Archive for the ‘In The News’ Category

Mastantuono Law Office Wins Not Guilty Verdit – Felony Sexual Assult Trial.

Friday, January 13th, 2012

Attorney Craig Mastantuono and Rebecca Coffee litigated a not guilty verdict in a felony jury trial in Sheboygan County earlier this week, culminating a 4-year period of litigation on behalf this client that also included a victorious trip to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. For further information see the Sheboygan Press article, excerpted below.

Craig Mastantuono also had an opportunity to practice his amateur photography skills on the art deco details of the Sheboygan County Courthouse, which you can see here.

Jury returns not guilty verdict in sexual assault case

A 51-year-old Whitefish Bay businessman accused of attempting to rape a teenage babysitter four years ago was found not guilty by a jury late Tuesday.

Brad Forbush was arrested in Michigan shortly after the May 2008 incident at his Town of Holland vacation home, and a series of appeals culminated this week in a two-day trial that included testimony from Forbush and the alleged victim, who is now 22. He had been charged with attempted second-degree sexual assault and false imprisonment.

The jury deliberated four hours before returning the verdicts, court records show.

Prosecutors said Forbush invited the woman into his home under the auspice of showing her a video of his triplets. He then showed the woman a pornographic DVD instead and told her that’s what they were going to do, a criminal complaint said.

Forbush blocked the woman’s path to the door when she refused, but she was able to drag him outside and escape after a struggle, the complaint said.

But Forbush testified at trial that the wrong DVD was played inadvertently and that he never mentioned sex, according to his attorney, Craig Mastantuono said. Forbush grabbed the woman because she was leaving and he wanted to explain himself, the attorney said.

“The jury found him not guilty because they didn’t think that amounted to false imprisonment,” Mastantuono said. “They got to gauge the testimony of both Mr. Forbush and (the victim).

He said the jury decided “what we can reasonably surmise happened from the testimony is not what the prosecution said it is.”

The case went to trial after a lengthy series of appeals culminated in the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling that statements Forbush made to a detective after his arrest could not be introduced at trial. A Court of Appeals opinion said Forbush admitted in that interview that he suggested sexual intercourse and attempting to restrain the woman, but Mastantuono said Forbush never admitted suggesting sex.

“It was not what you would characterize as a classic confession,” Mastantuono said.

During the interview — which took place May 16, 2008, after Forbush was brought back from Michigan — Forbush gave a verbal and written waiver of his right to have an attorney present. But Forbush had been represented by an attorney while making a court appearance in Michigan days before, and he argued that should make his later waiver invalid.

Judge Terence Bourke, who oversaw the trial, ruled in November 2008 that the statements were not admissible. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals District II in Waukesha reversed Bourke’s ruling in December 2009, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court — in a 4-3 decision — sided with Bourke in April 2011.

Mastantuono noted that the final ruling still would have allowed the prosecution to introduce Forbush’s May 16, 2008, statement at trial if Forbush’s testimony contradicted statements to investigators, but that did not occur.

Posted in In The News, Recent Case Results, Statewide | No Comments »

IN THE NEWS: Waukesha Police Dept. Responds in the Schroeder Case

Thursday, July 28th, 2011

Following recent media attention in the Waukesha Freeman to the case result achieved by Mastantuono Law office, and described in an earlier post, the Waukesha Police Chief defends his Department’s actions in losing crucial evidence. The Chief asserts that his Department did not act in bad faith, and denies any cover up. We anticipate and are hopeful that a truthful answer to this question will emerge. Mastantuono Law Office remains involved in this case, and work continues.

Will Missing Video Leave Justice Blind by Darryl Enriquez, The Freeman (5/25/11)

Police Chief Releases Report on Deleted Video by Sarah Pryor, The Freeman (7/22/11)

Police Chief Responds to Column in Freeman by (Chief) Russell P. Jack, Opinion (7/22/11)

Letter to the Editor: Witness to Incident Says Police Never Talked to Her by Christine McLaughlin, Opinion (7/23/11)

Chief’s Response Leaves Once Feeling Blue by Darryl Enriquez, The Freeman (7/27/11)

Mark Belling Opinion, The Freeman (7/27/11)

Posted in In The News, Recent Case Results, Waukesha County | No Comments »

CASE RESULTS: Resisting an Officer Case Dismissed Due to Bad Faith Police Destruction of Evidence

Friday, June 3rd, 2011

Mastantuono Law Office was able to get a criminal charge against one of its clients thrown out of court this month in Waukesha County, due to police missteps in its handling of the investigation. Attorney Craig Mastantuono successfully argued that members of the Waukesha Police Department acted in bad faith by causing video evidence of the incident, which apparently recorded everything, to be destroyed. Our client denied resisting, and was injured in the arrest, which we believe was unlawful, and which we believe the crucial video would have demonstrated. Justice served on this one.

In the days leading up to the decision hearing on June 3rd, 2011, Darryl Enriquez of the Waukesha Freeman wrote an editorial piece describing the unique situation and fate of the video evidence, which is available here. Given columnist Enriquez’ headline question, our answer to his query would be: “No.”

 

 

Tags: ,
Posted in In The News, Recent Case Results, Waukesha County | No Comments »

Mastantuono Law Office Wins In Supreme Court

Wednesday, May 18th, 2011

The Right to Counsel and State Rights

M.L.O. Fights to Keep the Right to an Attorney in Criminal Cases Alive, Robust, and Respected in Wisconsin

On April 29th, 2011, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Mastantuono Law Office client in a case involving an important and potentially divisive issue for the criminal justice system. In a 4-3 decision, the Court suppressed evidence obtained during a police interrogation that took place after the State filed a formal charge against our client and after he retained this office as counsel. That decision can be found here: State vs. Forbush Wisconsin Supreme Court Decision.

The facts of the case involved a client whom the Sheboygan County DA charged in a criminal complaint, and who was subsequently arrested on that charge. Mastantuono Law Office notified the Sheboygan DA that it represented the defendant while he was en route from extradition in Michigan, where he was arrested. Prior to his initial appearance in Sheboygan Circuit Court, detectives with the Sheboygan County Sheriff’s Department brought the defendant to an interrogation room and, after approximately 25 minutes of questioning aimed at getting him to talk to police without his lawyers present, obtained a statement from him. He was then brought to court for his initial appearance, where counsel from this office awaited him. Mastantuono Law Office filed a motion seeking to suppress the statement, on the basis that the police conduct violated the defendant’s constitutional right to counsel. The trial court agreed, suppressing the statement, and the State appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court decision on the basis of a recent ruling by the United States Supreme Court, described further below. The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted the defense petition for review, and reversed the Court of Appeals, ruling in favor of the defense. This ruling is a Wisconsin departure from the U.S. Supreme Court’s most recent ruling on police attempts to interrogate a person whom the police know is charged with a crime and is represented by an attorney on the charge.

One of the cardinal rules in criminal law practice has always been that police and prosecutors never directly communicate with a defendant who is represented by a lawyer in a criminal case. It just isn’t done, for a few very important reasons. First, a 1986 United States Supreme Court decision, Michigan vs. Jackson, held that once a person is charged with a crime and represented by a lawyer, police and prosecutors are prohibited from approaching that person and interrogating him about the case, a decision followed and expanded locally by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in a 2000 case State vs. Dagnall. Second, more than most rules, criminal justice lawyers strictly follow this rule because it honors fair play. Once a lawyer represents a person on a case, all communications go through that person’s lawyer, period. This prevents police and prosecutors from seeking an unfair advantage by doing an end-run around the lawyer and questioning the defendant directly. In criminal law practice, where defendants are often in custody and under the stress of fighting the government, and police and prosecutors are trained to exploit this in order to get information from an accused person, the protection afforded by shielding oneself from the government through an attorney can be critical.

This cultural backdrop changed when the United States Supreme Court decided, in the 2009 case Montejo vs. Louisiana, to make defendants in criminal cases fair game for aggressive interrogation tactics aimed directly at them, without notice or contact through the attorneys representing them. The significance of this really cannot be overstated.

Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Montejo case, individuals who are in the unfortunate position of being charged with a crime can no longer be sure that their lawyer will protect them from Government attempts to gain an advantage in the case by trying to peel information out of them just before trial, for example, or at some other critical time in the case. Police can literally show up at that person’s door (or jail cell, as the case may be) and tell him about new developments in his case (whether true or not), question him, suggest that he “cooperate,” or use any other tactics or tools aimed at benefiting the Government’s position on the case. People approached under such circumstances must clearly assert the right to counsel personally under the new U.S. Supreme Court approach and tell police that they do not want to say anything further or answer any questions without their lawyer present. And then they must stop talking. They must do this while alone, isolated, and subjected to the interrogation tactics of police trained at getting people to talk to them. Their lawyer cannot do that for them. This new approach is a shift away from protecting people from the government. It reduces the minimum constitutional protections afforded in this area of law to a new low, giving the government greater leeway to interfere with attorney/client relationships and attempt to obtain incriminating information from people. Of course, this ignores time-honored respect for the role of counsel during this process, a role that not only protects the right of the uninformed and inexperienced individual against a powerful and well-informed adversary, the government, but protects against false or inaccurate evidence resulting from that setting. This decision greatly expands the role of the government at the expense of the individual, and unnecessarily abolishes a system that provided accurate information through fair process, for one that provides any information, whether true or not. In this sense, Montejo represents an act of judicial activism by the U.S. Supreme Court, reversing clear, simple, and highly functional precedent, and moving to a new constitutional position previously unseen in this area of law.

Several challenges to the Montejo ruling have been brought in various state appellate courts, requesting relief from the Montejo decision in favor of citizen rights afforded by state constitutions. The Wisconsin Supreme Court is the only Court to rule in favor of a criminal defendant on this issue thus far. In State vs. Forbush, Mastantuono Law Office successfully argued that our State should not simply follow lock-step with the U.S. Supreme Court on this issue, a move which would have over-turned over 150 years of legal precedent protecting the sanctity of the attorney client privilege in Wisconsin.

Chief Justice Abrahamson, joined by Justice Bradley, agreed with the defense argument that Wisconsin’s long history honoring the right to counsel in criminal justice cases, our state autonomy under principles of federalism, and the right to counsel in the Wisconsin Constitution all favored the Court suppressing the statement and barring the police conduct under Wisconsin constitutional authority. Justices Roggensack and Prosser each wrote separate opinions joining in the result, but not on the basis of state constitutional authority. While the decision is a plurality and lacks a clear majority basing the decision to suppress on the Wisconsin State Constitution, the four plurality justices are clear in their disapproval of the police conduct challenged by the defense in this case.

The decision has implications for prosecutors, police, defense lawyers, and defendants involved in all Wisconsin criminal justice cases, and the relevant issue appears likely to be reviewed in scholarly examination and revisited in future Wisconsin court cases. See, for example,  Wisconsin State Bar review, Wisconsin Law Journal review. Mastantuono Law Office will continue to be a voice in that discussion.

 

 

Tags: , ,
Posted in Appellate Work, In The News, Recent Case Results, Statewide | No Comments »

IN THE NEWS: Mastantuono Law Office continues to receive inquiries from those affected by the current “gap” between privileged and unlawful behavior.

Wednesday, April 20th, 2011

Tow Operator Won’t Be Charged: He was arrested after robbery suspects shot
By Gitte Laasby, Journal Sentinel
April 19, 2011

A tow truck driver who shot two men suspected of robbing him will not face charges for carrying a concealed weapon, the Milwaukee County district attorney’s office announced Tuesday.

“We look at the fact that this was a citizen placed in great danger by the conduct of others and he was forced to make a choice to use self-defense,” said Kent Lovern, a spokesman for the district attorney’s office. “Those facts really predominated our decision-making.”

The 28-year-old tow truck driver was called to the 9300 block of W. Silver Spring Drive on the city’s northwest side to tow a car around 12:30 p.m. Friday when two men robbed him at knife point, police said. After handing over money, the driver struggled with the assailants, who cut him with a knife. The driver then took out a gun and shot both of the men, 18 and 22. The shooting victims suffered non-life-threatening injuries, police said.

Lovern said the district attorney expects to issue charges against the robbery suspects Wednesday.

But the driver will not be charged with a misdemeanor because he acted “lawfully in self-defense,” Lovern said. That’s although Wisconsin, Illinois and the District of Columbia are the only places in the nation where it’s illegal to carry a concealed weapon, according to the National Rifle Association.

“It’s certainly a violation of the law. You end up balancing the conduct of the victim, mere possession of the weapon, with the reason why the weapon was ultimately used,” Lovern said. “The statute itself does not contain language that would contain a right of self-defense. But in a case like this, you have to look at the totality of facts and make an equitable consideration of, what is someone allowed to do in order to prevent use of force against them?”

To attorneys and activists, the case raises a problem of inconsistency in state law when it comes to gun rights.

About five years ago, Milwaukee criminal defense lawyer Craig Mastantuono was faced with a similar situation when he represented pizza deliverer Andres Vegas, who shot two would-be robbers in a seven-month period. Mastantuono successfully had Vegas’ confiscated guns returned to him. But the Wisconsin Supreme Court wouldn’t review the state’s age-old general ban on concealed weapons, which Mastantuono said is unconstitutional because it conflicts with Wisconsin’s 1998 constitutional amendment affirming the right to bear arms for self-defense and security.

“You can’t have a general ban saying under no circumstance can anyone carry in concealed fashion, and then have a constitutional right to carry arms for security and defense. It creates confusion for people and it gives prosecutors all the power. So it’s real murky waters,” especially for people who work dangerous jobs and want to carry guns for protection, he said.

“They put themselves at risk and carry an arm for purposes of security. The only reason this guy isn’t prosecuted is because he was being robbed. If he’d just been pulled over (by police) he would have been prosecuted.”

Mastantuono argues that complicates the decision as to who gets charged with a crime and who doesn’t and leaves citizens confused about what is and is not allowed.

The state Legislature passed concealed-carry bills in 2003 and 2006, but Gov. Jim Doyle vetoed them, said Nik Clark, president of the pro-concealed-carry group Wisconsin Carry Inc.

He said solving the issue would require repealing the concealed carry ban and the vehicle-carry statute. Clark said his group is working with tea party members and Republican legislators to get another concealed carry law passed.

Other states either authorize a permit to carry concealed weapons, or have enacted carry-concealed statutes with explicit exceptions for specific locations or circumstances, Mastantuono said.

“This issue is going to keep arising,” he said. “I don’t know that changing the law and allowing for concealed carry will deter robbery attempts, but it will clarify the law for those who put themselves in risky employment situations.”

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Gun Rights, In The News, Uncategorized | No Comments »

IN THE NEWS: Mastantuono Law Office comments on judicial recusals.

Monday, April 4th, 2011

 

Recusal issue may return after Tuesday’s election
April 1, 2011
By David Ziemer, Wisconsin Law Journal

Defense attorneys may renew their campaign to recuse Justice Michael Gableman from criminal cases should attorney JoAnne Kloppenburg defeat Incumbent Justice David Prosser in Tuesday’s Wisconsin Supreme Court election.

With Prosser on the court, the six state Supreme Court justices outside Gableman deadlocked on a previous motion regarding whether the court has power to consider motions for Gableman to recuse himself in criminal cases.

After Gableman’s election in 2008, several Wisconsin attorneys filed motions asking the justice not to participate in criminal cases, saying he is biased against criminal defendants. When those motions were denied, some attorneys directed motions to the entire court to review Gableman’s decision not to recuse himself.

Although a 3-3 stalemate in February 2010 (State v. Allen, 2010 WI 10) brought an end to the recusal motions, they could return if Kloppenburg were to replace Prosser.

In her campaign for the high court, the candidate has been vocal in her criticism of how the court handled the disciplinary complaint against Gableman.

“Reading (Kloppenburg’s) campaign rhetoric, it appears she would be more favorably inclined to the motions than Justice Prosser, and there might not be a deadlock,” said Craig Mastantuono, an attorney with Mastantuono Law Office SC who previously filed a motion for recusal against Gableman.

Attorney Robert Henak, who moved for Gableman’s recusal in the Allen case, said the basis for such motions still exists.

“In almost three years on the court, (Gableman) has never voted to reverse a conviction,” Henak said. “I thought that, by now, he would do something to nullify the basis for such motions, but he hasn’t.”

Henak acknowledged Gableman has ruled in favor of a defendant in one case involving sentence credit, and in another case, he voted in favor of a defendant’s resentencing. But he has not voted to overturn any convictions.

Eileen Hirsch, an attorney with the State Public Defender’s Appellate Division who also has filed motions requesting Gableman’s recusal, said she’s waiting to see what happens.

“At the very least, I expect the issue will receive renewed interest,” said Henry Schultz, president of the Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. “I don’t see how it would not. But how they would turn out, I don’t know.”

In the 2010 vote, Prosser, joined by Justices Patience Drake Roggensack and Annette Kingsland Ziegler, concluded they had no authority to compel a sitting justice to recuse himself.

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and N. Patrick Crooks concluded the court should order briefing and argument on the issue.

If Kloppenburg is elected, she may provide the fourth vote needed to require briefing and argument when recusal motions are filed against a justice.

But if such motions were to succeed, Kloppenburg herself could become a target, said Rick Esenberg, a professor at Marquette University Law School. Esenberg said the candidate should have to recuse herself from any case involving the budget repair bill.

Special interest groups have spent millions of dollars to elect Kloppenburg, knowing the issue of the budget repair bill could eventually go before the court.

“They are making the campaign about the bill,” Esenberg said of Kloppenburg supporters.

“In an added twist,” he continued, “it was the conservatives on the court who said they don’t have the authority to review another justice’s decision not to recuse himself.”

So, if Kloppenburg were not to recuse herself from a case involving the budget bill, those justices are on record saying they have no authority to review that decision.

But, Esenberg acknowledged, if a majority of the court were to hold that it could review a recusal motion against Gableman in a criminal case, that would become precedent, and nothing would preclude the other justices from reviewing a recusal motion against Kloppenburg.

David Ziemer can be reached at david.ziemer@wislawjournal.com.

Posted in In The News, Legal Expertise In The News | No Comments »

IN THE NEWS: Mastantuono Law Office comments on recent changes in criminal law.

Tuesday, March 29th, 2011

 

Fragmented sentence: Attorneys debate early release laws
By Jack Zemlicka, Wisconsin Law Journal
March 28, 2011

A state budget provision that would alter and eliminate early release options for inmates could prompt criminal defense attorneys to take more cases to trial.

Gov. Scott Walker’s 2011-13 state budget proposal strengthens the truth-in-sentencing laws passed more than a decade ago in Wisconsin by modifying or removing early release for many inmates.

Specifically, Walker wants to eliminate time off for good behavior for most felonies and some nonviolent misdemeanors, and he wants to replace the earned-release program with a substance-abuse treatment option for inmates with a history of dependency.

Milwaukee criminal defense attorney Mike Guerin said a lack of such incentives as earning a sentence reduction for good behavior would increase the likelihood he would take a case trail rather than strike a plea deal.

Mike GuerinMike Guerin 

“Why not take your chances and go to trial,” he said.

Milwaukee County Deputy District Attorney Kent Lovern said he doesn’t expect the law change would affect the way prosecutors negotiate, although he acknowledged defense attorneys might be less inclined to accept plea deals.

“I don’t think this will change how we approach cases,” he said.

The changes also could result in more people unnecessarily clogging up the prison system at a time when state resources are scarce.

“You don’t want someone creating a budget bill that would take away a common sense approach,” said Guerin, of Gimbel, Reilly, Guerin & Brown LLP.

The current structure lets inmates serving sentences for more severe felonies earn one day of positive adjustment time for every 5.7 days served. For lesser felonies and nonviolent misdemeanors, offenders can earn one day for every two served.

Craig MastantuonoCraig Mastantuono 

Criminal defense lawyer Craig Mastantuono agreed with Guerin’s opinion that reverting back to stricter truth-in-sentencing laws is a mistake, but Mastantuono said he doubts lawyers would be inclined to take more cases to trial.

He argued the risk still would be too great to opt for a trial instead of an available plea deal, regardless of earned or early release provisions.

“I don’t see it,” Mastantuono said.

Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Rick Sankovitz said he will wait for the finished budget before passing judgment on whether changes would be a burden or blessing for the courts. But the presiding judge in the Felony Division is skeptical of the motivation behind the changes.

Richard SankovitzRichard Sankovitz 

“If its goal is to add more punishment,” he said, “then I think it just adds cost to the corrections budget without producing any greater effects.”

While the changes will result in some offenders remaining in prison longer, that doesn’t mean the population will spike or lead to a need for more prisons, said Linda Eggert, spokeswoman for the Wisconsin Department of Corrections.

Since implementation of the expanded earned-release last year, only 479 inmates have been released under the program, a fraction of the 9,000 or so prisoners who get out of prison each year, Eggert said.

As of Jan. 31, 14 of those released under the program went on to re-offend.

“If we revert back to truth-in-sentencing, will it increase the prison population?” she said. “I don’t think you can say that at all.”

While a member of the state Assembly, Walker co-wrote the truth-in-sentencing legislation, which took effect in 1999, and he has advocated ensuring offenders serve the sentences handed down by judges.

“Inmate populations can be controlled by using methods other than letting people out early who have already been sentenced,” said Cullen Werwie, Walker’s spokesman.

Among those methods is Walker’s proposed substance-abuse program, which would let the DOC and Department of Health Services treat inmates transferred from state prison.

The program would be a dramatic change to the earned-release system, which puts eligible offenders through a six-month rehabilitation program. After successful completion, an inmate is eligible for release to extended supervision within 30 days.

Walker is proposing limiting the earned-release program to only those inmates with a history of substance abuse.

Mastantuono praised the intervention philosophy, but criticized the overall proposal as largely a political move rather than one designed to help the criminal justice system.

“It’s easy to have the knee-jerk reaction that prison isn’t supposed to be fun, but you need a buy-in from the offender,” he said. “I see this rollback as just another page in the old debate of rehabilitation versus incapacitation, which is counterproductive.”

Jack Zemlicka can be reached at jack.zemlicka@wislawjournal.com.

Posted in In The News, Legal Expertise In The News, Policy Issues | No Comments »

IN THE NEWS: Mastantuono Law Office contacted for comment on racial profiling.

Saturday, March 5th, 2011

Bill Puts Racial Profiling Data at Risk
March 4, 2011
By Jack Zemlicka, Wisconsin Law Journal

The ongoing collection of age, race and gender data by police during routine traffic stops to assess the existence of racial profiling could be an evidentiary resource for attorneys.

But a legislative push to repeal the mandate jeopardizes the chances the data will provide any value to the criminal justice system.

On Feb. 23, the state Senate passed Bill 15, which would undo the current law passed as part of the 2009-11 budget that took effect Jan. 1.

The State Bar of Wisconsin opposes the repeal and some defense attorneys argued ongoing collection of data during stops could provide ammunition to suppress evidence in cases where racial profiling is suspected and also to challenge the credibility of police.

Milwaukee criminal defense attorney Craig Mastantuono, of Mastantuono Law Office SC, said any substantial data could be particularly useful in “borderline” cases to raise the issue of whether an officer disproportionately pulls over people of a certain race.

“Then profiling becomes more germane of an inquiry and keeping data can help,” he said.

Reliable data to support a history of initiating stops of people of primarily one race invites a challenge of police practice, said criminal traffic lawyer Basil Loeb of Schmidlkofer, Toth & Loeb LLC, Wauwatosa.
“That can certainly go to their credibility and be used early on in a proceeding to determine whether the stop or arrest is valid,” he said.

But others questioned the practical significance the data would have on cases.

Given that officers have constitutional protection for pretext stops for a minor violation such as a broken taillight, criminal defense attorney Michele Anne Tjader suggested the data would have minimal impact on the outcome of a case.

“I don’t think it would have been used in an evidentiary sense as far as providing defense counsel with a basis to challenge traffic stops and so forth,” she said.

Tjader, of Tjader Law SC, Madison, said the data would be more beneficial from a policy standpoint in that law enforcement could evaluate any racial inconsistencies in traffic stops.

Regardless of the results, the data collection would be most useful in analysis, rather than case strategy, said Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm.

“Race is almost never a factor in an individual case review,” he said. “But the information is always there, so the benefit is really more of a macro review of the process and trying to determine discrepancies.”

Proponents of the repeal argued the data collection during traffic stops is duplicative and tedious, given that race, gender and age are already collected on citations.

Mastantuono called those arguments “baloney” and said the data collection requires little more than checking a box.

“Let the data speak for itself,” he said. “It sounds to me that people fear the answers.”

But more than two months of empirical data would be needed to paint an accurate picture of police practices.

The impetus for the collection of racial and gender-based data during stops is rooted in a 1999 task force appointed by Gov. Tommy Thompson, which recommended police record the data to “build accountability and protect the integrity of law enforcement agencies.”

In 2007, Gov. Jim Doyle advanced the initiative by forming the Commission on Reducing Racial Disparities in the Wisconsin Justice System. A report was issued the following year and recommendations that law enforcement conduct a county-by-county baseline study of racial disparity using existing traffic citation and arrest data to determine disparity levels in the state were adopted in the 2009-11 state budget.

Tags: ,
Posted in Due Process, In The News, Legal Expertise In The News, Policy Issues, Uncategorized | No Comments »

CASE RESULTS: Mastantuono Law Office in RICO conspiracy trial for two weeks in federal court in Virginia, resulting in hung jury and mistrial.

Thursday, November 4th, 2010

Milwaukee Outlaws Leader Escapes Conviction in Virginia
November 3, 2010
By Tom Held, Journal Sentinel

Months after a raid on the Milwaukee clubhouse of the Outlaws Motorcycle Club, federal authorities in Virginia failed on Wednesday to win a conviction against the gang’s president, Jack Rosga.

The indictment issued against him in Virginia alleged that Rosga, the head of a trucking company based in Milwaukee, had ordered Outlaw subordinates to ambush members of the Hells Angels and declared war on the rival motorcycle club.

A jury of five women and seven men deliberated over several days but was unable to reach a verdict on the charges against the club leader: conspiracy to commit racketeering and conspiracy to commit violence in aid of racketeering.

The jury acquitted two other Outlaws members and convicted Leslie Werth, a leader in the club’s Rock Hill, S.C., chapter.

Authorities plan to retry Rosga, according to Neil H. MacBride, the U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Virginia.

“We respect the jury’s verdict,” MacBride said. “We will continue to pursue any allegations of organizations that engage in violent criminal activity as a way of doing business.”

Craig Mastantuono, a Milwaukee attorney who served as co-defense counsel for Rosga, said the prosecution provided no evidence to tie the 53-year-old to any acts of violence. He is the president of the Outlaws, but not the leader of a criminal conspiracy, Mastantuono said.

“Like any other organization, the club is not necessarily responsible for the actions of its members, much like corporations and law enforcement agencies,” he said.

During the weeklong trial in Richmond, witnesses for the prosecution testified that Rosga had directed them to seek revenge on rival Hells Angels members for an assault of two Outlaws in Connecticut. The club leader known as “Milwaukee Jack” allegedly directed Outlaws to shoot Hells Angels members, strip them of their vests or kill them.

The defense argued that those allegations were false, ridiculous accusations made by an Outlaw who had sought to pad his own reputation.

Mastantuono said much of the testimony for the prosecution was based on second and third-hand accounts of statements supposedly made by Rosga.

The Outlaws leader remains in federal custody, pending a new trial.

Tags: ,
Posted in Federal, Federal Law, In The News, Recent Case Results | No Comments »

IN THE NEWS: Attorney Mastantuono answers questions from the Wisconsin Law Journal’s Rick Benedict.

Friday, October 29th, 2010

Mastantuono’s Goal: To Keep Kids Out of Trouble
October 28, 2010
By Rick Benedict, Wisconsin Law Journal

In the competitive legal profession, having a name that stands out doesn’t hurt.

But Milwaukee lawyer Craig A. Mastantuono offers much more to clients than just a memorable combination of consonants and vowels.

Since 1992, the criminal defense lawyer has successfully represented citizens in state and federal court, beginning with his time in the State Public Defender’s Office defending people facing drug prosecutions.

He started Mastantuono Law Office SC in 1999 and has successfully challenged the state’s concealed carry law and also defends children charged with delinquent or criminal behavior.

Mastantuono has said that he would prefer to never have to defend another child facing criminal allegations. To that end, he helped establish the annual fundraiser Lawyers for Boys & Girls and also the Lawyer Life Coaching Project, which pairs attorneys with children from the Boys & Girls Clubs for mentoring.

This week, Mastantuono shares his thoughts on the profession and also taps into his inner child for Asked & Answered.

Wisconsin Law Journal: If you could develop one CLE course for credit, what would it be about?

Craig A. Mastantuono: I’m a criminal defense lawyer. A topic rarely CLE’d in this area: Teaching Clients How to Say ‘I’m Sorry’ During Allocution at a Sentencing Hearing. They’re really on the spot at that moment, and almost any ordinary person can mess that moment up. Of course, the larger topic of criminal sentencing hearings is also one I rarely see CLE’d well.

WLJ: What can you spend hours doing that isn’t law-related?

Mastantuono: Dining and socializing out and road biking.

WLJ: What is your favorite website and why?

Mastantuono: I don’t know about favorite, but I’m on JSOnline a lot. I like my local news as its happening. Facebook too – it’s mental French fries.

WLJ: Which actor would play you in a movie and why?

Mastantuono: One who isn’t too expensive. If they’re making a movie about me, we’re on a low budget.

WLJ: What is one thing attorneys should know that they won’t learn in law school?

Mastantuono: Anticipate and know your audience, whether court, counsel, or client.

WLJ: What is the first concert you went to?

Mastantuono: Rush at the Rosemont Horizon in Chicago, 1984. Embarrassing. Such a typical male teen.

WLJ: If you could trade places with someone for a day, who would it be and why?

Mastantuono: Mayor Richard M. Daley of Chicago. My dream job in my hometown.

WLJ: What is the hardest thing to tell a client?

Mastantuono: That they are in trouble. Hearing that creates the same anxiety in us as when we were kids. That doesn’t change.

WLJ: What is the one luxury item you cannot live without?

Mastantuono: Navigation system on my car. Once I got one, couldn’t go back.

WLJ: If you were State Bar President for a day and could make one permanent change to the profession, what would it be?

Mastantuono: I’d make every prosecutor spend a month representing people accused of crime. Perspective can be an amazing thing.

Posted in In The News, Recent Case Results, Uncategorized | No Comments »

CASE RESULTS: Mastantuono Law Office prevents charges for client exercising right to open carry firearm.

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

No Charges Against Woman Who Brought Gun to Church:
Open-Carry Activist Won’t Be Cited For Carrying Loaded Firearm in Vehicle
July 20, 2010
By Bruce Vielmetti, Journal Sentinel

Waukesha County prosecutors have decided not to cite a woman who wore a gun into a Brookfield church and had the loaded weapon inside her car when police stopped her a short time later.

Krysta Sutterfield, 41, of Milwaukee was arrested July 4 after she wore the gun to services at the Unitarian Universalist Church West in Brookfield that morning. She never took the gun from its holster or acted in any menacing way, but afterward some church staff called Brookfield police for clarification about Sutterfield’s right to openly carry a firearm.

Several squad cars quickly responded, but by then Sutterfield was leaving in her car. Police pulled her over and found that she had the gun, still loaded, inside a zippered case on the passenger seat. Wisconsin law requires all guns to be unloaded and encased during transport in a vehicle. Police handcuffed Sutterfield, processed her at the station, released her and referred the matter to prosecutors, suggesting that she be ticketed for having the loaded gun in her car.

In a letter to police released to the public Tuesday, Waukesha County District Attorney Brad Schimel explained that while Sutterfield did violate the letter of the firearm transport law, he was not going to issue the ticket, for several reasons.

For one, he said, Sutterfield had no bad intent. She had worn the gun to church services peacefully and was never asked to remove it or leave. She told investigators that a salesperson where she had purchased the 9mm handgun had explained to her that it only needed to be in a case when she was driving.

Further, Schimel wrote, the statute in question, which is a non-criminal infraction that carries a maximum forfeiture of $100, was passed before the Wisconsin Constitution was amended to clearly specify residents’ rights to keep guns for various purposes. He said he did not think the facts of Sutterfield’s case made it the right one to prosecute in an effort to set the limits of gun restrictions.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that the state’s ban on concealed weapons did not apply to a shop owner in Milwaukee who had a gun to protect his business, which had been robbed at gunpoint many times. But it also upheld the concealed-carry conviction of a passenger who had two loaded guns in a car.

Schimel noted that the latter case, however, did not address whether the constitutional amendment might protect someone carrying a loaded gun in his or her own car for protection.

“Given all the circumstances in this case, I do not believe this is the case to test the outer reaches of the application of the CCW statute in light of the constitutional amendment,” Schimel wrote.

Lastly, Schimel noted, Sutterfield might well be able to challenge the legality of her stop by police because she had done nothing illegal at the church and police had no separate reason to suspect that she was transporting the gun while loaded in violation of the state statute. If the stop was not legal, the evidence of the loaded gun would not be admissible.

But Schimel did not fault Brookfield police for their aggressive reaction to the situation, given the limited information they had at the time, especially in light of the history of the 2005 shooting that killed eight people at a church service at a Brookfield hotel.

“The officer needed to freeze the situation to find out more information while preventing the suspect from leaving and while ensuring the safety of himself and other citizens,” Schimel wrote. “It is my opinion that the steps he took would be considered reasonable under all of the circumstances.”

Sutterfield’s attorney, Rebecca Coffee, said her client, who has no criminal history, was relieved.

“I appreciate that Mr. Schimel has given some very reasoned and thoughtful explanation of what he did, and I agree with him,” Coffee said.

She said she will next work on getting Sutterfield’s gun, which was seized at the time of her arrest, returned to her.

Officials at the church, 13001 W. North Ave., have since posted signs at the entrances stating guns are prohibited. The congregation’s president said earlier that Sutterfield is welcome to return, just not with her gun.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Gun Rights, In The News, Recent Case Results, Waukesha County | No Comments »

CASE RESULTS: Mastantuono Law Office represents person exercising right to open carry firearm.

Friday, July 9th, 2010

Woman Wears Gun in Holster to Church
July 8, 2010
By Bruce Vielmetti, Journal Sentinel

A Unitarian Universalist church might well be the last place you’d expect to find someone wearing a gun.

Maybe that’s why Krysta Sutterfield chose the Unitarian church in Brookfield for an open-carry demonstration on Sunday. If she wanted to bring attention to the gun rights debate, she surely succeeded, though she probably didn’t plan on getting arrested in the process.

Brookfield police said Thursday they were called to the church at 13001 W. North Ave. about 10:30 a.m. by a church staffer who said a woman was wearing a handgun in a hip holster. By the time three squad cars arrived, Sutterfield was driving away. She was stopped, and police found the loaded 9mm gun in a zipped case on the passenger seat.

She was handcuffed, taken to the police station, processed and ticketed for having the loaded gun in her car – a state forfeiture citation, not a criminal offense. Sutterfield was then released.

She was not ticketed for openly carrying the weapon into the church, which did not have signs prohibiting firearms.

“We’ve referred the case to the district attorney,” Police Capt. Phil Horter said.

Sutterfield, 41, of Milwaukee, referred questions Thursday to her attorney, Rebecca Coffee, who said she couldn’t comment on her client’s intentions or actions Sunday.

Caryl Sewel, president of the congregation at Unitarian Universalist Church West, said Sutterfield may have attended a service before but was not a registered member of the church. Because of the Fourth of July holiday, Sunday’s service was lightly attended, Sewel said, and a guest minister was speaking about civil rights.

Sewel said that Sutterfield’s gun was clearly visible on her hip, but that she didn’t ever remove it from its holster or do anything overtly threatening. Still, it concerned Sewell.

“I didn’t feel comfortable asking her why she was wearing the gun,” Sewel said. “Truthfully, we found it very intimidating,” especially in light of the 2005 shootings at a church service at a Brookfield hotel that left eight people dead, and a 2008 shooting at a Unitarian church in Tennessee that killed two people.

But Sewel said other members did ask Sutterfield, and she replied she was expressing her 2nd Amendment rights.

Sewel said other staff called the administrative line of the Brookfield Police Department for clarification about the legality, and the officers responded in force with at least three squad cars. She said she didn’t think that was an overreaction, again because of the memories of the 2005 shootings.

The church will probably now post a sign banning guns, Sewel said, but it has no grudge against Sutterfield.

“We’d be happy to have her come back,” Sewel said. “Just don’t bring a gun.”

Gun rights advocates are riding some momentum lately. Last year, state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen advised law enforcement that open-carry was not, in itself, a basis for a charge of disorderly conduct. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 2nd Amendment right of most individuals to possess firearms applies to the states, and within a day, one Wisconsin district attorney said he would no longer prosecute cases of concealed carry or transporting uncased or loaded guns in vehicles. A challenge to Wisconsin law banning guns within 1,000 feet of a school is pending in federal court.

Nik Clark, president of Wisconsin Carry Inc., called the state “behind the times” for prohibiting transport of loaded guns, which most states allow.

“Wisconsin Carry advocates that people follow all Wisconsin firearm regulations, even those we find patently unconstitutional, until such time as we are able to change those laws through legal challenges and/or legislative changes,” Clark said.

Jeri Bonavia, executive director of the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, disagrees with the basic open-carry tenet that armed law-abiding people deter criminals.

“When people make a decision to carry a gun or that a gun will keep them safer, they have the opportunity to analyze risks and benefits. They get to decide,” she Bonavia said. “But when they bring it into public, they’re forcing their analysis on all of us.”

Broad research shows, she said, that “guns, overall, do not promote public or personal safety.”

Tags: , ,
Posted in Gun Rights, In The News, Recent Case Results, Waukesha County | No Comments »

IN THE NEWS: Attorney Mastantuono contacted for opinion on impact of social media in criminal justice system.

Tuesday, May 11th, 2010

Social Distortion
May 10, 2010
Wisconsin Law Journal Staff

People can blog, tweet or text from almost anywhere — as long as they’re not in a jury box.

It used to be that judges would instruct jurors not to converse about an ongoing case with anyone they might encounter coming in or going out of the courthouse. That’s not enough anymore.

“For years we told jurors not to talk to people in the hallway,” said Milwaukee County Circuit Chief Judge Jeffrey A. Kremers. “Now, technology has expanded it from few dozen people in the courthouse to a few billion on the planet.”

Within the last six months, Kremers and other judges on the state’s Criminal Jury Instruction Committee approved and circulated updates to Crim.J.I. 50 to include restrictions on use of social media by jurors during trial.

In addition to traditional restrictions, pre-trial directives for jurors include a ban on communicating with anyone via text message, Facebook, Twitter, e-mail or blogs during jury service.

Criminal defense attorney Craig A. Mastantuono said judges are more commonly referring to specific forms of social media during pre-trial instructions and recognize the danger.

“There’s just more mobility today,” he said. “Someone can type a few things into their phone and all of the sudden 700 Facebook friends are aware you are sitting in a Milwaukee court on sexual assault case. One can imagine the repercussions.”

While judges can tailor the updates to fit their court, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge John J. DiMotto is aggressive with his education of jurors on the reasons for cutting off communication during trial as well as the consequences.

As presiding judge in Probate Court, DiMotto has yet to encounter any problems, but he offers an example to illustrate the potential cost of ignoring jury instructions.

Last year, after being found guilty of public corruption, Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon challenged her misdemeanor embezzlement conviction after discovering five jurors “friended” one another on Facebook during the trial.

Dixon later resigned as part of a plea agreement with the State Prosecutor’s Office.

But the situation served as a cautionary tale as to how even seemingly harmless online banter can potentially influence jurors and their verdict.

“Particularly huge cases, like another lead paint case or a future Jeffrey Dahmer case,” DiMotto said. “You have to insulate jurors to the extent that is possible.”

Judges admit there is little they can to completely keep jurors from avoiding electronic communication, which is why many stress the potential problems that even inane interaction can create.

The committee updates indicate that jurors who violate jury rules “may be found in contempt of court and may be responsible to pay the costs of the trial, may be subject to a fine and may even be subject to incarceration.”

Some judges confiscate cell phones and other electronic devices in the jury room, but as Manitowoc County Circuit Court Judge Darryl W. Deets notes, people get them back at the end of the day.

“I think people know they can’t go home and talk to their wife about a case, but they don’t think anything about firing off a bunch of texts,” he said. “That is why you have to state it explicitly.”

Since the explosion of social networking, Mastantuono regularly researches jurors and monitors their online activity during lengthy trials.

“It’s not unusual for someone in my office to run the name of a juror, if we get them ahead of time, through Google, Twitter or Facebook,” he said.

Although DiMotto maintains a blog and a page on Facebook, he refrains from tracking juror activity during trials due to ethical concerns.

However, that could change.

“It is something that might become necessary if juror misconduct is legitimately suggested,” he said. “But then only with the consent of the lawyers in order to avoid potential ethics issues.”

Under DiMotto’s instructions, a fellow juror would be responsible for reporting misconduct to the court. He added that a judge could ask jurors engaged in social networking that, if empanelled, would they consent to being “friended” by the court.

For those who willfully break the rules, finding a juror in contempt could be a reasonable sanction, Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge J. Mac Davis said.

Beyond the potential punishment for jurors is the impact on attorneys and their clients, especially if a case has to be retried.

“The more interesting question could be whether a juror is vulnerable to civil claims for lost expenses of having to retry or do a trial again,” Davis said.

Kremers said at this point, it’s an open question as to whether a judge could order an offending juror to foot the bill for a new trial.

“In an extreme situation, you could have a judge take that step, but it’s an unresolved issue,” he said.

Short of a mistrial, a step could be to simply replace the juror on the trial, said Mastantuono, who added that for prolonged trials, there are substitute jurors available.

And Brookfield criminal defense attorney Jerome F. Buting questioned the practicality of forcing a juror to pay for a new trial.

“I can’t imagine, even if a juror does it deliberately and gets caught, a situation where a judge would order them to pay thousands of dollars in restitution,” he said. “It would be such a chilling disincentive to jurors at a time when it’s hard enough to get people to agree to serve.”

Tags: , ,
Posted in In The News, Legal Expertise In The News, Policy Issues | No Comments »

IN THE NEWS: Mastantuono Law Office contacted to discuss changes in DNA law.

Monday, February 15th, 2010

DNA Testing Rules May Change
February 15, 2010
By Wisconsin Law Journal Staff

When a person is convicted of a felony in Wisconsin, a DNA sample is taken and stored in a state database.

But legislators are proposing a change that would require police to collect DNA from every adult who is arrested for a felony and every juvenile who is taken into custody for sexual assault offenses that would be felonies if committed by an adult.

Senate Bill 336 received a public hearing in December. Its companion, Assembly Bill 336, is still waiting to be scheduled by the Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice.

Some criminal defense attorneys argue that the proposed change would violate the Fourth Amendment and could result in innocent people’s DNA being on file with the Department of Justice.

Hurley, Burish & Stanton SC attorney Erik R. Guenther said that the current process of having a judge determine whether to grant an order for DNA is preferable.

“The legislature is looking at allowing highly intrusive searches without any judicial oversight,” he said.

Guenther is a board member of the State Bar of Wisconsin’s Individual Rights and Responsibilities Section, which is opposing the bills on the grounds that they violate the Fourth Amendment and are unconstitutional.

The basis of that opposition, said Guenther, is that DNA analysis provides much more information about a person than just fingerprints or a photograph.

Further, he argued, “for situations in which there was no finding of probable cause to continue with criminal prosecution, access to someone’s DNA sample would be of no benefit to anyone in the legal system.”

Under the provisions of the bill, a person who intentionally fails to submit a sample is subject to a fine of up to $10,000, up to nine months in prison or both.

Destroying DNA

Once an arrestee provides a sample, criminal attorneys worry that it may be difficult to have that sample destroyed later.

The bills provide that crime labs must expunge DNA analysis from the databank if a person is not charged with a crime within one year of arrest, criminal charges are dismissed, the person is found not guilty or a conviction is later reversed, set aside or vacated.

But it is up to the individual to request that DNA be removed, something which could be problematic for some clients, said Milwaukee criminal defense attorney Craig A. Mastantuono of Mastantuono Law Office SC.

“For private lawyers, whether or not the resources are there [for a client] to cover that will be answered on case by case basis,” he said. “I doubt it will become a routine part of practice.”

Such work wouldn’t be statutorily mandated for State Public Defenders and would likely be considered post-conviction work, noted Mastantuono.

“For all of those people, forget it,” he said.

And given the tedious process for having a person’s fingerprints removed from the state database, which includes a written request and response from the DOJ, Mastantuono expects an equally “onerous” process to destroy DNA samples.

Some say a beefed-up database could benefit the criminal justice system.

Attorney John A. Pray helps coordinate the Wisconsin Innocence Project, which seeks to exonerate wrongfully convicted individuals.

He said that collecting DNA from arrestees could reduce the likelihood that the wrong person is convicted of a crime.

“In theory, having more DNA on file is a helpful thing for the Innocence Project, so we support that,” Pray said. But “we would want them to go slow so any problems are ironed out.”

One concern he has is if “pretext arrests” are made just to get a specific person’s DNA sample.

Guenther and Mastantuono also expressed skepticism as to whether the DOJ could effectively store the samples, given the recent mismanagement of several hundred DNA samples of convicted felons in Milwaukee County.

“The state of Wisconsin failed to preserve the DNA samples it already has,” Guenther said. “So dramatically increasing the database to include thousands of innocent people isn’t something the state has demonstrated an ability to handle.”

Tags: , ,
Posted in In The News, Legal Expertise In The News, Policy Issues | No Comments »

IN THE NEWS: Mastantuono Law Office contacted to discuss domestic violence homicides.

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

Domestic Violence Homicides Up
January 18, 2010
Wisconsin Law Journal Staff

A preliminary report from the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence (WCADV) revealed a dramatic spike in domestic violence homicides last year.

According to the organization, there were 60 domestic violence-related deaths in 2009, compared to only 36 in 2008.

“Tensions are certainly high in some homes and I’d imagine the economy might be a part of that,” said Waukesha defense attorney Jennifer R. Dorow.

She hasn’t had a domestic violence-related homicide case this year, but has “gotten some repeat customers” recently for lesser charges.

Kohler & Hart LLP attorney Brian Kinstler recently successfully defended a Sheboygan woman accused of killing her husband, who had abused her for more than a decade, on New Year’s Day 2009.

He suggested that there may be more women offenders in domestic violence-related homicides than in the past.

“Based on my contact with domestic violence counseling centers, I’ve sensed that there has been an increase in the number of women who are essentially taking things into their own hands,” he said.

Tony Gibart, Policy Coordinator for WCADV, said preliminary numbers show an increase in the number of female perpetrators.

“It’s still in the single digits, but there is definitely an increase,” he said.

Harder to try

Criminal defense lawyers suggest that the higher numbers could make domestic violence cases harder to win, as district attorneys seek tougher punishments.

“When domestic violence is high on a district attorney’s radar, my clients will have to jump through more hoops to get considered for formal diversion programs,” said Dorow, a former prosecutor now at Huppertz & Dorow SC in Waukesha. “Pre-trial offers get tougher and there is less room for negotiation.”

That means someone who was referred to a treatment program for a misdemeanor offense two years ago may not get the same opportunity for counseling if their case comes across the prosecutor’s desk again.

Veteran criminal defense attorney Craig A. Mastantuono agreed.

“If it’s a case that goes to trial, we need to be twice as diligent,” said Mastantuono, of Mastantuono Law Office SC in Milwaukee.

If you’re handling a case for a client accused of homicide in the domestic violence context, Mastantuono said, the first step is to explore whether a self-defense argument is viable.

Things such as a documented history of abuse in a relationship or witness testimony on the dynamic of the relationship between the accused and the decedent can help bolster a self-defense claim.

Kinstler noted that a defendant’s testimony alone is not always enough to prove repeated abuse.

He said that in his case, he was able to track down records dating back to 1995. He also recommended researching police calls for evidence of prior instances of abuse.

“Interviewing friends and confidants, police contacts and contacts that clients may have gone to at domestic violence resource centers all can help in making a case,” Kinstler advised.

But absent a solid self-defense argument or unique circumstances, domestic violence homicide cases can be tough to win, Mastantuono said.

“They are tough to mitigate,” he said, “because a person accused of domestic violence is not sympathetic.”

Kinstler said when he was picking his jury for the trial in Sheboygan, the vast majority of the initial pool revealed either a personal or family history of domestic violence.

“I think that jurors are generally more aware of domestic violence issues than you might expect,” he said. “I was amazed.”

Tags: ,
Posted in In The News, Legal Expertise In The News, Policy Issues, Uncategorized | No Comments »

IN THE NEWS: Mastantuono Law Office’s annual Holiday Party for Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Milwaukee at the Ethan Allen/Wales Juvenile Correctional Institution

Monday, November 30th, 2009

The Holidays Bring Out Their Best
November 30, 2009
Wisconsin Law Journal Staff

Spoiler alert: If you’re a child planning on attending the Milwaukee Society of the Polish Center’s Christmas party on Dec. 13, or if you are or will be a patient (of any age) at St. Francis Hospital in Milwaukee on Dec. 2, stop reading right now!

For those of you who are still reading, I regret to inform you that Santa Claus does not exist. The Santa who’ll be in the house on those days is really Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Dennis R. Cimpl.

Cimpl was recruited for the role of St. Nick five years ago for the Society party. Not long afterward, Judge Michael J. Skwierawski tapped him to play Santa at the hospital, where Skwierawski’s extended family carols and gives out ornaments every year.

That first year, Cimpl studied the not-so-simple rules for being Santa.

Central among them: Never promise a child a gift; but you may express optimism that it will be under the tree in exchange for good behavior if his or her parent, who’s likely snapping a photo, gives the nod.

He says for the first few years, he used to don the suit at home before driving to the events.

“The looks I got from people, driving my little red car on the freeway,” Cimpl recalls.

One year, he locked his keys in his car. He was fumbling around outside, looking not-so-jolly, and not wearing the hat, wig and beard, when he saw a group of children approaching. Realizing the gravity of the situation, he quickly adjusted his attitude and put his gear back on.

Now he dresses up onsite, so he’s not forced to be in character unexpectedly. He’s also more careful with the keys.

Parties focus on philanthropy

Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Jane V. Carroll has been doing a little extra holiday shopping for the past four years that she’s been assigned to Children’s Court.

She takes “elves” — her own children — with her on her shopping trips to help her pick out and wrap gifts for children in the foster care system in Milwaukee. They receive a child’s name and wishlist; this year, Carroll took on five.

The family distribute the presents at a party hosted by the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare. Now in its fifth year, the event’s guests of honor are about 250 children. Also attending are countless foster parents, social workers, judges, lawyers, court staff, people from all walks of life, and of course, Santa Claus. There are games, activities and a full meal is served.

Carroll says, “It’s something that’s completely positive and fun for these families.

“During the rest of the year, we see their struggles and challenges, so it’s nice to let them know we care. It’s a very concrete, specific way to give back. My own kids and I enjoy that we get a name, an age and a wishlist; we get to learn a little about them, and help make them happy.”

This year’s party is on Dec. 11 at the Northside YMCA, Urban Campus Center at 1350 W. North Ave. To get involved, call Kelly Bell at (414) 220-7919.

Another holiday party is held … in jail?

Absolutely, says Milwaukee criminal defense attorney Craig A. Mastantuono. His firm, Mastantuono Law Office, annually sponsors an event for youth who attend the Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Milwaukee at the Ethan Allen/Wales Juvenile Correctional Institution.

“These are kids who’ve been sent to juvenile corrections — or prison — and who have earned the privilege to attend the Boys & Girls Club within the institution,” Mastantuono explains.

“Moving through prison gates and walls to get to one spot of positive in an otherwise depressing environment is emotional. The Clubs’ motto — ‘the positive place for kids’ — is never more apparent than when one visits this particular club.

“It’s always the most moving holiday event that I attend during the season, by far. These kids, many there for very serious offenses, show themselves, in that setting, to be kids like any other, who appreciate someone with whom to celebrate the holidays,” says Mastantuono.

Mastantuono and his co-workers organize the event and recruit volunteers, who bring food and gifts. Among them this year will be Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Katharine F. Kucharski, Milwaukee Municipal Court Judge Derek C. Mosley, and a few others “who think that these kids deserve to know that someone cares about them.”

In attendance are the kids and their families, and Boys & Girls Club staff.

The date of this year’s party has not been determined. Any financial assistance is appreciated. Contact Cynthia McPhedran at cynthiam@boysgirlsclubs.org to donate.

Finally, the La Crosse County Bar Association will get together to honor staff at its Christmas party on Dec. 18 at Logistics Health.

But some attendees just can’t stop working. They’re members of the La Crosse chapter of the Paralegal Association of Wisconsin, and they’re busy collecting non-perishable food items and donations for the Hunger Task Force and West Avenue Food Emergency Resource, as well as food pantries for local schools.

Now in its eleventh year, the drive typically results in dozens of bags of groceries and several hundred dollars for the cause.

Marlane Myhre, a paralegal at Hale Skemp Hansen Skemp & Sleik in La Crosse, is one of the four organizers. It’s a fairly time consuming task, post-party, to transport the food. But they love the reactions they receive from the donees, especially the schools.

“A lot of kids no longer have free or reduced-rate lunches from their schools because of the break. They really count on getting some food from their schools to take home with them,” Myhre says.

Tags: , ,
Posted in In The News, Juvenile Law, Philanthropic work, Policy Issues, Uncategorized | No Comments »

IN THE NEWS: Going the Extra Mile – Mastantuono Law Office attorney talks about helping clients prepare for appearance at trial.

Monday, October 19th, 2009

Sprucing Up Your Criminal Client for Court
October 19, 2009
Wisconsin Law Journal Staff

Image matters. And it especially matters when your criminal client is facing trial.

Lawyers need to convey the importance of wearing clothes which won’t be distracting or disrespectful, said attorney Paul E. Bucher.

“Never assume that your client knows how to dress for court,” said Bucher. “You will prove yourself wrong more than you prove yourself correct.”

At the same time, you don’t want to make your clients feel uncomfortable.

“The most important for thing for my clients is that they dress in way that makes them comfortable and not self-conscious,” said Madison attorney Christopher T. Van Wagner.

Appropriate attire can also depend on the image the attorney wants to convey to jurors, he said.

Someone who comes to court nattily attired, but is normally a jeans and T-shirt person could be seen as “putting on a show” for the jury, said Van Wagner, of Van Wagner & Wood SC.

Van Wagner represented a truck driver accused of assault and rather than have his client wear a suit, he told him to come to court casually dressed, complete with a hat the man wore regularly.

“We wanted the jury to understand that he was a simple-blue collar guy,” he said. “If he was uncomfortable, it would have been hard for the jury to pay attention.”

In some cases, attorneys have to dip into their own pockets to craft a wardrobe that fits the client’s personality.

Rebecca M. Coffee of Mastantuono Law Office SC in Milwaukee has gone shopping for a client the night before trial on more than one occasion.

“I’d say three or four times I’ve gone out and bought pair of pants or a nice shirt for clients simply because they don’t have anything or any family members in town to provide an outfit for them,” she said.

Attorney Raymond M. Dall’Osto said that when he did work for the State Public Defender’s Office in the 80s, he helped establish a “clients’ clothes closet” to provide defendants with some court-worthy wardrobe options that they would feel comfortable in.

Not too comfy

There’s a risk that allowing a client to be too comfortable can damage his or her credibility.

Dall’Osto recalled a robbery case in which he was summoned as a potential juror. During voir dire the defendant came to court wearing a black T-shirt which featured a skull and hatchet.

“As soon as I saw that shirt, as a juror my first thought was ‘I don’t like him and in the recesses of my mind, that person is guilty,’” said Dall’Osto, of Gimbel, Reilly, Guerin & Brown, (http://www.grgblaw.com/) in Milwaukee.

He typically recommends that clients dress for court as if they were dressing for church.

Bucher currently practices at Gatzke Ruppelt & Bucher SC in Waukesha but previously served as a district attorney. He said on at least on occasion, a defendant’s attire probably helped his case as a prosecutor.

“There was a drunken driving case that I felt like I got a conviction just by the person walking into court with an alcohol-related shirt on,” he said.

While criminal defense attorneys agree that sloppy or too-casual clients can be a problem, “overdressing” a client is also risky.

A defendant who appears with gaudy jewelry can be just as distracting to jurors as someone with a visible facial piercing, suggested Dall’Osto.

“In a fraud case someone with a $50,000 watch might be seen as too ‘Madoffian,’” Dall’Osto said. “Have a client be in something that is understated and neutral.”

Van Wagner often follows this standard rule of thumb.

“Never let clients dress better than their attorney,” he said.

Outside appearances count

Hurley, Burish & Stanton attorney Erik R. Guenther notes that the need for a professional appearance can extend outside of court.

If there is a trial with significant public interest, Guenther recommends controlling the client’s image in the media, even before opening arguments are made.

“I generally will try to provide a studio photo of a client [to the media] rather than a mug shot,” he said.

Assuming a client is not in custody, Guenther typically makes arrangement to have the person get a professional head shot done at a local studio. He then circulates the pictures to various media outlets that may have an interest in the case. He said that most choose to run the head-shot.

“It’s really not just white-collar crimes, but anything that generates media interest,” Guenther said. “It’s a way to remind people that there is a presumption of innocence and my client has a right to a fair trial.”

Tags: ,
Posted in In The News, Policy Issues, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Attorney Mastantuono Litigates Racine County Case Involving Police Abuse Allegation

Wednesday, September 24th, 2008

Judge says missing license plate justification for pulling vehicle over in Gilleylen case

By Janine Anderson
The Journal Times (Racine, WI)
Posted: Monday, September 22, 2008 12:00 am

RACINE – A missing front license plate and baby shoes hanging from the rearview mirror were enough to warrant a traffic stop, a judge ruled Monday.

Defense attorney Craig Mastantuono argued that those violations of the traffic code were not enough for Officer Chad Stillman to have stopped his client, Bilal Gilleylen, who claimed that police used excessive force during the Jan. 22 arrest that followed the traffic stop.

Gilleylen allegedly resisted officers and tried to grab Stillman’s gun during the arrest. Stillman testified Monday about the stop and subsequent fight between three officers and the defendant. Gilleylen has filed a notice of claim with the city, asking for $150,000 for the violation of Gilleylen’s rights when officers allegedly used unlawful excessive force.

Stillman said that Gilleylen initially pulled over, but then continued around a corner before coming to a stop. He testified that Gilleylen became nervous after he took a plastic bag out of his pocket along with his driver’s license, and that Gilleylen made several lunges toward the cluttered front seat after he requested that Gilleylen exit his vehicle.

After the second lunge, Stillman said he and another officer forcibly removed Gilleylen from the car. “We immediately grabbed hold of him and pulled him away,” Stillman said. “Officer (Robert) Thilleman and I tugged for quite a while. It felt like forever. I remember the vehicle shaking back and forth as we tried to get him out.”

Stillman said that at one point he said “Please stop resisting,” to try to get Gilleylen to comply with their requests.

Assistant District Attorney Sharon Riek said she believed Stillman had reasonable suspicion to stop Gilleylen’s car, and that officers reacted appropriately to what they saw the defendant doing.
Mastantuono said the stop was not enough to warrant the arrest. Gilleylen had a rear plate on his vehicle and that there was no “smoking gun” evidence that the baby shoes hanging from the mirror obscured his view.

Judge Faye Flancher sided with the state. “The stop was appropriate,” she said. “Unfortunately, things go downhill rather quickly.” Flancher said, taken in context with suspicious behavior during a traffic stop in a high-crime area, the officers’ actions were appropriate.

“Officers had every right to fear for their safety and officers had to use force to get Mr. Gilleylen out of the car,” she said. “They’re telling him to show his hands, to comply, and he wasn’t having none of it.”

Posted in In The News, Statewide | No Comments »