961 N.W.2d 854
Wis.2021Background
- Judge Scott C. Woldt, Winnebago County circuit judge since 2004, entered a joint stipulation admitting the factual allegations in a Commission complaint alleging six incidents of misconduct occurring between 2009 and 2016.
- The incidents (five in-court; one at a Government Day event) involved profane and demeaning remarks to litigants, victims, defense counsel, and an apparent discouragement of a victim from calling police; one sentencing exchange included a comment that the defendant was "lucky" he had not been shot and assertions minimizing a victim.
- In two separate events (a 2015 sentencing and a 2016 Government Day with high‑school students) Judge Woldt briefly removed and displayed a holstered handgun, having unloaded the magazine and chamber; he held a concealed-carry license and was lawfully carrying the firearm.
- The Judicial Conduct Panel found the stipulated facts proved willful violations of SCR 60.02, SCR 60.03(1), SCR 60.04(1)(d) and SCR 60.04(1)(hm) as charged, and recommended a suspension of 7–21 days without pay.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted the Panel's findings and legal conclusions, concluded the conduct amounted to judicial misconduct, and ordered a seven‑day suspension without pay beginning August 2, 2021; Justices Roggensack and Grassl Bradley concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing the firearm displays did not violate the Code.
Issues
| Issue | Commission's Argument | Woldt's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stipulated facts establish willful violations of the Judicial Code | The facts (demeaning language, discouraging a victim, threatening imagery, and using a gun as a "prop") show willful breaches of SCR 60.02, 60.03(1), and SCR 60.04 provisions | Admitted facts but argued context, intent, and purpose mitigate or explain conduct; challenged characterization of gun display as misconduct | Court agreed facts and inferences demonstrate willful Code violations and judicial misconduct |
| Whether displaying a personal handgun in court (sentencing and Government Day) violated the Code | Displaying the gun as a dramatic "prop" personalized proceedings, injected an element of force, and undermined public confidence and judicial dignity | Display was lawful, safety‑conscious (unloaded), explanatory to audiences, and protected speech/personalization; not prohibited by Code text | Majority: display combined with accompanying comments constituted Code violations; two justices dissented as to firearm displays |
| Whether the incidents constitute an aggravating pattern and appropriate weight for discipline | Multiple similar incidents over ~7 years (five within 2015–2016) show a pattern of improper courtroom demeanor requiring suspension | Argued context (family turmoil, isolated aspects) and mitigation (long service, no prior discipline) reduce need for severe sanction | Court found a pattern of discourteous courtroom behavior and significant harm to public confidence, warranting suspension |
| Appropriate discipline (reprimand vs. suspension; length) | Recommended suspension (Panel: 7–21 days); Commission sought meaningful discipline to protect public confidence | Asked for lesser sanction or emphasized mitigating factors to limit suspension | Court imposed a seven‑day unpaid suspension as sufficient, balancing aggravating and mitigating factors |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ziegler, 309 Wis. 2d 253, 750 N.W.2d 710 (Wis. 2008) (factors to consider in judicial discipline)
- In re Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gorenstein, 147 Wis. 2d 861, 434 N.W.2d 603 (Wis. 1989) (pattern of demeaning courtroom behavior warranted long suspension)
- In re Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against Breitenbach, 167 Wis. 2d 102, 482 N.W.2d 52 (Wis. 1992) (sustained pattern of intemperate conduct justified severe discipline)
- In re Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crawford, 245 Wis. 2d 373, 629 N.W.2d 1 (Wis. 2001) (purpose of sanction and court’s role in reviewing panel recommendations)
- In re Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against Aulik, 146 Wis. 2d 57, 429 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1988) (discipline aimed at protecting the judiciary, not punishing)
- In re Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against Michelson, 225 Wis. 2d 221, 591 N.W.2d 843 (Wis. 1999) (public reprimand for a single instance of demeaning language)
- In re Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against Seraphim, 97 Wis. 2d 485, 294 N.W.2d 485 (Wis. 1980) (suspension/removal are drastic measures reserved for serious or repeated violations)
- Tesmer v. Judicial Conduct, 219 Wis. 2d 708, 580 N.W.2d 307 (Wis. 1998) (willfulness standard: judge knew or should have known conduct was prohibited)
- State v. Hermann, 364 Wis. 2d 336, 867 N.W.2d 772 (Wis. 2015) (judges may personalize remarks at sentencing; context important to assess bias)