In December, Gabriel Lugo gave testimony to a state Assembly committee about his time in prison before he was exonerated of the crime for which he served more than a decade. He’d been serving his sentence in the Waupun Correctional Institution when his conviction was finally overturned. 

In a statement read by an attorney, Lugo said some correctional officers treated him as less than human and that prison lockdowns severely restricted his movement and made it hard for his family members to visit him. 

Living conditions at Waupun generated headlines in 2023 and 2024 about unsanitary facilities and lack of medical care. Lugo finally got out of prison in 2023, when he was exonerated of the crime he’d been convicted of in 2009. 

Rep. Jessie Rodriguez (R-Oak Creek) wrote in a column in December that Lugo is her constituent and his case prompted her to co-author a reform bill with Wanggaard and Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee). Under the amended Assembly bill, wrongly convicted people who were released after Jan. 1, 2015 — like Lugo — and had already received compensation would have been able to petition for more money. But the bill did not pass the Legislature before its session ended this month.

On Friday, Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine), chair of the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety, who announced his retirement earlier this month, expressed frustration in a newsletter about the bill not passing the Legislature despite multiple attempts. He said that “people move the goalposts and come up with new (and baseless) reasons for not supporting it.”

While lawmakers in committees in both chambers voted to advance wrongful conviction compensation bills, neither chamber brought the issue up for a vote. 

It was not the first time the effort had failed. Bills that aimed to boost compensation for wrongly convicted people did not pass in 2016, 2017 or 2020.

“The failure to get this common-sense bill done has been frustrating,” Wanggaard said.

In testimony, Wanggaard called the Senate’s measure a “long-overdue bill” that would update an outdated law.

The proposed reform measure aimed to provide an eligible wrongly convicted person with $50,000 per year of imprisonment, up to a maximum of $1 million. The bill would also allow a person released on the basis of a claim of innocence to petition the court for an order directing the Department of Corrections to create a transition-to-release plan.

Currently, the Wisconsin Claims Board decides whether a person meets the standards for compensation for wrongful imprisonment. The evidence of the person’s innocence must be “clear and convincing,” and the person must not have contributed to bring about their conviction and imprisonment. The board’s five members come from the Department of Justice, the Department of Administration, the Office of the Governor, the Wisconsin Senate and the Wisconsin Assembly. 

The claims board can award $5,000 per year of imprisonment but with a total cap of $25,000, and it has also awarded attorney fees. The board can recommend a higher award to the Legislature. According to Rodriguez, since 1990, seven people have received recommendations for compensation above the $25,000 cap.

Wanggaard’s chief of staff, Scott Kelly, said in an emailed statement to the Examiner, “I don’t know what the price of someone’s freedom is, taking away their family, their support system, their job. But Senator Wanggaard knows it’s not $5,000 a year, with a maximum of $25,000.”

The board awarded Lugo the full $25,000 allowed under the law, as well as about $77,000 in attorney fees. The board recommended that the Legislature award Lugo an additional $750,000. The vote was 3-2, with Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Gillett) and Rep. Alex Dallman (R-Markesan) dissenting.

The Wisconsin Innocence Project, the State Bar of Wisconsin’s Board of Governors and the Wisconsin Catholic Conference have given testimony supportive of increasing compensation for wrongly convicted people. Christopher Lau of the Wisconsin Innocence Project testified that the project has helped exonerate more than 30 people, and that many clients struggle to re-enter society. Last year, the Examiner reported on the struggles that exonerated brothers Robert and David Bintz have experienced after leaving prison in 2024.

“After years of wrongful imprisonment, our clients leave prison without savings, without employment, and often, without a place to call home,” Lau said. They also leave with medical ailments and emotional trauma, he said. 

Rodriguez’s office said that an amendment to the Assembly bill followed discussions with Assembly lawmakers to address concerns she had heard from them and from the Department of Administration. But Rodriguez said it became clear that more discussions were needed as the legislative session wound down.

Rodriguez is optimistic that the bill can pass in the next session, she told the Wisconsin Examiner. She thinks “we can get to the finish line with enough time to work out any issues” when the Legislature reconvenes, and “finally update this process.” 

Correction: This piece has been updated to reflect that Lugo gave his testimony in December, not January

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A bill that would have offered sentence adjustments for crimes committed when the offender was younger than 18 died in the Wisconsin Senate last week. The measure would have applied to people who received sentences of at least 15 years for offenses that didn’t involve a death and to those sentenced to at least 20 years for crimes that did include a death. It also  would have prohibited a life sentence without parole or extended supervision for youth offenders, and required the consideration of mitigating factors, such as age and maturity, at sentencing. The bill failed to gain traction or a public hearing in the Senate because, according to the lead sponsor, Sen. Jesse James (R-Altoona), there was a lack of clarity about the number of residents in prisons who would be affected. 

At a Feb. 12 event held by the criminal justice reform advocacy group WISDOM near Eau Claire, James told the gathering that information he had originally distributed concerning the number of residents who would be eligible for a sentence adjustment was not accurate, and because of that, he would not call for a public hearing on the bill.

In response to a Wisconsin Examiner request for clarification, a staff person in James’ office said in an email message: “After talking to the Senator to help with more context, I think there was a misinterpretation of what he meant. We received data from DOC (Department of Corrections) that does not necessarily match with data that advocacy groups have been circulating to other members of the Legislature. While we do work with advocacy groups on the bill, we did not provide them their data, so we are not 100% sure where they got it from. The discrepancies between the data our office was giving out versus these advocacy groups caused some confusion about how many individuals this bill would actually help. Given the time frame left in the session with the Assembly being done sooner than the Senate, clearing up the confusion and getting a public hearing in either chamber just did not come to fruition in time.”

Nikki Olson, founder and executive director of the Wisconsin Alliance for Youth Justice (WayJ), represents one of those advocacy groups.

“Sen. James was essentially given a range while WayJ has a specific number,” she said. “Our specific number fits into the range, so I consider his data and ours to be accurate.”

She added, “Sen. James was given two numbers. The number of people who will be impacted. A separate number was given of people that may or may not be impacted. There was data overlap between the two numbers. These two numbers combined means 130ish-300ish people would be impacted. Our number of 253, as of the end of 2024, fits within that range. The range represents a snapshot in time during 2025. Our specific number is a snapshot as of the end of 2024. I would anticipate the change between the two snapshot dates to be minimal and still within the range.”

The Examiner reported in December 2025 on a bill that had been in the works since the 2022-23 session addressing the same focus of youth sentencing. One of the advocacy groups that supported that effort, Kids Forward, estimated the number of residents who could be affected was more than100.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

In a unanimous decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that police officers must read K-12 students their Miranda rights before interrogating them in a school setting. 

The case stems from an incident at a Two Rivers middle school in which a 12-year-old seventh grade student, referred to in the case under the pseudonym Kevin, touched the groin of a classmate. Kevin was pulled out of class to be interviewed in a small room dedicated for use by school resource officers. After an initial interview around 10 minutes, Kevin was allowed to leave before being interviewed again about an hour later by the officers and a vice principal. The boy was not able to call his parents and was not informed he was allowed to leave the room. 

While he was in the room, a uniformed officer stood in front of the door and the school resource officer doing the interview lied by saying there were witnesses to the incident. Police officers are allowed to lie during interviews to elicit a confession. 

Kevin said during both interviews that he had touched the boy’s groin but that it was an accident. 

Kevin was later charged with fourth-degree sexual assault and in a bench trial was found delinquent by a Manitowoc County Circuit Court judge. 

The boy appealed the ruling, arguing that the statements he made during the interview were inadmissible because he had not been read his Miranda rights. 

In the majority decision, authored by Justice Janet Protasiewicz and joined by the Court’s three other liberal-leaning justices, the Court found that taking Kevin to the room for questioning amounted to being in police custody and he should have been read his rights. 

The ruling found that the interview statements weren’t admissible. However it also found that the evidence for the delinquency finding did not rely on the statements so the circuit judge’s decision was upheld. 

“While Kevin sat across from one officer who questioned him, another fully uniformed and armed officer stood positioned in front of the door. The questioning officer asked him about an alleged sexual assault. She told him — untruthfully — that there were witnesses,” Protasiewicz wrote. “She also accusingly told him ‘it happened.’ No one told him he could reach out to his parents or any other adult. No one told him he was free to leave. No one told him he did not need to answer questions.” 

“But in the end, a 12-year-old boy was questioned in a closet-like law-enforcement office with two police officers, one who was fully uniformed and standing in front of the door,” she continued. 

Ryan Cox, the legal director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, which filed an amicus brief in the case, said the ruling would protect the constitutional rights of children.

“The Supreme Court’s decision is a major victory for the due process rights of Wisconsin students,” Cox said in a statement to the Wisconsin Examiner. “The ruling means that, in deciding whether a student must be read their Miranda rights during a police interrogation in a school setting, Wisconsin courts must consider the reasons why a child in the student’s position would feel coerced and not free to leave. This decision upholds students’ Fifth Amendment right to protect themselves against self-incrimination during encounters with law enforcement. Students retain their constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and seek counsel when interacting with law enforcement, even in the school environment. Police are not exempt from their responsibilities to uphold the rights of a person simply because the student is a minor in a school environment. The Court affirmed this fundamental principle and protected Wisconsin students across the state from coercive and unconstitutional police conduct.”

In a concurring opinion joined by the other two conservative leaning justices, Justice Brian Hagedorn said the issue was made larger than it should have been, writing that the majority transformed “a rather ordinary schoolhouse questioning” into a matter of constitutional import. 

Hagedorn wrote that a seventh grader would likely see being questioned by police as intimidating but recognize that school resource officers are trusted parts of the school community. 

“Would a reasonable 12-year-old in this situation feel some pressure? Absolutely. But was this the kind of hostile, inherently coercive questioning that animated the court in Miranda? It was not,” Hagedorn wrote. “A reasonable person in Kevin’s position would not see SROs as unfamiliar and antagonistic adults. The reasonable person would see them as dedicated and familiar faces — intimidating to be sure — but nonetheless present to keep everyone safe.” 

Communities across Wisconsin have had fights over the presence of school resource officers for years. Officers were removed from Milwaukee Public Schools in 2016 at the request of community members, but returned last year by state legislators under a provision of a law providing local governments with increased state financial support. Opponents of SROs have argued the presence of cops in schools makes Black students in particular targets of inappropriate monitoring at school, which is supposed to be a safe place for them to learn. 

In his opinion, Hagedorn wrote that the ruling was a close call but that he wanted to distinguish between a true police interrogation and the normal functions of school discipline. 

“These facts give some support to the idea that a reasonable person in Kevin’s situation would have felt pressured to confess,” Hagedorn wrote. “Under my read of the cases, however, more is required to approximate the coercive environment at issue in Miranda. Someone in Kevin’s shoes would certainly feel the weight of adult condemnation. His conscience might even call him to come clean in the face of a serious infraction. But this normal human experience should not so quickly be placed on par with the uniquely coercive station house questioning to which Miranda applies.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

From 2021 to 2024, a new report reveals there was a dramatic increase in the number of incarcerated residents of Wisconsin’s jails and prisons accessing medications for opioid use disorder.

“Treatment Behind Bars: Medication for Opioid Use Disorder in Wisconsin’s Jails and Prisons” by the Wisconsin Policy Forum was released Wednesday at a press conference hosted by Vital Strategies Overdose Prevention Program, a global public health organization that has been working since 2018 to use “advanced evidence-based strategies on overdose prevention and to expand access to harm reduction and treatment, particularly for populations at highest risk,” said Giavana Margo, program manager.

The report notes that “medications for opioid use disorder are an important tool to help people manage symptoms of opioid withdrawal, as well as recover from symptoms of active opioid addiction. Research also shows that individuals who are newly released from prison are at elevated risk for overdose fatalities.”

The report said there are three factors that have “likely” resulted in the higher use of opioid use disorder medications  in carceral settings:

1. The high number of opioid deaths in the state that reached a peak in 2024
2. The availability of opioid lawsuit settlement dollars from pharmaceutical companies to address treatment.
3. Federal and professional agencies promoting the medications, and pressure from the U.S. Department of Justice to offer them to carceral residents under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A fourth factor discussed during the press conference is the higher percentage of jail and prison facilities offering the medications, encouraging wider acceptability.

Jason Stein, president of the Wisconsin Policy Forum, said that even though the number of opioid deaths has dropped noticeably since 2024, the number of overdose deaths statewide is slightly higher than vehicle deaths, making overdoses a “significant public policy issue.”

He noted that of 71 jails in the state, 58 filled out a 42-question survey fully and seven answered partially, resulting in a 97% reporting rate for the jails, while the Department of Corrections (DOC) reported data via its central pharmacy that serves all the state prisons.

The primary two opioid use disorder medications used by facilities are methadone and buprenorphine.

“Both of those medications are associated with a decrease in overdose deaths as well as improvements in other important indicators such as recidivism,” he said.

The study also looked at the use of naltrexone, another medication that is not strictly for opioid use disorder, and it also looked at the prevalence of naloxone or Narcan, which is used to reverse opioid overdoses.

The report notes that only four residents in the DOC system took buprenorphine in 2021, but 148 were receiving it in 2024, and 44 took naltrexone in 2001 — a number  that increased to 154 in 2024.

Stein said a 2021 Department of Health Services (DHS) report showed that only one-third of prisons offered any medication for opioid addiction, but by 2025 all 36 prisons were offering at least one medication.

Currently, Stein said, most Wisconsin jails — 53 of 65 that responded or 81.5% — offer one form of opioid medication. That is more than double the 25 jails, or 41%, that reported at least one medication in 2021.

“It’s more common for jails in the central and southeastern parts of our state to have multiple forms available,” he said of opioid medication. “In northern Wisconsin, it’s typically one form … such as buprenorphine.”

The report notes that offering the medications to those in jails and prisons results in a reduction of overdose deaths after release, as well as a decreased risk of death for any cause and a lower risk of reincarceration.

“We want to note that there is increased availability of these medications in both county jails and prisons around the state, making it available to thousands of individuals in 2024 at a substantial increase from 2021, but at the same time, there are some gaps, meaning access at the county level,” Stein said. “We had eight counties that stated they did not currently provide any access to these medications. We had five more counties that did not answer the survey. There are now 24 counties that provide some access to methadone, but that is still a minority, and we have a number of jails that, while they may provide continuation of existing prescriptions, they do not initiate individuals on those medications.”

He added, “We do see some opportunity … despite the challenges that may exist, to increase access; we do see some tools that local counties can turn to. One, there are more counties and private providers that are offering this service around the state, so there’s the potential for partnership, and then, as well, the availability of opioid settlement funds also makes the possibility of funding this service more practical in some cases for counties.”

Joanna Hernandez of Milwaukee shared her experience of struggling with addiction while incarcerated and the importance of continuing medication.

She recounted being arrested in 2013 in Walworth County while possessing a valid prescription for Suboxone (a medication to treat opioid addiction).

“The jail verified my prescription, but even after confirming it, they refused to give me my medication,” she said. “I was there for five days and went through very severe withdrawal. I was extremely sick and eventually segregated to a single cell. I remember guards telling me, ‘You know, this isn’t a hospital.’ As soon as I was able to post bail and get out, I used immediately. If I had been able to continue my prescription while incarcerated, I could have focused on healing and making sure my mental health medications were the right fit for me. Mental health plays a huge role in withdrawal.”

She added, “Experiences like mine show why access to medications for opiate use disorder is so important. Withdrawal in jail does not treat addiction. It actually increases the risk of relapse and overdose when people are released. Jails and correctional facilities need to treat opiate use disorder like the medical condition it is. Access to medications for opiate use disorder is about dignity, medical care and saving lives.”

Kenosha County Sheriff David Zoerner said an important part of his jail’s intake is an initial screening, so the residents get the resources they need and they also have those resources when they leave.

He noted it was a grant that provided the dollars to do the initial screening, and also stressed the limiting factor on how much his office can do is money, mostly from tax levies.

Zoerner said the most efficient way to offer methadone would be at the jail but he fears methadone could be “diverted nefariously,” so instead those who need it are driven daily to a facility, but that is also costly because it requires a deputy to transport the residents.

“My hope, based on what we’re doing right now with the early screens, is being able to work with the affected population while they’re in our custody, getting them peer support and some need therapy,” he said.  “You understand that drug addiction, behavioral health issues, mental health, they all go hand in hand, so to facilitate that through and then with new legislation, hopefully we’re going to be able to get these folks prescriptions, a 30-day supply, before they leave.”

The new legislation Sheriff Zoerner referred to is AB 604, which passed the Legislature and is waiting for Gov. Tony Evers’ signature. It would allow the state to apply for Medicaid coverage for incarcerated people, including a 30-day supply of opioid medication prior to release.

At the press conference, Adriena Hust, state team leader of Vital Strategies, shared recommendations for expanding opioid use disorder medication access in Wisconsin jails and prisons.

“The first recommendation, incarceration is not treatment,” she said.  “More should be done to avoid reincarceration. Most admissions to prison in Wisconsin are due to supervision and technical violations, rather than a new crime. While reforms are in progress, Vital Strategies recommends that Wisconsin continue to minimize revocation and eliminate incarceration sanctions for drug use while on supervision, considering reoccurring drug use is a common part of substance use treatment. Although today’s study did not deal with the issue of revocations, we know they are costly, and the savings to minimize them can go toward medication and staffing.”

Another recommendation is to make methadone and buprenorphine standard treatments for opioid use disorder.

And she said counseling should be optional and not a condition to receive medication because it is the medication that saves lives.

 “As mentioned, people are at extreme risk of dying by overdose in the first few weeks after leaving carceral settings,” she said. “It is important that re-entry planning focus on seamless continuation of medication in the community, which greatly reduces this mortality risk.”

And she noted that those incarcerated who have a right to medication under the Americans with Disabilities Act should have “recourse against violations without fear of retaliation,” in demanding medication. Lastly, she said, the state and counties should prioritize opioid settlement dollars for “opioid use disorders in jails and prisons.”

The Wisconsin State Senate passed a bill last week that will request funding for health care coverage for incarcerated people from the federal government. State Assembly lawmakers had already passed the bill last month. 

In a Facebook post last week, Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp) celebrated the measure and said he hopes Gov. Tony Evers will sign it into law. 

James said that “as people leave our correctional system, they have a 40 TIMES higher risk of overdose death within the first TWO weeks after release.” This appeared to be a reference to a North Carolina study of opioid overdose death rates between 2000 and 2015. 

“This bill is a great step forward for Wisconsin as it ensures we become a healthier, safer community,” James said.  

The vote was nearly unanimous, with only Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) voting no. 

A federal “inmate exclusion policy” limits incarcerated people’s ability to use Medicaid, but the bill seeks to have the state apply for a waiver under an exception outlined by the federal government. 

Under the bill, the state’s Department of Health Services would submit a request to conduct a demonstration project to provide 90 days of prerelease coverage to incarcerated people for case management services, medication-assisted treatment for all types of substance use disorders and a 30-day supply of prescription medications. Incarcerated people would have to be otherwise eligible for coverage under the Medical Assistance program, which provides health services to people with limited financial resources.  

The advocacy organization WISDOM celebrated the Senate’s passage of the bill in an email newsletter signed by Mark Rice, the group’s transformational justice campaign coordinator. 

Rice said that full implementation of the bill would reduce needless suffering and the number of people being detained, benefit public safety, save resources and put more people on a path to successful reentry into society. 

In written testimony dated Oct. 31, director Dawn Buchholz of the Juneau County Department of Health Services said that passing the bill “will help us provide crucial services to inmates reentering our communities.”

“In the past, our agency literally completed hundreds of suicide and other behavioral health assessments for inmates experiencing emergency mental health and substance use crises in the Juneau County Jail,” Buchholz testified. “This was a frustrating process because while we can assess inmates, we cannot provide them with mental health or substance abuse treatment due to Medicaid rules.”

Buchholz testified that providing prerelease coverage to incarcerated people, along with a 30-day supply of prescription medications, “will help our agency work more effectively with our jails and prisons, result in a seamless reentry into community behavioral health services and decrease recidivism.”

DOC communications director Beth Hardtke referred the Examiner to the DOC fiscal estimate for information on what the agency is currently able to provide and the potential impact of the legislation. 

The department estimated it may have over $750,000 in potential cost savings if the waiver is approved and implemented, allowing the state to expand health care access for incarcerated people. 

The Examiner reported last month that in the fiscal estimate, the DOC said that in FY 2025, the agency spent $500,000 on the 30-day medication supply dispensed for incarcerated people before they were released, $300,000 on pre-release medication assisted treatment medications and $3.9 million on the Opening Avenues to Reentry Success (OARS) program. The OARS program supports the transition from prison to the community of incarcerated people living with a severe and persistent mental illness who are at medium-to-high risk of reoffending. 

Because not all incarcerated people will qualify, the estimate assumes that half of the medication and medication assisted treatment medications costs will be reimbursed, as well as 10% of the OARS program costs. There may be other costs DOC can have reimbursed. 

The Examiner previously reported that states have to reinvest federal matching funds received for carceral health care services currently funded with state or local dollars. Reinvested money must go toward activities that increase access or improve the quality of health care services for people who are incarcerated or were recently released, or for health-related social services that may help divert people released from incarceration from involvement in the criminal justice system. 

In the fiscal estimate, the DOC said that incarcerated people in local detention facilities may also be eligible for the services. This could result in local cost savings in addition to DOC cost savings. The department couldn’t estimate the potential local cost savings of the bill because not all local detention facilities provide the same type or level of services.  

Hardtke noted that the bill only allows the state to apply for the federal waiver, and it isn’t guaranteed that a waiver would be approved. 

As of Nov. 21, 19 states had approved waivers, according to the health policy research organization KFF. Nine, including the District of Columbia, had pending waivers. 

In an email to the Examiner in November, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services said the bill requires the three services that the waiver would need to include to be submitted to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The bill doesn’t require other criteria for the project, aside from current Medicaid eligibility requirements. 

Beyond those requirements, the department said it needs the authority that the bill would provide before it starts work on putting together the details of the waiver. The bill requires the department to submit the request for a waiver by Jan. 1, 2027. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Wisconsin State Senate did not vote on the “Justice for All Act” before it concluded regular work this week, likely punting the court staffing concerns addressed in the bill to the next legislative session. 

In an interview with the Wisconsin Examiner on Wednesday, Rep. David Steffen (R-Howard) said that this issue didn’t get enough attention in the latest state budget process. 

“We have criminals who will not be prosecuted, we have innocent individuals who will remain in jails and property taxpayers will be picking up a massive tab associated with this inaction,” said Steffen, one of the bill’s authors. 

Steffen said that the issue will have to be addressed in the next budget process, in 2027, though the work done and awareness raised on this issue will make those discussions easier. 

The “Justice for All Act,” or Assembly Bill 514, was introduced in October and passed the Assembly last month. It involves additional criminal justice system positions that would help address backlogs of court cases in Wisconsin. These include additional judges, assistant prosecutors and public defenders, court reporters and public defender support staff for the 2027-2029 and 2029-2031 bienniums. 

Steffen said he thinks that if the bill had gone before the Senate, it would have passed. However, it didn’t reach the needed threshold of support from Republicans, he said. That threshold of GOP support is also known as the  unwritten “rule of 17” which means obtaining the votes of 17 Republicans or an all-GOP majority to pass any bill through the Senate. (Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, who announced Thursday he is stepping down, drew criticism for allowing bills on sports betting and funding for the University of Wisconsin athletic department to come to the floor and pass on a bipartisan basis without garnering 17 Republican votes.)

Steffen said he’d heard that, as he understood it, some senators were concerned about handling this large of an expenditure outside of the budget process. However, Steffen called this “unfortunate, and likely more of a punt than a real reason.” He said exceptions are routinely made for important matters facing the state.

In an interview with the Examiner on Wednesday, Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) said that at some point, Milwaukee County “is going to have to file a lawsuit to recoup some of the money that they’re spending on our criminal justice system.”

“We’re forced to come to the state to beg for resources that they should be voluntarily giving us, and they have the nerve to tell us no,” Johnson said. 

Will the new positions be delayed?

The bill would provide authority for some of the new positions beginning in July 2027, while for others, it would be the summer of 2028 or 2029. 

A staff member from Steffen’s office told the Examiner that if the proposal is taken up next session, Steffen would not expect the timing of the positions related to the judges and court reporters to be affected. However, Steffen would anticipate that the other positions in the bill — positions related to assistant district attorneys, assistant public defenders and public defender support staff — would be pushed back by a year. 

Steffen expects the same timing would apply if the measure is introduced as a standalone bill, like the Justice for All Act, or through the state budget. 

Next time, how will Milwaukee fare?

An amendment to the Justice for All bill stripped additional public defender and public defender support staff positions for Milwaukee from the bill, the Examiner reported last month. The bill still held additional prosecutor positions for Milwaukee. 

“In order for me to get the support I needed in the Assembly, it was necessary for me to hold back those public defender positions in Milwaukee County,” Steffen said. 

Steffen said that next year, he hopes to include the public defender positions for Milwaukee that were in the original version of the bill he crafted. 

Sen. LaTonya Johnson said that the motivation to cut those Milwaukee positions out stemmed from a conflict involving the district attorney’s office, public defender’s office and Enough is Enough, a court watch group, the Examiner reported last month. Rep. Bob Donovan (R-Greenfield) criticized the public defenders, who said the court watchdog group was operating as an extension of the district attorney’s office. 

Steffen said that some in the Assembly had concerns that were particularly about Milwaukee public defenders “displaying a lack of attention on the core responsibilities of defending the indigent versus some of their comments and actions against community watchdog groups who were in Milwaukee County.” Asked if this was about what the public defender’s office put out regarding Enough is Enough and that controversy, Steffen said that was correct. 

Steffen said some lawmakers took issue with what the defenders’ letter represented, that more time was being spent “worried about some retirees sitting there in the courtroom than they were focusing on defending the rights of the accused.” 

Steffen said he was very interested in working with the state public defender’s office to address the issue, but “we were unable to do so” before the end of the session. He said that the removal of the Milwaukee positions wasn’t a barrier to the bill going up for a vote on Tuesday. 

Johnson opposes the idea that the Milwaukee positions shouldn’t have been included due to the controversy involving public defenders and Enough is Enough and said it speaks of overreach. She also argued that if the public defenders were honest about how they felt in the letter, they did their job.

Johnson said she and her Milwaukee colleagues weren’t supportive of the Justice for All Act because of  the removal of the Milwaukee public defense positions.

Johnson said she spoke with one of the bill authors about why the bill wasn’t on the floor of the Senate on Tuesday. She said that he highly doubted “that Milwaukee would be a part of that process even next year, because if it was, then they would have people who would be unwilling to support it in the Senate.” Johnson hopes that when legislators return, Republicans will no longer hold the Senate majority.

In Milwaukee County, the backlog of unresolved felony-related matters is more than 10,000, as of Oct. 13, Wisconsin Watch reported.

“How do you remove public defender support and staff support from the largest county in the entire state?” Johnson said.

What was the conflict involving the court watch group?

Regional manager Angel Johnson and deputy regional manager Paige Styler of the public defenders’ office signed a letter sent to judges in Milwaukee County Circuit Court’s criminal division, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. 

The letter alleged that Enough is Enough “functions more as an extension of the DA’s office” and that the group’s activities and formation have been closely coordinated with the DA’s office, the Journal Sentinel reported. It argued that “Enough is Enough” shouldn’t be seen as an independent, grassroots organization. 

Johnson and Styler asked judges to consider that context when evaluating impact statements or the presence of the group in court, the Journal Sentinel reported. The group’s president called the public defenders’ allegations “false, exaggerated and without merit.” 

The letter highlighted Assistant District Attorney Joy Hammond and retired Assistant District Attorney Thomas Potter, who public defenders said “reviewed, drafted, and edited letters for Enough is Enough addressed to the judiciary,” according to the Journal Sentinel. 

Public defenders claimed that emails obtained from a public records request outline extensive meetings between the DA’s office and Enough is Enough, the Journal Sentinel reported. In a memo to a judge, Lovern described the emails public defenders received as “mostly logistical in nature” and nothing “nefarious,” according to the Journal Sentinel. 

Public defenders call for more positions

The lack of a vote on the bill creates uncertainty for the Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office, according to a spokesperson for the office.

“We’re still hopeful that we can obtain the resources we need in the next state budget, but without the Justice for All Act in place as a bipartisan consensus to build from, the path forward is significantly less clear,” the spokesperson told the Examiner in an email. 

In a press release on Tuesday, the Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office argued that “lawmakers cut short a lifeline for Wisconsin’s overburdened public defense system” by not putting the bill on the calendar. 

“Our attorneys are drowning, and it’s Wisconsinites who pay the price when constitutional rights are treated as an optional expense,” State Public Defender Jennifer Bias said. 

The public defenders said that public defenders and Wisconsinites who rely on them will have to wait almost a year and a half for the next budget cycle to offer another chance at relief. 

The Justice for All Act would have given public defenders an additional 18 attorney positions and 35 support staff positions in the next budget biennium, the agency’s largest staffing increase since 2009, the public defenders said.

The public defenders argued that these resources would have allowed the agency to confront growing case delays brought on by prosecutors charging more crimes and by “an explosion of digital evidence in criminal cases.” 

In a press release in January, the public defender’s office said that criminal cases in Wisconsin have become increasingly complex over the past two decades — that cases once involving a few police reports now regularly involve hundreds of hours of body camera footage and thousands of pages of digital records. 

A lack of sufficient support staff forces public defenders to take on “vast amounts of extra work outside the courtroom,” the agency said in January, adding that in its Stevens Point region, 30 attorneys covering 13 counties share only one paralegal. 

According to Bias’s testimony in January, the lack of support staff positions is a consistent reason attorneys give for leaving the public defender’s office. While an attorney shortage makes it difficult to fill attorney roles quickly, the agency has very little trouble finding qualified support staff, she testified.

In testimony on the bill, Bias said the agency recently had a case in which police misidentified a suspect. The client had been sitting in jail for six months by the time the attorney was able to review the bodycam footage and see that the video didn’t show the client. She said the client was released but had already lost a job and housing.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Former Waupun Correctional Institution officer Jamall Russell pled no contest to misdemeanor charges on Wednesday in a Dodge County Circuit Court case. The criminal complaint in the case charged Russell and others in the death of Donald Maier, the Examiner reported in June 2024. 

Maier, 62, was incarcerated at the Waupun prison and was reportedly found dead in February 2024. Authorities said Maier’s death was due to dehydration and malnutrition.

Russell, 41, was originally charged with misconduct in public office and with neglecting a person confined in a correctional institution, which are both Class I felonies that carry a penalty of imprisonment of up to three and a half years, a fine of up to $10,000 or both.

The criminal complaint charged Russell with neglect through a failure to act that caused unreasonable suffering, misery or physical harm. It also accused him of misconduct by reporting false information. 

The complaint stated that Maier had severe mental health issues and medical problems, and that multiple staff had noted he could not effectively communicate his needs. Maier’s inability to speak coherently to communicate his medical needs was likely a factor in why he didn’t receive needed medical and psychological intervention, the complaint said. 

According to camera footage, on four consecutive days, Russell “does not feed a meal (breakfast or lunch)” to Maier, according to the complaint, causing eight out of 12 meals to not be fed to Maier. During six of eight deliveries, he didn’t ask Maier if he would like to eat. 

Maier refused or wasn’t provided medication for his known medical and psychological conditions during his approximately nine days in the restricted housing unit, with the exception of one possible distribution where it’s unclear if he ingested the medication given to him, the complaint said. 

Russell said that an incarcerated person’s refusal of medication is when they don’t respond or say no when a medication pass is conducted, the complaint stated. In the case of Maier, Russell said that “he would either yell obscenities or ignore him completely, so he did not distribute medications to him.” 

Russell also said he wouldn’t give medications to an incarcerated person if  he couldn’t verify the person was taking them, because of the possibility that the person would hoard the medications and abuse them later. 

Russell said he had written incident reports involving self-harm or suicidal actions. He said that writing an incident report about an inmate losing weight and getting thinner or flooding his cell, which Maier reportedly did, was not in line with his training. Russell claimed that he told a nurse he was worried about Maier because he was not eating, not responding, his movements were getting slower and his skin appeared to be paler, the complaint stated. Dodge County Sheriff Dale Schmidt said the water in Maier’s cell  “appears to have been shut off for a significant amount of time”; based on the criminal complaint, this appeared to be in response to Maier flooding his cell. 

Russell said he told a sergeant about unusual observations of Maier’s activities and reported his meal refusal to a sergeant and hospital unit staff. 

Schmidt said that the required number of cell checks was not conducted and supervisors knew cell checks were commonly skipped.   

Camera footage showed that 14 times over two days, Russell did not complete  rounds in the restrictive housing unit  that he reported he had completed, the complaint stated. 

A nurse was present during Maier’s intake into restricted housing and didn’t proceed with an evaluation because he was verbally abusive, according to the criminal complaint. Maier was placed in a cell and never again removed or seen in person, other than through a window, to determine if he needed medical attention.  

Correctional officer and sergeant vacancies at the Waupun prison have decreased after a peak of about 56% in February 2024, around the time of Donald Maier’s death. The latest rate reported online by the DOC is about 25%.

The Examiner reported in June 2024 on criminal charges against nine Waupun staff members, including Russell, with abuse of prisoners and misconduct, after the deaths of Maier and Cameron Williams, 24, who were both incarcerated at the prison. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Russell is no longer a correctional officer. 

Russell pleaded no contest to three counts of violating the law governing a state or county institution. This misdemeanor carries up to a $500 fine, up to 30 days of imprisonment or both. 

However, the plea agreement, signed by Russell and Dodge County District Attorney Andrea Will on Wednesday, would impose different requirements: probation, community service hours, honest testimony and the inability to work as a correctional officer.

Former Waupun warden Randall Hepp was convicted last year and fined $500 and court costs, the Examiner reported. He also pleaded no contest. Maier’s mother filed a lawsuit against Hepp, Wisconsin Department of Corrections Secretary Jared Hoy and others, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. 

According to an article in the Appleton Post-Crescent last year on the conviction of a different Waupun staff member, Dodge County Assistant District Attorney Shawn Woller read a letter from Maier’s mother during the prosecution’s sentencing argument. He said she requested for the letter to be read at each of the sentencings for those convicted of crimes relating to her son’s death. 

“I feel that each and every person who ignored my son and therefore had a hand in his death should spend some time in jail so that they learn firsthand what it is like to be dependent on other guards for food and water and medical care and protection,” her letter states, according to the Post-Crescent. “Nothing can bring my son back, but I’d like to think that we as a society would at least learn something from this tragedy, so this never happens to anyone else’s son.”

Plea agreement does not include jail time

The plea agreement states that in exchange for truthful testimony in any trial surrounding the death of Donald Maier, the state will recommend a withheld sentence on each count for two years of probation.

This comes with the condition that Russell can’t be employed as a correctional officer, as well as 100 hours of community service and following “all other conditions deemed appropriate by the agent.” Russell would also be responsible for all applicable court costs and fees. 

If the state believes that Russell does not provide truthful testimony or refuses to testify, the state will be free to argue at sentencing for whatever sentence it prefers, the agreement states. 

The plea offer depends upon truthful testimony against any co-actors who go to trial. 

Next in Russell’s case is a May 11 scheduling conference, to pick a date for his sentencing. 

Where do the other prosecutions stand?

In June 2024, charges were brought against Hepp and eight members of his staff: Russell, Lt. Brandon Fisher, Sgt. Alexander Hollfelder, nurse Jessica Hosfelt, correctional officer Sarah Ransbottom, Sgt. Jeramie Chalker, nurse Gwendolyn Vick and Sgt. Tanner Leopold. 

Ransbotton, Hepp, Fisher and Russell each pleaded no contest to one or more charges of violating the law governing a state or county institution after each originally was charged with one or more felonies. 

In the time leading up to Maier’s death, Ransbottom reported in the log that she completed rounds that surveillance footage showed she did not complete, according to a criminal complaint. 

Fisher pled no contest to two counts of violating the law governing a state or county institution, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. He has a sentencing hearing scheduled for May 29. The complaint said Fisher did not act on information he received to further investigate Maier’s condition or well-being.

In an incident report, Fisher wrote that the night before Williams’ death was reported, Leopold said he could see Williams breathing and slight movement of his head, but could not get a verbal response from him, the complaint said. 

Leopold reported that he told Fisher about the situation and was told that he had to contact the health services unit, so that they could determine whether it was necessary to assemble a team to remove Williams from his cell. 

According to the complaint, Fisher told detectives that “because (Williams) had a history of faking things, (Fisher) advised that a nurse should be contacted to visually look at him and see if there was a medical reason to pull him out of the cell, but if they don’t have a reason, he didn’t want to play games with (Williams) because he was attention seeking.”

Nurse Megan Leberak came to Williams’ cell front and noted that he was breathing but would not respond. Leberak indicated that usually, when a cell entry is done, she would be called to come over after staff entered the cell, if there was a medical issue, the complaint said. 

Leberak said she gave the go ahead for a cell entry to be conducted, but video footage showed Leopold, Fisher and nurse Gwendolyn Vick didn’t check on Williams, the complaint said. Leberak was at the end of her shift, and reportedly gave an update to Vick, who was later criminally charged.

Leopold said he received a call from Vick, telling him that entry wasn’t necessary at that time and that they would wait, according to the complaint. 

The case against Chalker was dismissed on a motion from the prosecution. Camera footage did not show Chalker completing 2:30 p.m. and 3 p.m. rounds on one day, contrary to what Chalker had logged, according to the criminal complaint. The Journal Sentinel reported that prosecutors said the investigation determined Chalker’s superior officer had instructed Chalker to fill out the rounds sheets.

The case against Hollfelder was also dismissed on a motion from the prosecution. The Journal Sentinel reported that they determined Hollfelder properly communicated concerns to his supervisor and a member of the health services unit, and had limited contact with Maier because of time he spent off work on family and medical leave. 

Cases against Leopold, Vick and Hosfelt are still active. Each is charged with neglecting someone confined in a correctional institution, which is a felony. Vick has a trial scheduled for May, while Hosfelt has a scheduling conference on March 27 and Leopold has a scheduling conference on March 23.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE