Blogroll

• Above the Law
  
• Althouse
  
• Bag and Baggage
  
• Dennis Kennedy
  
• Ernie the Attorney
  
• Patent Baristas
  
• Patently-O
  
• PrawfsBlawg
• Professor Bainbridge
  
• SCOTUSblog
  
• Volokh Conspiracy
  
• The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog
  

« The Future of Digital Casebooks | Main | High Court Tosses Try to Muzzle Teaching »

New Justice Faces Conduct Complaint

Sworn in as a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Aug. 1, Michael J. Gableman has been on the job just over two months, but he already faces his first misconduct complaint. The Wisconsin Judicial Commission filed charges against Gableman yesterday over his conduct during his campaign for the high-court seat earlier this year. At the time, the former prosecutor was already a judge, serving on the Burnett County Circuit Court.

The complaint involves a TV ad for Gableman's campaign which accused his opponent, Louis Butler, of using a legal loophole to free a child rapist. Here is the transcript of the offending portion of the ad:

Louis Butler worked to put criminals on the street. Like Reuben Lee Mitchell who raped an 11-year-old girl with learning disabilities. Butler found a loophole. Mitchell went on to molest another child.

Can Wisconsin families feel safe with Louis Butler on the Supreme Court?

Problem is, that muddies what actually happened. According to the complaint, Butler was an assistant public defender who represented Mitchell in the 1980s in the appeal of his conviction. Both the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court agreed with Butler's argument that the trial court had committed error in admitting certain evidence. But the Supreme Court decided that the error was  not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant reversal and Mitchell remained in prison until he was later released on parole. By publishing this false advertisement, Gableman violated the canons of judicial conducts, the commission's complaint charges.

Darrin Schmitz, a spokesman for Gableman's election campaign, released a statement saying that the complaint has no merit and disregards the First Amendment. "The Commission chose to ignore the plain language of the ad, which is factual. Instead, the complaint alleges that the ad contains false statements on the basis of inference and implication. The First Amendment does not allow a claim to be made on that basis."

More on this from the Wisconsin Law Journal, Associated Press, LegalNewsline, The Capital Times and The Chicago Tribune.

Posted by Robert J. Ambrogi on October 8, 2008 at 11:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)