MADISON, Wis. (Legal Newsline) - A judge who repeatedly berated defendants and twice brandished a Glock handgun in his courtroom deserved sanctions for his behavior, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled.
A state judicial panel ordered Winnebago County Judge Scott Woldt to be suspended for at least seven days without pay over six incidents between 2009 and 2016 in which he demeaned, abused or scared people appearing before him, including a group of high school students who visited his court for Government Day.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a July 13 decision, upheld the seven-day suspension over the partial objections of two justices, who said Judge Woldt shouldn’t have been sanctioned for displaying his gun.
Judge Woldt’s troubles began in 2009, when he told the victim of domestic violence, after she urged the judge to let her boyfriend off with a fine: “I'm just sick and tired of victims coming in here and they call the cops when they need 'em but then later on they come and say: 'Oh, no, this person's an angel.' I'm sick and tired of hearing it.”
In a 2015 incident, an 18-year-old man pled no contest to sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl he encountered unexpectedly at a party. The judge dismissed as a “stupid argument” the defendant’s claim he was confused and afraid when he tried to push the girl's head toward his genitals.
“I know when I'm paralyzed by fear the first thing I want to do is stick my d*** in some girl's mouth,” the judge said. “Everyone else the same way?”
Later the judge offered the defendant a chance to speak, but warned him he hated unnecessary delay.
“So what I always say to people is, `Is there anything you want to do to mess this deal up? Is there anything you want to say?'"
The defendant said “no” and the judge said “you’re a very smart man” and went on to describe the girl he assaulted as “this so-called victim.”
A few days later, the judge was hearing a case in which a man with “cognitive difficulties” was charged with burglarizing a neighbor’s house. Judge Woldt launched into a lengthy speech about how he understood the fear such a burglary could cause the victims because the courthouse had insufficient security.
He ended by waving a Glock Model 43 pistol he kept in a holster on his hip, telling the defendant he was lucky he hadn’t broken into the judge’s house because he would have been shot and killed. In January 2016, he repeated the performance before high schoolers, ejecting the magazine and racking the gun to clear it of shells before displaying the gun “as a prop” to demonstrate his security concerns.
Finally, he berated a lawyer in a family law case over his questioning of a witness.
“Counsel, there's a thin line between being an advocate and being a d*** – thin line – and you're blurring it,” he said.
Judge Woldt admitted the bare facts were true, but said the panel’s conclusions lacked context. He didn’t call the lawyer in the family case a “d***,” the judge argued, but merely said he was getting close. He also denied he was trying to scare anybody by brandishing his Glock, but merely showing empathy with the victims. In the sexual assault case, he said he referred to the “so-called victim” because she didn’t appear in court. T
hree of the incidents occurred within a single week in 2015 the judge described “as a tumultuous time in his family circumstances.”
On the other hand, the panel found aggravating factors justifying a more severe sanction, including the fact the judge’s behavior was “far removed from any judicial purpose,” occurred during court proceedings, and it had a substantial impact on the reputation of the judiciary.
Two judges on the Wisconsin Supreme Court objected to sanctions over the judge’s display of the gun, but the majority held that when he told the defendant it was a good thing he didn’t break into the judge’s house, it “served no purpose other than to menace and frighten the young man.”
“A judge who displays a personal gun as a `prop’ during a court proceeding and then immediately threatens to use it to kill the defendant if he ever broke into the judge's residence is not demonstrating the integrity of the judiciary, and is not `promoting public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,'" the decision says.
Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley dissented, with the support of Justice Patience Drake Roggensack, saying the majority had succumbed to “`hoplophobia,’ i.e., an irrational fear of guns.”
While agreeing the other incidents were worthy of sanction, the justice said the majority went too far by punishing Judge Woldt, a licensed handgun owner, for displaying his Glock.
“The majority's analysis suggests that it is disciplining Judge Woldt at least in part because it considers the display of a firearm offensive,” she wrote. “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.”