Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. David T. Prosser, Jr.

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2012 WI 104 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 2012AP566-J In the Matter of Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against the Honorable David T. Prosser, Jr. Wisconsin Judicial Commission, Complainant, v. The Honorable David T. Prosser, Jr., Respondent. MEMORANDUM DECISION OF JUSTICE MICHAEL J. GABLEMAN OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: August 10, 2012 2012 WI 104 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2012AP566-J STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against the Honorable David T. Prosser, Jr. FILED Wisconsin Judicial Commission, Complainant, AUG 10, 2012 v. Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Supreme Court The Honorable David T. Prosser, Jr., Respondent. MEMORANDUM DECISION OF JUSTICE MICHAEL J. GABLEMAN Before Michael J. Gableman, J. ¶1 On May 8, 2012, I received a letter from Kevin P. Reak, counsel for Justice David T. Prosser, Jr., filed with the court, requesting that I recuse myself from participation in the captioned matter. orders, Justices Roggensack and Ziegler have issued construing similar letters addressed to them individually as motions for disqualification, and granting those motions. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Prosser, 2012 WI 43, 340 Wis. 2d 292, 813 N.W.2d 208 (Roggensack, J.); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Prosser, Wis. 2d __, __ N.W.2d __ (Ziegler, J.). reasoning set forth in Justice 2012 WI 103, __ I wholly agree with the Roggensack's and Justice Ziegler's orders and for the same reasons I interpret the May 8, 2012 letter as a motion for disqualification and grant the motion. ¶2 [C]ourt As Justice Ziegler correctly notes, Wisconsin "Supreme justices follow a longstanding practice of recusing themselves without providing an explanation for the recusal." In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Prosser, 2012 WI 103, ¶1 n.1 (Ziegler, J.). Justices on the United States Supreme Court typically follow the same practice. Judicial Disqualification: A Sande L. Buhai, Federal Behavioral and Quantitative Analysis, 90 Or. L. Rev. 69, 82 (2011). ¶3 Accordingly, for Roggensack's and Justice granted, I disqualify and the reasons Ziegler's myself matter. 2 expressed orders, from the in Justice motion participation in is the