Image 01 Image 03

Wisconsin Sup Ct “Chokehold” Update

Wisconsin Sup Ct “Chokehold” Update

The Dane County Sheriff’s Office, which was tasked with investigating allegations that Justice David Prosser put a “chokehold” on Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, has concluded its investigation without a recommendation of prosecution.

As reported by JSOnline (via SteveEgg and Charlie Sykes):

An investigation into an altercation between two state Supreme Court justices has been turned over to prosecutors.

Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne said Monday he received the investigative file from the Dane County Sheriff’s Office on Thursday. Investigators made no recommendation on whether to charge anyone, Ozanne said.

Ozanne said he is now reviewing whether his office has a conflict of interest in handling the case. Justices were arguing over a case Ozanne was involved in when Justices David Prosser and Ann Walsh Bradley got into a physical dispute. Ozanne said he hopes to reach a decision this week on whether to have his office handle it or refer it to a special prosecutor.

I wouldn’t read too much into the lack of a recommendation, since the Dane County Sheriff came under serious criticism because of his political connection to Democrats on the Supreme Court.  He may simply have viewed it as cleaner to complete the report and let the District Attorney’s Office make conclusions, if any, as to prosecution.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Ozanne? Democrat or Republican party? If Democrat we prosecute and spend a couple of hundred K on zilch.

Remember it’s not the conclusiveness of the evidence but the seriousness of the charge. Or something like that. 🙂

This one falls under the no harm, no foul rule. Since no one was injured, no one will be prosecuted. Chalk it up as two adults acting like kids. Send them to their rooms to ponder their conduct.

    jimg in reply to obpopulus. | August 1, 2011 at 5:51 pm

    This one falls under the no harm, no foul rule.

    No. It doesn’t. Bradley made serious charges – publicly – against Prosser. She accused him of assault.

    If it happened, he needs to be charged. If it didn’t, she needs to be held accountable for lying and publicly smearing a fellow jurist.

    This type of crap cannot be allowed to stand.

      obpopulus in reply to jimg. | August 1, 2011 at 7:19 pm

      Sorry but this type of crap goes on all the time. In the street, the workplace and at home. If we locked everyone up for this, there would not be too many people left.

I suspect he didn’t recommend because the report showed that Justice Bradley is the one that should be prosecuted. We know he wouldn’t sign off on that.

Commenter , b>Lord Nazh at 12:43 pm may well be onto something, for the very reason that the factual reports at the time strongly suggest that Justice Bradley physically instigated any physical contact that was made by him by jumping out of her chair, fists raised, and going directly at Prosser and getting right into his face.

Let’s face the reality of the situation. If Prosser reasonably believed, right at that moment, that he was being assaulted by a younger and, as we also know, much larger person, one who was coming at him with clenched fists, then it was entirely reasonable for him to raise his hands to physically stop her assault and impending battery, by defending himself from either being punched, pushed down or bodily shoved in a way that could throw him off balance possibly resulting in his serious injury. He is not a spring chicken!

Whether or not Bradley actually intended to physically batter him in any way, or to stop just short of punching or otherwise physically attacking him, is really immaterial. She gave every reasonable indication that that was exactly what she intended to do.

The published reports, including comments from at least one other justice, suggest her actions were those of a person who had lost her temper, and was out of control when she got out of her chair and physically went at Prosser with her fists raised.

By doing so, she gave every indication of intending to commit, not just an assault (that she pretty clearly committed), but a battery as well . . . i.e., the unjustifiable touching of another.

And, because of the “special circumstances” there were precious few places Prosser could actually put his hands to stop the assault and ward off the impending battery . . . her fists were clenched, and if he had put his hands palm and out straight to block her attack, she would have likely charged him with sexual assault for unlawfully touching her breasts.

So he sought to stop the attack by placing his hands on her upper torso, and in the kerfuffle they came into contact with her neck, at which time she began screaming “choke.”

Never underestimate how far dims will go to get their way. They will go to the wall and beyond if possible. Ethics, integrity or honor are words of a foreign language to them. The end always, always justifies the means and winning is all.

Hey thanks for posting this …I disagree however and am fairly certain that if the good sheriff thought he could bag Prosser he would have. If I remember correctly he supported Prosser’s opponent even going so far as making a vid for her as did the county judge who ruled against Walkers law.

This is a slow-walk investigation and will be a slow-walk charging decision (if charging is what happens.)

Reason? The (D) Party wants to resume control of the State Senate; elections are coming in the next 2 weeks (16th is the last one.)

If they make fools of themselves beforehand, by requiring depositions from all the parties–which will be public–it’s over for them.

He should have just kicked her in her democrat balls.

Silly, silly people. You are all missing the Big Point. It’s not the seriousness of the charges, or even if there is a chance in hell of making them stick. It’s the *timing* of the charges.

The charge of Attempted Murder of a Supreme Court Judge will be filed on the day before the election. The carefully-worded editorials are already being written for the papers, along with AP articles detailing the encounter from the most biased point of view. And for the Left, it will be a Twofer, they get to smear their least-favorite Supreme and provide a critical election day boost to their favorite socialist candidates.