February 28, 2008
The irony of Gableman’s attack ads
By Juris Prudence
Supreme Court candidate Michael Gableman has been running attacks against Justice Louis Butler for the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Richard Brown, 2005 WI 29.
In the Brown case, the majority of the Supreme Court decided that the state had not proven its case that Brown posed a continued threat to the community—which is what the legislature required of the state to prove to justify keeping him in prison beyond the term of his sentence. It has also been reported lately that Gableman held fundraisers for, and donated thousands of dollars of his government salary to then-governor Scott McCallum—who then appointed Gableman to his current job of Burnett County judge.
What hasn’t been pointed out yet, however, is that the McCallum administration, which Gableman was trying to curry favor with, was the same McCallum administration that was to blame for the decision in State v. Brown.
The decision in State v. Brown was that the state did not produce evidence that Brown was a continuing danger to society:
"Applying the sufficiency of evidence standard of review to the circuit court order denying Brown's petition for supervised release, we conclude that the evidence adduced at the hearing was not sufficient to meet the State's statutory burden imposed by Wis.Stat.§980.08(4)."
State v. Brown, 2005 WI 29 para. 48. So there wasn’t sufficient evidence that Brown was a threat to the public. If Brown was such a threat, how could this happen? Because, the McCallum administration asked the court to release Brown.
"On December 30, 2002, the department (of health and family services) filed the updated report, supporting supervised release. The report stated that Brown 'ha[d] completed sufficient treatment at (Sand Ridge) to reduce his risk for sexually violent behavior to the point that he has become an appropriate subject for supervised release.'"
State v. Brown, 2005 WI 29 para. 55. After this filing by the McCallum DHFS, the state then didn’t call a single psychologist to oppose McCallum’s DHFS’s request for release. The result was, not surprisingly, that the state failed to provide enough admissible evidence-- so it failed to prove its case. You can’t blame the referee for calling the game for the defendant when the state doesn’t show up to play—or worse, where the administration throws the game.
Ironically, to the extent any blame is to be assigned for the decision to release Brown (if he had been released, which he wasn’t) was with DHFS under McCallum. Why isn’t Gableman attacking McCallum? Of course! Because Gableman gave thousands of dollars to McCallum, held fundraisers for McCallum, and then McCallum gave Gableman his job. Hmmm. Classic. Accuse the other guy of your weaknesses and hope nobody notices.
post a letter about this blog »
current
--------
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004