Proposed amendment would make it easier to deny defendants’ release

Listen to this article

A proposed amendment to Wisconsin’s constitution would make it easier for judges to deny a defendant’s release from jail before conviction.

The Assembly Committee on Constitution and Ethics heard testimony on Tuesday about Assembly Joint Resolution 107, an amendment that would change the pretrial process.

The amendment is part of a package of bills that would put in place new pretrial-detention procedures, and it’s the first step the Legislature would have to take to change the pretrial process.

Current statutes allow pretrial detention for first-degree homicide, first-degree sexual assault and the sexual assault of a child. As the constitution stands, a judge can hold a pretrial hearing in certain situations but not in others. A judge can deny release, but only under certain conditions.

The proposed resolution would allow pretrial detention if three conditions were met: The circumstances under which the accused would be denied release were specified, the period of time a person could be held before trial was limited, and the court was holding a pretrial detention hearing.

Rep. Cindi Duchow, R-Town of Delafield, and Sen. Van Wanggaard, R-Racine, introduced the amendment to the committee on Tuesday. Duchow called the Wisconsin’s current pretrial-detention procedure unusable and said the judges she talked to had never put it into practice.

Wanggaard said the only way to protect the public from a dangerous criminal is to set a high bail, but an amended constitution would change that.

Mason Braunschweig, an assistant district attorney in Rock County and a member of the Wisconsin Association of State Prosecutors, testified in favor of the amendment, saying current procedures make it “logistically impossible” to hold a pretrial hearing.

“We’re talking about a mini trial for first-degree intentional homicide,” Braunschweig said. “There is no way, right now, that our crime lab is going to be able to have that evidence prepared.”

The proposed amendment raised concerns among lawmakers and the public about unnecessarily holding defendants.

“Clear and convincing evidence is a high bar, but you’re taking someone’s liberties away, so there should be a high bar,” said Rep. Marisabel Cabrera, D-Milwaukee.

Cabrera questioned the amendment’s purpose if the other bills didn’t move forward. Supporters argued it would legitimize what’s currently happening in state courts. Cabrera said that means nothing will change with current procedures.

As for the three bills relying on this amendment, Duchow said the state Assembly passed them last session, but they died in the state Senate. Follow @WLJReporter