new services likeelectronic filing, documentimaging, electronic data-sharing and on-line servicesfor the public and attorneys.But behind the scanners,Web sites, and customsoftware are the oft-overlooked but essentialhardware systems. Thishardware infrastructureincludes the file servers,databases, web applicationservers, and almost 3,000desktop computers used bycourt staff throughout thestate.

Unfortunately, even thoughthe Consolidated CourtAutomation Programs(CCAP)-provided hardware and software systems havecontinued to steadily grow, CCAP’s revenues to provide andsupport these systems have not. CCAP, like otherinformation technology departments, is continually lookingfor new ways to squeeze unnecessary costs out of thebudget. One cost-saving approach that CCAP is pursuing isto no longer purchase desktop computers. CCAP isembarking on a new strategy for desktop workstationswhich will help achieve long-term savings and minimize thestaff costs required to support such a large computing base.

In 2010, CCAP’s senior technical architects designed andtested a new and improved method for delivering softwareapplications to each user’s desktop. This new approachreplaces desktop computers with “thin clients.” The thinclient environment essentially moves the computing fromthe users’ desktop computers to the servers. This approachdiffers significantly from CCAP’s traditional technicalarchitecture where all of the workstations are “fat clients.” Afat client is a fully functional workstation where theWindows operating system and all computer applications,such as CCAP Case Management, Microsoft Office, andGroupWise are loaded and run directly on the desktopcomputer.

In a “fat client” environment with twenty users, there aretwenty individual desktop computers running softwareapplications. By contrast, the thin client environment runsall software applications for all the users on a single high-powered server located on the network. The thin client,coupled with a monitor, keyboard and mouse, connects to aserver that has all of the software and processingcapabilities that used to be provided by each user’s desktopcomputer.

What makes this a better environment? There are manyadvantages, including:

Location flexibilityMany CCAP users switch work locations throughout the

day; clerks switch from their desks to help customers at thecounter, judges move from chambers to the courtroom, andclerks switch from their desks to courtroom workstations.In the new environment, users can quickly log in and access

their running applicationsfrom any thin client deviceon the network. In trafficcourt, for example, the clerkcould log into the thin clientin the courtroom and shewould have access to herdesktop with exactly thesame applications runningand files opened as she hadon the thin client at her desk.

Fewer computer failuresEach desktop computer

will eventually be replacedby a much simpler andsmaller thin client device.The thin clients, which areabout the size of a cigar box,

contain less hardware and are less likely to fail. Thenumber of problems experienced by users related to badhard drives, faulty CPU’s, or bad memory will besignificantly reduced, as most of these hardwarecomponents will be server-based with built-in faulttolerance. If hardware fails on a server, users will fail overto the back-up server which will keep system downtime to aminimum.

Fewer configuration problemsA fat client environment requires that each PC be

independently configured with the correct version of theWindows operating system and a number of other softwareapplications. It also requires that each desktop computer beindependently kept up to date with necessary Windows andapplication patches and upgrades. With close to 3,000supported desktop computers, CCAP needs to allocate aconsiderable amount of staff time and effort intomaintaining standard, up-to-date desktop configurations.And, the process is prone to error. Computer configurationerrors, such as corrupt profiles, are one of the most commontypes of calls received by the CCAP call center. These callsrequire additional time to resolve and cause frustration forCCAP users that experience these problems. In the new thinclient environment, the total number of supported computersis reduced by about 90 percent, which will result in farfewer problems related to configuration and setup.

Ease of updating applicationsCCAP receives many requests for updated software

versions throughout the year. In the current environment,most version upgrades for software like Internet Explorer,GroupWise and Microsoft Officesuite require a change tothe base image of the desktop computers, which generallyoccurs only once per year. These changes often require

Winter2011

20

THE

TH

IRD

BR

AN

CH

CCAP innovates with new ‘thin client’By Jean Bousquet, Chief Information Officer

see CCAPon page 22

In the new environment, users can log in and access theirrunning applications from any thin client device on the network.

THE

TH

IRD

BR

AN

CH

Winter2011

21

The Young Lawyers Division (YLD) of the State Bar ofWisconsin is seeking volunteers, including judges and

lawyers, to speak in K-12 classrooms statewide as part ofLaw Day celebration from April 25 to May 6. The theme ofLaw Day 2011 is “The Legacy of John Adams: FromBoston to Guantanamo.” The program provides anopportunity to assess and celebrate the legacy of PresidentAdams, including an exploration of the historical andcontemporary role of lawyers in defending the rights of theaccused and appreciation for the fundamental principle ofthe rule of law.

“Law Day benefits students, volunteers, and thecommunity,” said YLD President Jill Kastner. “Not only arestudents educated about our legal system, but they get theopportunity to have a positive experience with an attorney.

Classroom volunteersThe YLD will provide age-appropriate curriculum to

educate students about our great legal system and about thelegal profession. Volunteers will be assigned to K-12classrooms statewide. For more information on classroomvolunteering or the Law Day YouTube video contest, pleaseemail LawDayWI@gmail.com.

Law Day video contestIn addition to the traditional Law Day celebrations, the

YLD is sponsoring a Law Day YouTube Video Contest forstudents in grades K-12. The contest will ask students tosubmit videos on this year’s Law Day theme. Participants

will post theirvideos to YouTubeand submit thelink and otherapplication formsto the State Bar ofWisconsin.Winners will beannounced onApril 27, andawards will bepresented as partof the YLD LawDay celebration.

More informationabout theWisconsinprogram can befound at the YLDWeb site at:www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Young_Lawyers&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&contentid=58852

Additional information and materials about this year’stheme can be found at the American Bar Association’s Website: www.lawday.org.

Law Day volunteers sought to work with students

Two new statistical reports on self-represented litigationare currently available in the CCAP Reports application.

The reports summarize data that was collected with arelatively new pro se appearance processing feature in theCCAP Case Management System. The feature was firstactivated throughout the state in 2010 for a 12-week period.Both reports summarize pro se party information by casetype. The Case Summary Report provides a breakdown ofpro se information by pre-judgment and post-judgmentactivity. The Party Summary Report provides a breakdownby party type. These reports will be accessed through theCCAP Reports application for those authorized to viewreports at the county level. CCAP will also provide thesereports with district and statewide information.

The second round of pro se data collection will also beginthis spring. As was the case last year, all Wisconsin circuitcourts that participate in CCAP will use a pro se appearanceprocessing feature in the CCAP Case Management system.This feature will be enabled and disabled throughout thestate by CCAP. Detailed information and instructionsregarding this collection period will be communicated prior

to activation via email to all Clerks of Circuit Court,Juvenile Clerks and Registers in Probate.

The 2010 appearance processing feature improves uponthe previous methodology for collecting pro se data andallows the court system to better meet the administrativechallenges posed by self-represented litigation and serveself-represented litigants in a number of ways. First,statistical information assists the court system in developinga more accurate understanding of the extent of selfrepresentation throughout the state and the consequences ofself representation for litigants and court administration.Second, better data collection allows for specific resourcetargeting and the establishment of baselines for assessingprogrammatic successes and failures. Finally, reliable datamay be used to support funding requests, or justify overtimeor staffing levels.

The new feature and reports were developed uponrecommendations from reports of the Supreme CourtPlanning and Policy Advising Committee (2006) and theWisconsin Pro Se Working Group (2000). n

New pro se statistical reports now available;Second annual data collection to beginBy Ann Zimmerman, Statewide Pro Se Coordinator

The

Thi

rd B

ranc

h

www.wicourts.gov

Chief JusticeShirley S. Abrahamson

Director of State CourtsA. John Voelker

Co-EditorsTom SheehanAmanda K. Todd

Associate EditorSara Foster

Contributing WritersHon. Todd W. BjerkeHon. Joseph D. BolesJean BousquetPatrick BrummondHon. James J. Duvall Shelly CernJane Colwin Hon. John J. DiMottoHon. Mel Flanagan Sara FosterMichelle Jensen-Goodwin Beth Bishop Perrigo Susan K. Raimer Nancy Rottier Tom SheehanAmanda ToddA. John VoelkerConnie Von Der HeideAnn M. Zimmerman

Editorial CommitteeHon. Michael J. RosboroughVernon County Circuit CourtCarolyn OlsonIowa County Clerk of CircuitCourt

Graphic Design/LayoutSara Foster

The Third Branch is aquarterly publication of theDirector of State CourtsOffice, providing news ofinterest to the Wisconsincourt system.

Send questions, comments,and article ideas to: Amanda ToddCourt Information OfficerP.O. Box 1688Madison, WI 53701-1688phone(608) 264-6256e-mailamanda.todd@wicourts.govfax(608) 267-0980

THE

TH

IRD

BR

AN

CH

Winter2011

22

and tell us they are going to putcomputers on our desks and give us acase management system,” Bruleysaid. “It was hard to believe, butwhen I got my CCAP computer in1990, I started to believe. In 1991they were recruiting for CCAPanalysts and I applied. My friendsthought I was crazy to give up my RIPposition for something that was goingto sunset in 1993.”

Bruley briefly left CCAP in 1992 tobecome the first Madison municipalcourt administrator and help create anew municipal court. She returned toCCAP in 1996 as a senior business

process analyst, a position she hasheld for the past 15 years.

“I believed in the statewide courtsystem vision and here I am afterworking for CCAP for almost 16years,” Bruley said. “It has beengreat! I am proud to be one of theearly employees that worked in thisnational model for statewide courtmanagement systems. I am proud ofthe work I did here.”

In her retirement, Bruley said sheplans to garden, play bridge, read,travel, and help take care of her twograndsons. n

RETIREMENTS continuned from page 2

5) Whether the technique or theoryhas been generally accepted in thescientific community.

6) Whether experts are proposing totestify about matters flowing naturallyand directly out of research they haveconducted independent of thelitigation, or whether they havedeveloped it for purposes of testifying.

7) Whether the expert hasunjustifiably extrapolated from anaccepted premise to an unfoundedconclusion.

8) Whether the expert hasadequately accounted for obviousalternative explanations.

9) Whether the expert is being ascareful as he would be in his regularprofessional work outside his paidlitigation consulting.

10) Whether the field of expertiseclaimed by the expert is known toreach reliable results for the type of

opinion the expert would give.Under 907.02, before expert

testimony will be admitted, the trialcourt must be satisfied that:

1) The testimony is based uponsufficient facts or data.

2) The testimony is the product ofreliable principles and methods.

3) The witness has applied theprinciples and methods reliably to thefacts of the case.

The “$64,000 Question” that I posedin my first paragraph and that remainsto be answered is still: Is this a seismicchange or a subtle change?

I am not sure we will have ananswer in the near future, but in themeantime and in the final analysis,what it will boil down to is for everytrial judge to properly exercise his orher discretion in terms of bothrelevancy and reliability via a flexibleinquiry conducted under 901.04. n

Daubert conitnued from page 4

computer re-boots and can be timeintensive to complete statewide.Migrating to a thin client environmentsimplifies the process of upgradingsoftware. Rather than updating eachindividual computer, the softwareresiding on a bank of servers isupdated, reducing the number ofsoftware installations that need to beupdated by ten-fold. This willeventually help improve timelycustomer service delivery for softwareupdates, as CCAP staff can remotelyinstall software updates in a few hoursrather than spending months updatingthe thousands of desktop computers.

In conclusion, the ease andefficiency of administering a thin

client environment will allow CCAP toallocate technical support staff to otherimportant technical initiatives. To dateCCAP has already implemented sixcounties with thin clients, and plans toaccelerate the pace of implementationsthrough 2011. When the migration iscomplete, the total number of desktopcomputers in the court systementerprise will be reduced fromapproximately three thousand to a fewhundred. At the same time enhancedsecurity, reduced on-site technicalsupport and increased systemperformance will be realizedthroughout the state. The savings andbenefits to this technical migration aretoo great to ignore. n

CCAP conitnued from page 20