Wis. Judicial Comm'n v. Woldt (In re Woldt)

• Decision Date: 13 July 2021
• Docket Number: No. 2020AP1028-J,2020AP1028-J
• Citation: 961 N.W.2d 854,2021 WI 73
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Parties: In the MATTER OF the Judicial DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST Scott C. WOLDT: Wisconsin Judicial Commission, Complainant, v. The Honorable Scott C. Woldt, Respondent.

961 N.W.2d 854

2021 WI 73

In the MATTER OF the Judicial DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST Scott C. WOLDT:Wisconsin Judicial Commission, Complainant,

v.The Honorable Scott C. Woldt, Respondent.

No. 2020AP1028-J

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Opinion Filed: July 13, 2021

JUDICIAL disciplinary proceeding. Judge suspended from office.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 We review, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 757.91 (2019-20),¹ a Judicial Conduct Panel's² (the Panel) findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation for discipline for the Honorable Scott C. Woldt, a judge for the Winnebago County circuit court. In a Joint Stipulation as to Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (the Joint Stipulation), Judge Woldt admitted to all of the facts in the Wisconsin Judicial Commission's (the Commission) complaint and agreed that, based on those facts, he had violated the Code of Judicial Conduct (the Code). Based on the Joint Stipulation, the Panel found that the facts alleged in the complaint were established as true and determined that those facts supported the legal conclusion that Judge Woldt had willfully violated several rules of the Code, which constituted judicial misconduct under Wis. Stat. § 757.81(4)(a).³ After receiving memoranda from the parties regarding the appropriate level of discipline, the Panel recommended that this court suspend Judge Woldt without pay for a period of not less than seven nor more than 21 days.

¶2 After carefully reviewing this matter, we adopt the Panel's findings of fact, and we agree that those facts demonstrate that Judge Woldt committed judicial misconduct. We conclude that as discipline for that misconduct, Judge Woldt should be suspended without pay for a period of seven days, commencing August 2, 2021.

¶3 Judge Woldt has been a circuit court judge since his appointment to the bench in 2004. He was subsequently elected to six-year terms in 2005, 2011, and 2017. He has never before been the subject of public or private judicial discipline.

¶4 On June 17, 2020, the Commission filed a complaint in this court against Judge Woldt alleging that he had willfully violated Supreme Court Rules (SCRs) 60.02, 60.03(1), 60.04(1)(d), and 60.04(1)(hm) in connection with six separate incidents. At the same time that it filed its complaint, the Commission also filed the Joint Stipulation, in which Judge Woldt not only agreed that the factual allegations in the Commission's complaint were true, but also that those facts demonstrated that his conduct in each of the six incidents described in the complaint "violated the Code of Judicial Conduct" with respect to the particular provisions of the Code set forth in the complaint. Joint Stipulation ¶¶3 and 15. The parties jointly requested that they be permitted to submit memoranda to the Panel with respect to the issue of the proper level of discipline.

¶5 After the appointment of its members, the Panel established a briefing schedule for the submission of memoranda regarding the appropriate level of discipline. Judge Woldt subsequently requested that the Panel hear oral argument in this matter, which the Commission opposed. The Panel denied Judge Woldt's request, concluding that oral argument was unnecessary in this matter in light of the stipulated nature of the facts and the legal conclusions of violations of the Code.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

¶6 We now turn to the facts and legal conclusions as stipulated by the parties and as found by the Panel. Both the complaint and the Panel's report numbered and addressed the six incidents at issue in this proceeding in reverse chronological order. We maintain the numbering system used by the complaint and the Panel's report to avoid confusion, but we address them in chronological order to demonstrate the continuity of Judge Woldt's behavior over an extended period of time.

Incident Six (February 27, 2009)

¶7 The first incident at issue in this proceeding occurred during a sentencing hearing that took place on February 27, 2009, in State v. Williams, Winnebago County Case No. 2008CM1517. The criminal charges in that case resulted from an altercation between Williams and his girlfriend. Williams pled guilty to one count of disorderly conduct as an act of domestic abuse. A second charge that also related to domestic abuse was dismissed and read in for sentencing purposes.

¶8 At the beginning of the sentencing hearing, the victim made the following statement: "I was just hoping that he could get a fine and community service instead of 18 months' probation because we are trying to work things out and things have been a lot better." During the hearing Judge Woldt asked questions of the defendant that clearly conveyed he did not believe the defendant. He then stated that "[t]he answers to my questions clearly tell me that you need counseling, plain and simple." Judge Woldt then imposed and stayed a 30-day jail sentence and placed Williams on probation for one year with a number of conditions. After concluding his sentence of Williams, Judge Woldt addressed the following comments to the victim:

And ma'am, if you come in here and tell me that you just want a fine, everything's fine, then don't pick up the phone and dial 911, don't call the cops. I mean if you think you want to handle it, then you handle it; but if you want to pick up the phone and call the police, we're going to get involved and we're going to make him get the counseling which he needs. 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.

¶9 The Commission's complaint alleged that Judge Woldt's comments to the victim had violated the Code. The Panel agreed that Judge Woldt's statement to the victim had constituted willful violations of three SCRs: SCR 60.02,⁴ SCR 60.03(1),⁵ and SCR 60.04(1)(d).⁶

Incident Five (May 29, 2015)

¶10 Judge Woldt presided over a sentencing hearing in State v. Krebs, Winnebago County Case No. 2014CF466. Krebs, who was 18 years old at the time of the crime, pled no-contest to one count of second-degree sexual assault of a 13-year-old girl. Krebs was asked by another young man to take him to a small gathering to see the young man's girlfriend. There were a couple of other younger girls also present at this outdoor gathering. According to the criminal complaint, Krebs and one of the younger girls were kissing. Krebs then put his hand into the girl's shorts, penetrated her vagina with his finger, and tried to push her head down toward his penis.

¶11 During the sentencing hearing, defense counsel tried to explain Krebs' state of mind and to portray him as a young man who was confused and afraid due to the situation (kissing a girl), didn't really know what he should do, and got caught up in the moment, as opposed to an experienced man who sought out a young victim in a predatory fashion. Judge Woldt interrupted defense counsel with the following exchange:

The Court: I know when I'm paralyzed by fear the first thing I want to do is stick my "dick" in some girl's mouth.

Mr. Edelstein: Well –

The Court: Everyone else the same way? (No response.)

The Court: I mean that's a stupid argument.

...

Mr. Edelstein: I'm not saying it wasn't a two-way street, but it's not as if we have an individual who set out in a predatory fashion to meet up with someone knowing that his friend was going to a party with these young girls here. That's not what happened.

¶12 Later in the hearing, after telling defense counsel to "jump to the chase," Judge Woldt asked Krebs if he had anything to say (in allocution). Krebs paused, and before he could get any words out, Judge Woldt jumped back in with the following exchange:

The Court: Here's the deal. People who practice in front of me a lot know that I don't like being late. That's why all these signs around here say, "Don't be sorry, be on time." I don't like being late. And attorneys that practice in front of me a lot know, that when things are getting behind, they know the best thing they can do is to shut their "pie holes" and get to the point, and Mr. Edelstein doesn't get that. But I understand he has – feels that he has to say what he has to say on behalf of his client and get the best deal. 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: No.

The Court: You're a very smart man. You would be amazed at the amount of defendants that come in and say, "Yeah, there is," and then they continue to go on.

I don't think for a minute that you're the type of kid that's going to come back here. You're a low risk to reoffend. Everything in the PSI says you're a low risk to reoffend. I think you got into a situation where you were taken advantage of and you returned the favor by taking advantage of someone else. What tells me a lot is the fact that the victims in this case had no contact whatsoever with return phone calls to the agent. That tells me that there's something with this so-called victim in this case.

¶13 The Commission alleged, and the Panel found, that Judge Woldt's comments and behavior during this sentencing hearing had constituted willful violations of the following four provisions of the Code: SCR 60.02, SCR 60.03(1), SCR 60.04(1)(d), and SCR 60.04(1)(hm).⁷

Incident Four (June 4, 2015)

¶14 This incident occurred during a postconviction motion hearing in State v. Grant, Winnebago County Case No. 2014CT413, in which the defendant argued that his trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to suppress evidence. After hearing testimony from trial counsel, Judge Woldt denied the motion. He then added the following comments:

The Court: ... I would have denied the motion in the first place if Mr. Szilagyi would have followed – filed it and I probably would have done so forcefully, not that I wouldn't like to grant this motion because I really would. I would

...