More

David Prosser, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice, Won't Be Charged In Alleged Ann Bradley Choking Case

David Prosser Wisconsin Choking Case

TODD RICHMOND   08/25/11 08:12 PM ET   AP

MADISON, Wis. — A conservative Wisconsin state Supreme Court justice who staved off an unusually intense campaign to replace him this summer will not face criminal charges over allegations that he tried to choke a liberal colleague, a prosecutor said Thursday.

Sauk County District Attorney Patricia Barrett, a special prosecutor in the case, said that after reviewing investigators' reports, she decided there's no basis to file charges against either Justice David Prosser or Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, who accused Prosser of choking her.

Barrett, who is a Republican, told The Associated Press that the accounts of the other justices who were present when the alleged altercation occurred varied widely, however she declined to elaborate.

"I believe a complete review of the report suggests there is a difference of opinion. There are a variety of statements about what occurred ... the totality of what did happen does not support criminal charges against either Justice Bradley or Justice Prosser," Barrett said.

Walsh Bradley accused Prosser of choking her in June while the justices were deliberating the merits of a lawsuit challenging Republican Gov. Scott Walker's contentious law stripping public workers of most of their collective bargaining rights. Walsh Bradley, 61, is seen as part of the court's three-justice liberal minority, while Prosser, a 68-year-old former Republican legislator, is considered part of the four-justice conservative majority. The factions have been feuding for years.

The court delivered its verdict the day after the alleged incident, ruling 4-3 to uphold the law and allowing it to finally take effect. As expected, Prosser voted with the majority.

Prosser, who had to campaign unusually hard to retain his seat after Democratic and union leaders came to see it as key to tilting the court – and the collective bargaining decision – in their favor, has strongly denied the choking allegations. He issued a statement Thursday saying he knew he would be exonerated and accusing Walsh Bradley of sensationalizing the incident.

"I am gratified that the prosecutor found these scurrilous charges were without merit. I look forward to the details of this investigation becoming public record," said Prosser.

Walsh Bradley issued her own statement saying she was never focused on prosecuting Prosser and only wanted to address what she termed a "workplace safety issue."

"I well understand the difficulty of gaining any criminal conviction," she said. "The prosecution's burden of proof is very heavy, as it should be. I also know that criminal charges alone would not have addressed our safety in the workplace and the special prosecutor's decision not to file charges does not resolve the safety issue, either."

The Dane County Sheriff's Department, which conducted the investigation, has not released the reports.

Because the justices were at the state Capitol when the alleged altercation occurred, it fell under the jurisdiction of Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, who filed the lawsuit challenging the union rights law that the justices were deliberating.

But Ozanne, a Democrat, asked a judge to appoint a special prosecutor in his place, saying he wanted to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest since Prosser was among those who ruled against his legal challenge. Dane County Chief Judge. C. William Foust assigned the case to Barrett, instead.

The Wisconsin Judicial Commission has launched an internal investigation into Walsh Bradley's allegations as well. The commission issued a statement Thursday saying that it is still investigating.

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, another member of the liberal bloc and a close friend of Walsh Bradley, said in a statement that she will propose to the justices this fall that all court conferences be open to the public to promote "civility."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
MADISON, Wis. — A conservative Wisconsin state Supreme Court justice who staved off an unusually intense campaign to replace him this summer will not face criminal charges over allegations that ...
MADISON, Wis. — A conservative Wisconsin state Supreme Court justice who staved off an unusually intense campaign to replace him this summer will not face criminal charges over allegations that ...
Filed by Alexander Belenky  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 965
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (22 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tony Sanchez
12:58 AM on 08/31/2011
Chickens live in fear.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:23 PM on 08/30/2011
There's a rumour today that Wisconsin State Supreme Court Justice Patrick Crooks, one of the three liberals on the court, may resign. Let's hope so, though i'd rather see Ann Walsh bradley leave. :-D
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:21 PM on 08/28/2011
Not only did three other justices agree Prosser never had Bradley in a "chokehold," but Bradley likely leaked the "choking" story herself in an effort to discredit Prosser:

"If I cannot get any assurances from you, the court, that this problem is going to be addressed, then I will go to the outside and take other means," Bradley threatened at a follow-up meeting with the Justices and Capitol PD Chief Charles Tubbs."

Justice Gableman also alleges that Bradley once physically struck him upside the head for daring to address Chief Justice Abrahamson by her first name, Shirley.

"Justice Gableman said at this time his mind also went back to September 18, 2008. Justice Gableman said he had been on the court for approximately one month at the time, and while in a meeting with the other justices, Justice Crooks was reading the horoscopes. Justice Gableman said he remembers making a comment to the chief justice in a joking manner and used her first name, Shirley, during this comment towards her.

Justice Gableman said right after he said the chief justice's first name, Justice Bradley came over to him, hit him on the back of the head and told him that he needed to show respect to the chief. Justice Gableman said that he believed Justice Bradley was not joking because nobody was laughing at the time."

Bradley clearly has a history of instigating workplace aggression and violence and needs counseling before she flies off the rails again.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:59 PM on 08/28/2011
Does the prosecutor make these decisions in WI, or does a Grand Jury?
11:18 AM on 08/28/2011
Actually, she will be charged with filing a false police report on the 'chokehold'

Buh bye, Sweetie
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
saileyboy
living on land sucks
12:30 PM on 08/27/2011
Funny how there are those on the right who come here and defend this guy. They ignore previous verbal attacks on female justices.
http://www­.jsonline.­com/news/s­tatepoliti­cs/1183104­79.html
Notice he again blames the woman for his actions. Do you see a reoccuring theme with this guys personalit­y? He doesn't take responsibi­lity for his own actions and blames women instead. What a man. He was "goaded" into a sexist remark?

No, defending the actions of this guy are tantamount to defending a guy striking his wife. You can do all the worming you want in your words - twisting what little is known. But the facts are he admits to putting his hands on her neck and he can't deny earlier sexist remarks.

And for that any righty loses all respect. How you were convinced this is acceptable anywhere is beyond sensible conduct by a man. Particular­ly by an educated man such as Prosser.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:03 PM on 08/27/2011
Sweet. Score one for justice as Abrahamson and Bradley are foiled AGAIN. Of course, now Prosser really needs to watch his back. Who knows what those unhinged lefties will do. They just can't STAND to lose..........over, and over, and over...........
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
saileyboy
living on land sucks
03:50 AM on 08/28/2011
just looked over your other posts and it becomes immediately clear you offer no actual intellectual responses - merely silly self righteous indignant postings and child could have composed. Enjoy your limited intellect.
11:19 AM on 08/28/2011
Judge Sweetie admitted to smacking a different justice in the head when he addressed the chief justice by her first name.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
saileyboy
living on land sucks
09:28 AM on 08/27/2011
Funny how there are those on the right who come here and defend this guy. They ignore previous verbal attacks on female justices.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118310479.html
Notice he again blames the woman for his actions. Do you see a reoccuring theme with this guys personality? He doesn't take responsibility for his own actions and blames women instead. What a man. He was "goaded" into a sexist remark?

No, defending the actions of this guy are tantamount to defending a guy striking his wife. You can do all the worming you want in your words - twisting what little is known. But the facts are he admits to putting his hands on her neck and he can't deny earlier sexist remarks.

And for that any righty loses all respect. How you were convinced this is acceptable anywhere is beyond sensible conduct by a man. Particularly by an educated man such as Prosser.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
drini
daughter of houdini
01:57 PM on 08/27/2011
Since he's a closeted old queen, I have to think those defending him are supporters of such behavior and have their own "women" issues as well. He's a ticking time bomb and will soon go off the rails.

I think he might be exhibiting early dementia as well.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:05 PM on 08/27/2011
Typical projection. Face it, the gambit backfired, again. I'm sure the toxic twins will try again, and soon.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
madisonhack
I prefer not to......
08:32 AM on 08/27/2011
Justice Prosser said, completely separate from this, the speaker of the assembly, Jeff Fitzgerald, put the court in an awkward position by saying they needed to have a decision by June 14, 2011; otherwise they would have to vote allover again. Justice Prosser said there was a commitment by everyone on the court that the decision would go out on the 13th. Justice Prosser said he wrote over the weekend, and on the morning of June 13, 2011, the Chief Justice had presented her argument of dissent, and then shortly after that he released his concurrence to everyone. Justice Prosser said once he released his concurrence, the "dissenters", meaning the Chief Justice and Justices Bradley and Crooks were in "total shock" that he wrote a concurrence and they all stated that they needed time to respond to his concurrence. Justice Prosser said they had the rest of the afternoon on June 13
to respond and he recalled the Chief Justice was in her "working office" working on a response.


So, it is David Prosser's view that the SC operates at the pleasure of the Legislature? I think it's pretty clear that it's his belief.  Someone read this and correct me if I'm wrong.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:01 PM on 08/28/2011
Why would it be Prosser's view if "there was a commitment by everyone on the court that the decision would go out on the 13th?"
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
madisonhack
I prefer not to......
11:25 AM on 08/29/2011
I guess you don't read very well, trollie. Re-read the report and you'll see that the majority wanted the decision to go out on the 13th - that is different than "everyone on the court". The person who sets the SC schedule, the docket, and the press releases of the Court is the Chief Justice. She wasn't ready to do either of those things, so Poser became enraged and had his little temper tantrum. The Court does not work at the pleasure of the Legislature or at the pleasure of the conservatives on the Court, in spite of your wishes.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
waynesmyer
07:21 AM on 08/27/2011
But! But! AS ANY FOOL KNOWS, We Tee-Bragging GOPers are allowed to choke women and stomp on their heads! It's our God-given right! RIGHT??
11:20 AM on 08/28/2011
Apparently, that's not what happened

Justice Sweetie will be charged with filing a false police report on the 'chokehold' allegation

Read the report; your narrative is done.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
madisonhack
I prefer not to......
10:08 PM on 08/26/2011
Before any of you conservatives (especially you women) comment on this case, better have a look at this statement, and more.

Justice Prosser said, "What does any self respecting man do when suddenly that man finds that his hands, or part of his hands are on a woman's neck? Get them off the neck as soon as possible". Justice Prosser said this was a "reflexive move".

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/prosser_to_investigators_contact_with_bradleys_nec.php
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:01 AM on 08/27/2011
Oh, talking points from "Muckracker" and a quote taken out of context. What a surprise. You folks will never be satisfied because this is all about undoing the election results of 2010. And the harder you push, the more defeats you will suffer.

Bradley says she charged him and got in his face with her hand raised. Did she say he choked her, put her in a chokehold or otherwise applied pressure as was widely reported and leaked to a sympathetic news outlet before there was even an investigation and which continues to be repeated and "enhanced" by the deceitful "by any means necessary" Left? No. It's a fabricatio­n. And it will continue.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
madisonhack
I prefer not to......
08:25 AM on 08/27/2011
The entire police report is quoted in the article. Why don't you read it. Your boy is a corporate shill and he assaulted another justice.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
saileyboy
living on land sucks
09:15 AM on 08/27/2011
plus he's verbally abused another femail justice prior to this. He has misogynistic tendencies.
11:22 AM on 08/28/2011
Madisonhack I read the report; point me to where it says he assaulted her

And if he did, then he'd be under arrest

She lied, and was caught in her lie about the chokehold In front of HR other justices derided here claim

She is so dumb, she think using 'buddy' makes bigger? Sweetie, the word to use would be 'pal'
photo
gdfreethinker
Wisconsin rabble-rouser
07:54 PM on 08/26/2011
In grade school, unruly children are told to keep their hands to themselves. And if this happened in the workplace to your wife, sister or daughter, what would you think about it? Prosser is unfit for office, mainly, because he is an orifice.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
madisonhack
I prefer not to......
10:13 PM on 08/26/2011
He began his career working in the Nixon Administration....go figure.
heckmepitus
Truth, justice and the American way
07:11 PM on 08/26/2011
Bradley lied.

On June 25, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported through an unnamed source:

Bradley felt Prosser "was attacking the chief justice," the source said. Before leaving, Prosser "put his hands around her neck in what (Bradley) described as a chokehold," the source said.

[ADDED: That story begins with a direct quote from Bradley, giving directly to the newspaper: "The facts are that I was demanding that he get out of my office and he put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold."]
photo
DickTater
American Livestock
05:49 PM on 08/26/2011
even the judges who witnessed it tell different stories. Let me guess, 3 to 2. Goombye America!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
madisonhack
I prefer not to......
10:09 PM on 08/26/2011
Party line vote. How can Supreme Court justices rule on cases when they are liars themselves?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:03 AM on 08/27/2011
No worries hack. Luckily the sane Justices outnumber the fanatical. For example, the ruling on the Budget Repair Bill ;-D
05:48 PM on 08/26/2011
"Choking" is what you do on a chicken bone. "Strangling", however, is apparently what you do to your fellow Supreme Court members.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:55 PM on 08/27/2011
See how easy that leap was? Lesson two: "Justice Bradley told a different version of events" is really "Justice Bradley LIED." Sounds about right.
01:27 PM on 08/30/2011
No, I'll concede that the truth remains up in the air. Mostly I take offense at the words used and their watered down connotations. It may be that he didn't strangle anyone, and that there was some grumpy-old-folks mutual assault going on.
05:26 PM on 08/26/2011
No surprise here. However who got paid what on this BS?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:56 PM on 08/27/2011
I'm sure Bill Lueders was paid handsomely.