Current Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices

(with the year of taking office)

Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson (1976, Chief 1996)

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley (1995)

Justice N. Patrick Crooks (1996)

Justice David T. Prosser, Jr. (1998)

Justice Patience D. Roggensack (2003)

Justice Louis B. Butler (2004)

Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler (2007)

Chief Justice John Roberts, 7th Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture

Hon. John G. Roberts Jr., Chief Justice of the United States
Opening remarks by Federalist Society President Eugene Meyer
November 16, 2007, Mayflower Hotel, Washington, DC
audio and video

Purposes of the State Bar of Wisconsin

The purposes of the association are to aid the courts in carrying on and improving the administration of justice; to foster and maintain on the part of those engaged in the practice of law high ideals of integrity, learning, competence and public service and high standards of conduct; to safeguard the proper professional interests of the members of the bar; to encourage the formation and activities of local bar associations; to conduct a program of continuing legal education; to assist or support legal education programs at the preadmission level; to provide a forum for the discussion of subjects pertaining to the practice of law, the science of jurisprudence and law reform and the relations of the bar to the public and to publish information relating thereto; to carry on a continuing program of legal research in the technical fields of substantive law, practice and procedure and make reports and recommendations thereon within legally permissible limits; to promote the innovation, development and improvement of means to deliver legal services to the people of Wisconsin; to the end that the public responsibility of the legal profession may be more effectively discharged.

SCR 10.02(2) as amended through November 14, 2007

Review granted in 'J.G. and R.G. v. Wangard'

(2006AP818)

This is an insurance coverage dispute that arises from a civil suit brought by a minor who was sexually assaulted by the defendant’s husband. The legal question is whether intentional acts of one insured should bar liability coverage for another negligent insured in the context of a criminal act committed by one spouse.

Some background: In 2003, Deborah Wangard learned that her husband, Steven, had been accused of sexually abusing a minor, one of the plaintiffs in this case. Steven eventually pled guilty to related criminal charges in Waukesha County Circuit Court and is now serving a five-year prison sentence. The plaintiff and her mother then sued the Wangards and their insurance liability carriers for compensatory and punitive damages.

The insurance companies obtained a declaratory judgment that they had no duty to defend Deborah in the civil lawsuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed [summarily, August 8, 2007].

A decision by the Supreme Court could resolve inconsistencies in existing case law and determine, in this case, if an umbrella provision in Deborah’s homeowner’s policy triggers a duty to defend.

Review granted in 'State v. Grunke'

(2006AP2744-CR to 2006AP2746-CR)

This criminal case involves three defendants accused of attempted third-degree sexual assault and examines whether Wisconsin’s sexual assault statutes apply when an alleged victim is dead.

Some background: Alexander and Nicholas Grunke and Dustin Radke intended to remove a young woman’s body from her grave in a Cassville cemetery so that Nicholas Grunke could engage in sexual intercourse with the corpse.

The three men used shovels to reach the grave, but ran away when they were interrupted by a vehicle driving into the cemetery. The defendants were charged with, among other things, attempted third-degree sexual assault, as a party to a crime, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 940.225(3), 939.05, and 939.32.

The circuit court concluded that the sexual assault statute did not apply to sexual intercourse with a corpse. While the Court of Appeals found the statute to be ambiguous, it concluded that the Legislature did not enact Wis. Stat. § 940.225, by virtue of Wis. Stat. § 940.225 (7) as a general necrophilia statute that would criminalize the charged conduct.

The Court of Appeals [2007 WI App 198] said: “While sexual intercourse with a corpse unquestionably presents a case of sexual immorality, the relevant question is whether sexual intercourse with a corpse, unrelated to the individual’s death, is an activity the Legislature intended to proscribe in a statute geared toward protecting bodily security.”

The state argues that subsection 7 applies, whether a victim is dead or alive at the time the sexual contact or sexual intercourse occurs. The defense argues that a dead person cannot be first dead and then become a victim, and it contends the Legislature should correct the statutory language if it chooses.

A decision by the Supreme Court could clarify how the sexual assault statute applies in cases where an alleged victim was dead at the time of assault. From Grant County.

Review granted in 'State v. Doss'

(2006AP2254-CR)

In this criminal case, the Supreme Court has granted both the petition for review filed by the state and a cross-petition for review filed by defendant Carmen L. Doss.

Doss is accused of theft as a trustee for failing to pay past-due state income taxes on behalf of her father’s estate. She asks the Supreme Court to determine if there was sufficient evidence to support her conviction.

The state’s petison asks the Supreme Court to determine if bank statements backed up by a bank officer’s affidavit, but without live testimony subject to cross-examination, violates a defendant’s right to confrontation.

Some background: Doss, who lived in Georgia, hired a Milwaukee attorney to assist in probating the father’s estate. The attorney concluded the estate owed taxes because Doss’ father allegedly failed to pay state income taxes during the last eight years of his life. As co-personal representative of the estate, the attorney said she felt obligated to make sure the taxes were paid.

On February 6, 2004, the attorney filed the tax return and forwarded a check for $39,865 to the state Department of Revenue. In the meantime, on February 19, 2004, Doss contacted the revenue agent in charge of the audit and persuaded her to hold the check and not cash it. The next day, Doss withdrew all the money in the M&I account, $70,555.47. When the revenue agent submitted the check for cashing, it was returned because the account had been closed.

Doss claimed her father was not a resident of the State of Wisconsin, and therefore denied any tax liability. Doss was convicted by a jury, and she was sentenced to six years of imprisonment, including one year of initial confinement followed by five years of extended supervision. She also was ordered to pay restitution. Doss’s post-conviction motion was denied, and she appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed [2007 WI App 208].

The Supreme Court could further delineate the parameters of what constitutes “testimonial statements” based on a previous U. S. Supreme Court decision, Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). From Milwaukee County.

Federalist Society Shows Its Clout

Emma Schwartz reports in U.S. News & World Report, November 16, 2007, from the Federalist Society's 25th Anniversary National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC.

John Kaminski "How Do You Pick a Judge?" November 1, 2007

Professor John P. Kaminski was the guest speaker at our November 1, 2007 noon luncheon at the University Club, 924 East Wells Street in Milwaukee. Prof. Kaminski is Director of the Center for the Study of the American Constitution at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His subject was

"How Do You Pick a Judge? Judicial Selection Under Our First Four Presidents, 1789-1813"

Presented by the Milwaukee Lawyers Chapter and the Marquette Law Student Chapter.