Lazar campaign: Our adversary is running false ads to distract from his lack of legal experience

0

Our adversary and his campaign run an ad attacking Judge Maria Lazar. The ad claims that “Judge Lazar released a rapist after serving only a few months.

This statement is a misrepresentation of reality.

Read the full analysis below:

Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct, SCR 60:06(3)(c) “A candidate for judicial office shall not knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of statements misrepresent the identity, qualifications, current position or any other fact concerning the candidate or an opponent”.

The ad paid for by Judge Lori Kornblum claims that “Judge Lazar freed a rapist after serving only a few months.”

This statement is a misrepresentation for several reasons. Here are the facts of the case from CCSI’s public records.

  1. The defendant was not “released”. He was sentenced to the state-recommended sentence of 7 years in prison (with an initial 4 years and 3 years of extended supervision), which was handed down and suspended for a five-year suspended sentence. trial, from June 26, 2020. (Conviction judgment, dated June 29, 2020, [Doc. No. 176]). In addition, the Court denied eligibility for any program to remove time from the prison sentence (no eligibility for the defiant incarceration program or the substance abuse program). Identifier.
  2. The Court further ordered that the defendant be required to be listed for life on the Sex Offenders Registration. Identifier.
  3. The defendant did not serve “only a few months”. In addition to accepting the state’s sentencing recommendation, the court also imposed 12 months in prison. The first 9 months were pure time (meaning it was not possible to leave for a job or for any other reason), the next 2 months were still in prison, but with Huber’s release time for work, treatment, and/or AODA counseling, and last month of stay for probation officer’s use in the event of a probation violation. Identifier.
  4. On the date of sentencing, the defendant filed a motion for remand pending the filing of a post-conviction review or appeal. [Doc. No. 168]. The Court dismissed the petition and the defendant was immediately taken into custody to serve the 11 months in prison.
  5. The defendant was acquitted of the other four counts of sexual assault by the jury on February 14, 2020. [Doc. No.103].

GENERAL INFORMATIONS :

Defendant DSS, in Waukesha County Case No. 2018-CF-0482, was charged with five counts of sexual assault against three women. (Criminal complaint, dated March 30, 2018 [Doc. No. 1]) The assaults allegedly took place in consensual relationships; this fact does not change the fact that they were reported as assaults or imply that people in consensual relationships cannot be assaulted.

The accused was released on bail, ordered to have no contact with any of the victims, surrender his passport and possess no knife/weapon/firearm. He was also placed under GPS surveillance. (Lease/Bond, April 11, 2018). This played a role during the trial when a victim alleged that the defendant hit her and/or attempted to damage her property, but she had to admit she was not being truthful when the GPS of the accused placed him away from her home.

On July 9, 2018, the Court denied a motion to vary the defendant’s bond to allow the GPS surveillance to be removed. (Entry of CCAP minutes). It was in place for the duration of the action.

A first trial date of August 5, 2019 was adjourned by the Court, to June 28, 2019, when the defendant established, via motion to strike out and impose penalties for discovery violations [Doc. No. 52]that the State had provided on June 20, 2019 a box set containing “nearly 3,000 additional discovery pages, as well as three (3) informational DVDs”, which contained “possibly exculpatory” information as to one of the three victims.

In an order dated January 30, 2020 regarding respondent’s amended motion in Limethe Court ordered that victims be allowed to “mention what they saw in the chambers or on the person of the defendant when the alleged incidents occurred, including mentioning whether there was a badge worn by the defendant or if there was a gun in the room it was mentioned by the defendant. [Doc. No. 78].

After a two-week jury trial (February 3, 2020 to February 14, 2020), the jury acquitted (declared the defendant) not guilty of four of the assaults allegedly committed against two of the women. [Doc. No.103]. The defendant was convicted on count 5, second degree sexual assault, which was amended during the trial to include the use of force. Identifier.

During the trial, there were two motions to vacate the trial by the defendant (February 5, 2020 and February 10, 2020), as well as a motion to dismiss after the close of evidence. They were denied by the Court. (Entry of CCAP minutes).

Sentencing took place on June 26, 2020. Pre-sentence inquest reports were filed (these are confidential). Defendant was sentenced to the state-recommended sentence of 7 years imprisonment (with 4 years initial detention in prison and 3 years of extended supervision), which was imposed and suspended for five years of probation, effective of June 26, 2020. (Conviction judgment, dated June 29, 2020, [Doc. No. 176]). In addition, the Court denied eligibility for any program to remove time from the prison sentence (no eligibility for the defiant incarceration program or the substance abuse program). Identifier. The Court further ordered that the defendant be required to be listed for life on the Sex Offenders Registration. Identifier.

In addition to accepting the state’s sentencing recommendation, the court also imposed 12 months in prison. The first 9 months were pure time (meaning it was not possible to leave for a job or for any other reason), the next 2 months were still in prison, but with Huber’s release time for work, treatment, and/or AODA counseling, and last month of stay for probation officer’s use in the event of a probation violation. Identifier.

On the date of sentencing, the defendant filed a motion for remand pending the filing of a post-conviction review or appeal. [Doc. No. 168]. The Court dismissed the petition and the defendant was immediately taken into custody to serve the 11 months in prison.

Almost immediately, the defendant filed a notice of intent to sue post-conviction on June 29, 2020. [Doc. No. 175].

Because the Court’s court reporter quit her job with the state, it has been difficult to get transcripts of the sentencing and trial (as well as all other hearings), so there is a backlog. in filing a notice of appeal. To see May 13, 2021, letter from counsel for the defendant. [Doc. No. 184].

Share.

About Author

Comments are closed.