Orders having been issued on February 25, 1977, apd on February 28, 1977, requiring the respondent to show cause why writs of prohibition should not issue, and the parties having filed memoranda thereon, and this Court being duly advised in the premises:
IT IS ORDERED that the action be resolved pursuant to the rationale of the Court’s decision in
Baldwin v. State,
“A strict construction of Sec. 971.20, Stats., 1 would deny in many cases the constitutional right to a fair trial because a defendant is unable at the time of arraignment to know what judge is to try his case.” Id., at 530.
The above quote from the Baldwin case indicates that a defendant has an opportunity to request a substitution of judge for a reasonable period of time after he learns specifically which judge will be assigned to his case. Applying that rationale to the case sub judice, the four defendants are entitled to a reasonable time after assignment to a particular judge becomes known to them in which to request a substitution of such judge.
IT IS ORDERED that a. writ of prohibition issue directing the County Court of Marathon County, the Honorable Joseph Kucirek, presiding, to promptly request assignment of another judge to the proceedings in the four above-captioned traffic regulation cases.
Notes
Sec. 971.20 controlled in Baldwin because that case was a criminal prosecution. Sec. 345.315(1) controls the instant case which is a traffic regulation matter. Nonetheless, the rationale underlying the substitution of a judge is the same in both cases — ■ the constitutional right to a fair trial. Accordingly, what was said in Baldwin applies to the case at bar.