On Point: C. Disqualification

State v. M.E., 2019AP2228, 9/1/2020, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

M.E. was adjudicated delinquent after a bench trial. During the trial, the judge overheard a conversation between a state’s witness and the prosecutor that led her to believe her sequestration order had been violated. M.E. argues the judge was disqualified because she was now a witness in her own case; the court of appeals concludes she cured any problem by striking the witness’s testimony.

Robertson Fowler, III, v. Keith Butts, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 15-1221, 2016 WL 3916012, 7/20/16

The Seventh Circuit holds a federal judge is always disqualified from hearing a collateral attack on a judgment he or she entered or affirmed as a state judge.

SCOW watchers might find today’s 3-3 split in Yasmine Clark v. American Cyanamid Company, 2014AP775 interesting.  The appeal raises an important constitutional issue in the context of a lead paint products liability case. The court of appeals’ certification asks:

Memorandum Decision on Recusal in: Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. David T. Prosser, Jr., 2012 WI 104 (Justice Gableman);  case activity; companion decisions: 2012 WI 103; 2012 WI 69, 2012 WI 43

¶1   On May 8, 2012, I received a letter from Kevin P. Reak, counsel for Justice David T. Prosser, Jr., filed with the court, requesting that I recuse myself from participation in the captioned matter.  

Memorandum Decision on Recusal in: Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. David T. Prosser, Jr., 2012 WI 103 (Justice Ziegler);  case activity; companion decisions: 2012 WI 69, 2012 WI 43

Justice Ziegler, like Justice Roggensack and unlike Justice Crooks, recuses herself from a pending judicial complaint against Justice Prosser.

¶2   The highly unusual issue each justice is called upon to decide is whether he or she,

State v. Circuit Court for Dane County / Ismael R. Ozanne v. Jeff Fitzgerald, 2012 WI 82, declining to grant motion to reopen 2011 WI 43; case activity; companion case: Adams v. State, 2012 WI 81

The court splits 3-3 on, and therefore does not grant, District Attorney Ozanne’s motion to reopen the decision in 2011 WI 43 (the Act 10,

Memorandum Decision on Recusal in: Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. David T. Prosser, Jr., 2012 WI 69 (Justice Crooks); case activity; companion decision: 2012 WI 43

Justice Crooks declines to recuse himself (with respect to the pending misconduct complaint against Justice Prosser) under the Rule of Necessity, namely the possible loss of a quorum (4 justices) and thus loss of ability altogether to resolve the matter:

This matter——involving discipline of a sitting Supreme Court justice arising from incidents with sitting justices that were witnessed by other sitting justices——places this court in a difficult position.

Memorandum Decision on Recusal in: Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. David T. Prosser, Jr., 2012 WI 43 (Justice Roggensack); case activity

¶1   On April 17, 2012, Justice David T. Prosser’s Attorney, Kevin P. Reak, wrote and asked me to disqualify myself from participation in the above-captioned matter, asserting that I am a material witness. …

¶2   … I conclude that I am disqualified by law from participating in the above-captioned proceeding.  

State v. Dylan S. / Renee B., 2012 WI App 25 (recommended for publication); for Dylan S.: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity;  for Renee B.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Delinquency – Sanctions – Municipal Truancy 

After finding the juveniles in violation of  first-offense truancy under the local municipal code, the trial court set compliance conditions. The court did not,

order denying motion for reconsideration of in: State v. Dimitri Henley, 2011 WI 67; for Henley: Keith A. Findley; case activity; additional history: 2010 WI 12 (memorandum decision, Roggensack, J.); court order (5/24/10)

Henley’s motion to reconsider, though directed formally to the decision reversing grant of new trial, as a practical matter is directed to reconsideration of Justice Roggensack’s prior refusal to disqualify herself (on the ground she had previously “handled”