MADISON, WI (WTAQ-WLUK) – The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Winnebago County Judge Scott Woldt for seven days for conduct violations, it announced Tuesday.
The penalty, which includes a loss of pay, begins Aug. 2.
The week-long discipline was at the bottom of the range recommended by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, which had suggested a suspension of 7-to-21 days, notes the 64-page decision.
Three justices issued the majority ruling. Two justices did not participate, and there was also a dissent opinion by two justices.
“Having considered all of the facts of this proceeding, including all of the appropriate aggravating and mitigating factors, we conclude that a short suspension is necessary in this situation to assure the members of the public that judges will treat them with dignity, fairness, and respect when they enter the courtrooms of this state, and to impress upon Judge Woldt the seriousness of his misconduct and the need for him to change how he treats the jurors, lawyers, litigants, witnesses, victims, and staff with whom he interacts,” the ruling states.
Given Judge Woldt’s lengthy history of service on the bench, the fact that he has not previously been the subject of a disciplinary complaint, and the fact that five years have passed since the last incident at issue here, we conclude that a seven-day suspension will be sufficient to ensure that there will not be a repetition of this misconduct by Judge Woldt. We remind him and the other judges in this state that how justice is dispensed is often just as important as the substance of the legal ruling.”
The complaint was filed against Woldt in June for six incidents, the earliest of which was in 2009. These were:
- Use of crude language during a family court hearing
- Displaying a handgun during a visit by high school students
- Use of crude language when speaking to a victim, and display of firearm
- Use of acerbic language directed at a defendant
- Use of crude language during a criminal hearing
- Encouraging a victim not to summon law enforcement when needed
The incident with the high school students happened on Jan. 25, 2016, during the Oshkosh Chamber of Commerce’s Government Day event. During the students visit to the courtroom, he was asked about courthouse security. The judge explained due to the lack thereof, he carries a weapon and then briefly displayed a gun.
In the dissent, Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley said she agreed with the suspension but did not support using the gun brandishing incident as a basis for the decision, saying Woldt did nothing improper.
“The majority’s analysis suggests that it is disciplining Judge Woldt at least in part because it considers the display of a firearm offensive. This court should be wary of suspending a judge elected by the people, thereby temporarily subverting the will of the people, particularly when part of the basis for such discipline rests on three Justices regarding his conduct as politically incorrect,” she wrote.
“Importantly, the Judicial Commission’s complaint acknowledges that Judge Woldt had a license to carry a handgun. It also acknowledges that properly licensed judges, including Judge Woldt, are expressly permitted by statute to carry a firearm in a courthouse——either openly or concealed. Judge Woldt has not been accused of violating any statutory laws regulating the possession or use of firearms Nevertheless, the majority blithely adopts the Judicial Commission’s portrayal of Judge Woldt as a gun-toting cowboy who misused his office to advance his stance in an ongoing political battle The majority errs by failing to apply the proper standard of review and by essentially shifting the burdens of proof and persuasion to Judge Woldt. I dissent from the majority insofar as it disciplines Judge Woldt for his displays of a firearm and innocuous statements, which may have offended the sensibilities of three justices but undoubtedly did not violate the Wisconsin Judicial Code of Conduct.”
During the proceedings, Woldt did not contest that his conduct violated various provisions of the conduct code. Woldt argued that a public reprimand was sufficient punishment because the incidents happened several years ago and he had since made changes in his life to better handle stress.
Woldt has been a judge since 2004.
Comments