The Wisconsin Supreme Court Suspends Judge Who Whipped Out a Handgun in His Own Courtroom - Twice
Several weeks ago, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Winnebago Circuit Court Judge Scott Woldt for seven days based on six different incidents of judicial misconduct.
Several weeks ago, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Winnebago County Circuit Court Judge Scott Woldt for seven days without pay, finding that the circuit court judge had been involved in six separate incidents of judicial misconduct committed over a seven-year period.
In two of those incidents, Judge Woldt whipped out a handgun and showed it to the people in his courtroom. Apparently, he thought this drastic measure was necessary to perform his judicial responsibilities under the circumstances presented to him at the time.
However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court strongly disagreed. In a per curiam decision, the state supreme court determined that Judge Woldt’s decision to publicly flaunt a firearm in his own courtroom—on two separate occasions, no less—was not done for a valid reason related to the performance of his judicial duties.
While agreeing with their colleagues about imposing a seven-day suspension against Judge Woldt, two of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s more conservative justices disagreed that his brandishing of a firearm in the two incidents constituted judicial misconduct, perceiving their colleagues contrary views as steeped in “hoplophobia”—i.e., an irrational fear of guns. In actuality, though, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s finding of judicial misconduct regarding those specific instances was based on an objective assessment of the circumstances.
Over a Seven-Year Period, Winnebago County Circuit Court Judge Scott Woldt Repeatedly Engaged in Judicial Misconduct—Including Using Imprudent Language in Court and Blaming Victims of Violent Crime
In 2004, then-Wisconsin Governor James Edward Doyle, Jr., appointed Scott Woldt to serve as a circuit court judge in Winnebago County. Not surprisingly, in the two years prior to his judicial appointment, Woldt contributed $2,400 to Doyle’s campaign efforts. Since Judge Woldt’s initial appointment to the bench, Winnebago County voters have elected him to serve as their circuit court judge on three successive occasions.
Over a seven-year period, though, Judge Woldt was involved in six separate incidents of judicial misconduct. In two of the incidents, Judge Woldt inappropriately placed blame on victims of violent crime.
For instance, when a victim of domestic violence asked him not to place her boyfriend on probation because the two were “trying to work things out,” Judge Woldt told the victim that he was “just sick and tired of victims coming” into his courtroom after calling the police only to then change their minds and say that “this person’s an angel.” He also admonished the victim not to call the police in the future if she was just going to tell the judge that “everything’s fine” at a later date. However, the victim in that case did not tell Judge Woldt that her boyfriend was “an angel” or say that “everything’s fine.”
In a different criminal case, in which the defendant ultimately pleaded no-contest, Judge Woldt appeared to assign fault to a teenage sexual assault victim who did not respond to a Wisconsin Department of Corrections agent’s attempt to contact her in connection with the agent’s preparation of a presentence investigation report. Based on the victim’s decision not to speak with the DOC agent, Judge Woldt inappropriately referred to her as the “so-called victim” in open court.
Judge Woldt’s judicial misconduct, though, was not limited to engaging in victim blaming. When presiding over legal proceedings in his courtroom, he also used imprudent language. Once during a hearing for a family court case, Judge Woldt told an attorney that he was blurring the “thin line between being an advocate and being a dick.”
And in two other incidents of judicial misconduct, Judge Woldt revealed a special affinity for his personal handgun—a Glock Model 43.
In one case, when sentencing a criminal defendant for burglarizing a neighbor’s house, Judge Woldt explained how the courthouse’s inadequate security caused him to fear for his safety while presiding over cases in court. In order to ensure his own safety while in court, Judge Woldt had taken it upon himself to take prophylactic measures. To illustrate his point, Judge Woldt promptly placed his hand underneath his black robe, procured a handgun from his holster and, after unloading the weapon, displayed it to the people in his courtroom.1 He later told the defendant that “you’re lucky you’re not dead because, if you would have come into my house . . . you’d be dead, plain and simple.”
In the other incident involving a handgun, a congregation of high school students visited Judge Woldt in his courtroom for “Government Day.” But when one of the students asked him a general question about courthouse security, Judge Woldt responded by presenting his Glock, after removing its ammunition, to the captive student audience.
Based on these varied incidents of repeated judicial misconduct, the Wisconsin Supreme Court imposed an unpaid seven-day suspension on Judge Woldt. According to the court, such a sanction was “necessary . . . to assure . . . the public that judges will treat them with dignity, fairness, and respect when they enter the courtrooms of this state, and to impress upon Judge Woldt the seriousness of his misconduct and the need for him to change how he treats the jurors, lawyers, litigants, witnesses, victims, and staff with whom he interacts.”
Justice Patience Roggensack and Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley Argue that Judge Woldt’s Two Public Displays of His Handgun in Court Did Not Violate the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct
While the Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously decided to impose a seven-day suspension against Judge Woldt, Justice Patience Roggensack and Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley—two of the court’s more conservative justices—disagreed that his brandishing of a firearm in the two incidents constituted judicial misconduct. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote that Judge Woldt’s “displays of a firearm and innocuous statements . . . may have offended the sensibilities of three justices but undoubtedly did not violate the Wisconsin Judicial Code of Conduct.” In the two justices’ view, a majority of the state supreme court had just “establish[ed] a precedent that may be wielded unscrupulously against other judges in the future.”
However, Justice Roggensack and Justice Rebecca Bradley conveniently overlook some important facts. For example, Judge Woldt entered into a stipulation and agreed that his decision to display a handgun to high school students in his courtroom constituted judicial misconduct. And it also appears that Judge Woldt entered into a stipulation and agreed that his decision to display a handgun in the other incident likewise constituted judicial misconduct.
But in any event, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s finding of judicial misconduct regarding those specific instances was based on an objective assessment of the circumstances. Specifically, when Judge Woldt decided to prominently parade his pistol in front of others in his courtroom—and for no valid reason related to the performance of his judicial duties.
As the judicial conduct panel noted when making an initial recommendation as to the appropriate level of discipline Judge Woldt should receive, “Judge Woldt’s comments about his own personal fear and the display of the handgun” in the first handgun incident “served only to personalize the proceeding and detract from his role as an impartial and fair decision maker.” And with regard to the second handgun incident, the Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded that “Judge Woldt’s dramatic introduction of the use of force in the form of his personal handgun unnecessarily personalized what should have been an educational discussion about a topic of civic interest.”
After being ridiculed for his conduct by various national media outlets—such as the ABA Journal, Above the Law, Bloomberg Law, Esquire, and Insider—maybe Judge Woldt will now understand that there are few instances (if any) where it is appropriate for a judge to publicly display a personal weapon, such as a firearm, to other people in open court.
Then again, with two conservative leaning Wisconsin Supreme Court justices arguing that the two public displays of his handgun did not violate the Code of Judicial Conduct and that the “portrayal of Judge Woldt as a gun-toting cowboy who misused his office to advance his stance in an ongoing political battle” was unfounded, maybe Judge Woldt will only be emboldened to engage in more judicial misconduct in the future.
Ironically, though, several years ago Winnebago County Circuit Court Judge Scott Woldt apparently opposed the Winnebago County district attorney’s effort to carry a concealed firearm in the county courthouse.