Meet the candidates for Wood County Circuit Court

​I want to become a judge because the people of Wood County deserve a judge who has the experience and demeanor to take on this extraordinary responsibility and with more than 16 years working as a prosecutor, I am the right person for the job. A prosecutor is said to serve in a “quasi-judicial role,” in which one must exercise judgment and discretion every single day. Judges issues judgments, including final decisions and sentences, in civil and criminal matters. As a prosecutor, I similarly exercise my judgment on a daily basis. I receive referrals from law enforcement agencies and then decide how to proceed at every stage of the court process, from determining what charges to issue, through motion hearings and jury trial, all the way to what sentence to recommend. In my career, I have personally prosecuted thousands of cases, including representing the People of Wisconsin as the sole prosecutor in more than 30 felony and misdemeanor jury trials. I have also prosecuted civil cases, including Child in Need of Protection and Services and Termination of Parental Rights cases, at jury trial. With that wealth of experience, I am prepared to step onto the bench.

I, further, want to be a judge because I know that I have the ethical grounding necessary to issue decisions that reflect the values of the people of Wood County. My family, including my mother’s and husband’s sides, has been in Wood County for generations and with that background I am the right person to serve as judge here. I live in Biron with my husband, within walking distance of his parents, and I frequently engage with neighbors when we walk our beagle. My parents lived for years in Dexterville, in the neighborhood behind the root beer stand, and were active in the Pittsville Lions Club. When I graduated from law school, it was natural for me to move to Wisconsin Rapids and I was lucky to begin my career with my first full-time, permanent position in the Wood County District Attorney’s Office. There was a short period when my career took me away from Wood County for 6 years while I served as the District Attorney of Langlade County, with my husband and children remained living in Biron. I was, however, fortunate to return in 2022. Wood County is home and I am eager to serve as judge here.

Describe which US Supreme Court or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion in the past 25 years you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin and explain why.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court case that had a significant positive impact on the people of Wisconsin was State v. Johnson, 2023 WI 39, which was decided on May 16, 2023. In that case, the Court overturned Shiffra-Green, and ruled that it was unsound, unworkable, and undermined subsequent developments in the rights of crime victims.
 
The Shiffra-Green framework allowed for a circuit court judge to conduct an in camera inspection of a crime victim’s privileged mental health and other private records. As a prosecutor, for over 13 years, prior to Johnson, I had to explain to victims that the court would read all of their private treatment records and decide what was relevant to the criminal case. The material the judge deemed relevant would then be turned over to the defense. If the victim denied consent for the court to conduct this inspection, the criminal case could not be prosecuted. I watched as victims struggled with wanting their assailants prosecuted, while not wanting the judge to read through the most intimate details of their treatment records. I recognize that the Shiffra-Green court tried to strike a balance in allowing for the in camera inspection, rather than just ruling that the defense was entitled to any privileged records they requested, but even having a judge read such records felt like a violation to most, if not all, of the victims with whom I worked. Johnson overturned Shiffra-Green and gave victims their privacy back.

This decision has had a profound impact on crime victims, and thus, the people of Wisconsin. I am constantly aware that no person chooses to be a victim and the sad reality is that most people are shocked to find themselves in that position. Fortunately for any future victim, the Johnson decision has ensured that nobody will ever go through the violative Shiffra-Green framework.

Describe your judicial philosophy. 

My judicial philosophy is that of judicial restraint. Judges, particularly circuit court judges, are not legislators or policymakers, but rather should read the law and then apply it to the facts of a case. The people elect individuals to the legislative branch to serve in the role of creating law. As a judge, I would adhere to this philosophy and not stray from the letter of the law.

I know that I will exercise such restraint because a prosecutor is in similar position and I have conducted myself in this fashion throughout my career. I have had experiences in which I have been asked to challenge the law by filing a case or motion to the court that is not grounded in the law, most often when a crime victim wants to see something more happen in their criminal case. It is a tough conversation to have with a crime victim, but I have explained that I don’t create the law, I am duty-bound to apply to the law to the circumstances of the case. I know that can be disappointing for a victim to hear. I believe that in explaining my role, the law, and my ethical obligations, I have been able to give them an understanding of why I made the decisions I made.

As judge, I will do the same thing, explaining my reasoning, which will be based in the law, even though it may be disappointing for the party advocating for judicial activism, rather than judicial restraint, to hear.

Describe one or two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.

One of the most significant cases I have prosecuted was a Possession of Child Pornography (Child Sexual Assault Material, AKA CSAM) case that resulted a jury verdict of guilty on all counts. Unfortunately, this offense is common and I have prosecuted many such cases over the years, but this one was particularly significant because it showed me the importance of preparation, attention to detail, and quick-thinking.

The investigation of the offenses was fairly straightforward, a cyber-tip that led to a search warrant where officers recovered a laptop that held thousands of images, videos and photographs, of CSAM. In preparation for trial, I worked with a Digital Forensics Expert to prepare exhibits and analyze the abundant, technical evidence on the laptop. Together, we prepared extensive exhibits that clarified and properly summarized the evidence. I then presented a methodical and efficient case, which simplified the complicated technical evidence.

During the trial, there were numerous spontaneous defense motions that sought to limit the evidence I could present to the jury, which we argued exhaustively. The court granted some of the motions, over my objections, but I persevered and nonetheless obtained guilty verdicts. This case showed me how important thorough preparation, advance study of possible challenges, and the ability to think and argue “on your feet” is during trial, the highest level of litigation. Since that trial, I have conducted dozens of additional jury trials, using the skills I honed in this case at jury trial.

Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.

My experience as a litigator, primarily in criminal litigator, is one of tireless work to enforce the law in the court system, tirelessly advocating for the proper application of the laws of the State of Wisconsin and the United States Constitution, and argue against defense efforts to get the court to suppress evidence or dismiss the case. This experience has included more than 30 jury trials, innumerable court trials, dozens of evidentiary motions, hundreds of meetings with victims and witnesses, and daily court appearances in which I always strive to be the most ethical person in the courtroom. I regularly advocate for protection of the public, accountability for the defendant’s actions, and for the court to adopt my position on bonds, motions, and sentences.

As the prosecutor, I take the approach of holding individuals accountable for their actions, while also considering the circumstances surrounding the crime. If the case involves a first offender, the crime is a non-violent misdemeanor, and the victim (if there is one) supports some lenience, I generally recommend that the court grant that lenience. When the case involves violence, threatens public safety, or the defendant has a lengthy criminal record, I advocate for the court to take those factors into consideration and seek a harsher sentence. As a criminal litigator, I believe in being collegial with opposing counsel, professional in the courtroom, and not backing down to an improper challenge.

Describe an instance when you were challenged and had to exhibit courage in the face of adversity or opposition and how you handled that situation.

I served as the Langlade County District Attorney starting with my, uncontested, election in November of 2016. When I ran for re-election in 2020, a former public defender who had recently become an Assistant District Attorney in a neighboring county, contested my election. In the months between the filing of nomination papers and the election, my opponent ran an aggressively negative campaign, disparaging me personally and professionally, in his speeches and ads. In response to this negative campaign, I ran a positive campaign. It took a lot of strength to rise above the noise and not get lost in defending myself against a cruel, unfair attack. In response to this challenge, I did not attack my opponent, but rather focused on my qualifications and gave the constituents reasons to vote for me. I prevailed by winning re-election at a rate of nearly 2-to-1.

It was challenging to withstand such a personal, negative attack. I relied upon my family, including my husband, children, parents, and sister, as well as my friends to comfort me. I went to church. I relaxed by reading, cooking, and playing my piano. I harnessed by resilience to keep me focused on what really mattered: The voters deserved to know who was the most qualified candidate and why they should vote for me, rather than being sidetracked by an irrelevant, negative campaign.

Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors of money or other resources to the judge’s election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set?

I do not believe in a blanket rule requiring a judge to recuse him/herself from a case involving a campaign donor because judges are required to abide by strict ethical rules and regularly determine if their judgment is biased based extraneous factors, such as a personal or past professional relationship. Furthermore, I believe this would infringe on the potential donor’s First Amendment right to free speech, as the potential donor would be barred from contributing to a judge’s campaign if the potential donor did not want this automatic recusal to occur in the future.

On the surface, this rule may seem fair, but in practice it would possibly, and quite probably, stop a donor from having their case heard by a judge in the donor’s home county.  When a judge recuses him/herself, the case is assigned to another judge in the judicial district, not in the original county of filing. Often, the subsequently appointed judge is from another county and new to the bench or the subsequent judge has experienced substitutions on their cases, and the judge is appointed because their caseload is light and they need to be assigned new cases. The result of such a required recusal would mean the potential donor would have their suit heard by a judge from another county, who the potential donor had no input on electing.

What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them? [Define “true justice” as you see fit]

The greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice are intentionally created within the structure of the system: While circuit court judges have a lot of discretion, their power is not boundless and they have to rule within the confines of the laws created by the legislature and the rulings of the higher courts, that is stare decisis.

This is the beauty of the Separation of Powers Doctrine, it ensures that the legislature carefully considers the laws they create and the judges appropriately apply them. In my experience, I have heard a judge say “I don’t agree with this law, but my opinion doesn’t matter.” That is the approach I will take as judge. Ultimately, the judge is one piece of the system that ensures true justice and it is a shared responsibility with the legislators and high court justices. I view these obstacles as positive boundaries within an excellent system of government and I do not think this system should change.

That being said, judges do have the ability to deliver true justice within these boundaries. The judge considers competing interests within the law and, on a case-by-case basis, assesses how to apply the laws. For example, the constitutional rights of the defendant versus the statutory and constitutional rights of a victim. Often these rights seem at odds and that is where the judge is most able to bring about true justice.

Describe one or two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.

My client was charged with possession with intent of heroin(10 to 50 grams) party to a crime, possession with intent of cocaine (15 to 40·grams) party to a crime, and maintaining a drug trafficking place. My client had been using heroin since high school. She had post traumatic stress disorder due to being present when her friend was killed while attempting to buy drugs in Milwaukee. My client felt an immense amount of guilt about that and stayed perpetually high on opiates. My client had been allowing drug dealers to live in her home because they gave her free drugs as payment. My client was also sexually assaulted many times during this period. Her house had become a drug haven where people came to buy and use drugs. Law enforcement believed my client was the root of the problem. I was able to convince law enforcement that due to the trauma in her past life, she was being taken advantage of by drug dealers in the community and was, in actuality, not the problem. Because I was able to convince law enforcement that she had significant trauma law enforcement supported her getting in to drug treatment court. I was then able to convince the assistant district attorney that even though she had very significant charges that she should be given a chance. Law enforcement was skeptical that she was going to be able to complete the program but I believed if she got the proper treatment she could be successful. During drug treatment court she received the proper treatment for her dual mental health and substance use disorder diagnosis. She started taking classes at the local technical college, she had a drug free baby and was able to fix relationships that she had with her family that had been destroyed due to her substance use. She graduated from drug treatment court onDecember 15, 2021. The felonies that had been diverted into drug court were dismissed upon her graduation from drug court. Because of that, she has no felony convictions. She now lives in Waukesha, is raising her daughter and has received a diploma from technical college in cosmetology. She has been sober for 5 years. She has had no further interaction with the criminal justice system. This case was significant in Wood County because I was able to convince stakeholders involved in her case to look at her as a complete person and not just the crimes that she was charged with. She was then able to show them through her success that people with very serious traumatic pasts andvery serious substance use disorders can be successful if given the proper tools and treatment. Her success opened the door to the treatment court to many people who may have not been considered in the past due to the severity of their charges. 
 
Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.
 
During my time as an Assistant State Public Defender Attorney, I represented indigent adult and juvenile clients in criminal and civil cases in Wood County. From April of 2023 through July of 2025, I was the Local Attorney Manager in the Wisconsin Rapids Office, managing five attorneys, two support staff and one investigator. I handled misdemeanor and felony trial cases. I handled administrative hearings for probation revocation. I handled civil matters including guardianships, termination of parental rights cases and mental health commitments. I also represented juveniles in delinquency cases. Additionally,I served as adversary counsel for children in Children in Need of Protection and Services cases. In addition to hearings and depositions, my practice included significant trial work. During my career I have handled over 2,500 cases.
 
Describe an instance when you were challenged and had to exhibit courage in the face of adversity or opposition and how you handled that situation.
 
In my role as the judge for Branch 3 of Wood County Circuit Court, I was presiding over a first degree homicide case. During the course of the trial it became apparent the prosecutor had failed to provide the defense attorney with discovery from the forensic pathologist. Upon learning of this, the defense attorney made a motion for a mistrial which if granted would require the case to be retried in front of a different jury. Judges normally try to avoid mistrials at all costs since they are expensive for the county, inconvenient to the parties, victims and their families, attorneys, jurors and court staff and often delay the imposition of justice. Sometimes the violation which serves as the basis for a mistrial motion can be corrected with a curative instruction or a temporary delay. Other violations are so fundamental to the defendant’s constitutional rights that they cannot be cured. With all this in mind, I felt a significant amount of pressure to make the correct decision. After researching the issue and consulting with a couple experienced judges whose opinion I respected, I granted the motion and declared a mistrial. Despite all the hardships a mistrial would create, they simply did not outweigh a person’s right to a fair trial. While it was a difficult decision, it was the correct one.
 
Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors of money or other resources to the judge’s election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set?
 
All judges are governed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Code of Judicial Conduct. Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 60.06(4) prohibits a judge or judicial candidate from personally soliciting or accepting campaign contributions. They may however establish a committee to do so. SCR 60.04(7) provides that receipt of a lawful campaign contribution by the committee shall not, by itself warrant judicial recusal. In addition, SCR 60.04(4) states a judge should recuse him/herself in a proceeding if facts he/she knows or should know about would cause a person well informed about these ethics rules and the justice system to reasonably question the judges ability to be impartial.
 
Following the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Code of Judicial Conduct, the mere receipt of a campaign contribution alone is not sufficient to cause a judge to recuse him/herself. Common sense tells us that not every contribution will be large enough to affect a judge’s impartiality. Therefore a blanket recusal requirement for every donation would be unrealistic. While the Supreme Court has not established a threshold amount requiring recusal, the Wisconsin Ethics Commission has imposed contribution limits for judicial races. In counties the size of Wood, individuals and PACs cannot contribute more than $2,000 to a candidate in a circuit court race. Following these rules, a judge should be allowed to receive up to that amount without requiring recusal.
 
However, if there are other circumstances, in addition to the contribution, which could lead an informed person to reasonably question whether those collective things could influence the judge’s impartiality, the judge should recuse him/herself.
 
The problem with these rules is that reasonable minds could legitimately differ on exactly when recusal is necessary. Unfortunately, the inability to identify every scenario which might require a recusal explains why the Wisconsin Supreme Court has been unable to provide more clarity to this issue.
 
That said, in any case before me where a party had contributed any money to my campaign, I would consider whether there were any other facts or circumstances which could affect my impartiality. After doing so, if I did not believe I could be impartial, I would recuse myself. Conversely, if I felt I could fairly hear the matter, I would nevertheless notify the parties of the donation and give them the opportunity to voice their positions. If there were no objections, I would remain on the case. If there was an objection I would recuse myself. 
 
What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them? [Define “true justice” as you see fit]
 
In criminal cases, the greatest barrier to providing true justice in Wood County is the lack of defense attorneys. This is because, 1) there are fewer attorneys in Wood County than 20 years ago, 2) Not all of those attorneys practice criminal law., 3) Most defendants cannot afford private attorneys, which leaves only the State Public Defender’s Office (PD) to represent them, 4) There are not enough PDs to meet the demand for indigent defendants, 5) Once PD’s offices reach their maximum number of cases, they must find private attorneys who will take cases at the PD’s hourly rates, which are significantly discounted compared to their usual rates. Few private attorneys are willing to take on those cases at the discounted rates, 6) When this occurs, the case judges must try to find private attorneys to represent the defendants. As an inducement, the judges usually offer hourly rates higher than the PD’s office. (The county, not the state that is responsible for paying these fees.) Even then the courts are often unable to find attorneys either inside or outside the county who will take cases. Then the system starts to break down.
 
Without attorneys, defendants sometimes attempt to represent themselves. This places a significant burden on the judges to explain the process and what is expected of them. They must also ensure the defendants are being treated fairly by opposing counsel and that their rights are protected. While they can sometimes muddle through misdemeanor offenses, most judges are reluctant to proceed with felonies if the defendant is unrepresented. Extended delays occur, incarcerated defendants sit indefinitely and victims are further traumatized because justice delayed is justice denied.
 
The legislature has passed legislation which moderately raised the PD rates. That has helped, but not cured the problem. A representative for the state judiciary recently recommended to the legislature that a complete review of the PD’s office, including the standards defendants must meet to qualify for representation, and how it processes cases. In the end I believe more resources are necessary to ensure the system works, defendants’ rights are protected and true justice is available to everyone
 
Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.
 
I would like the voters to know that I have lived and worked in Wood County for the past 18 years. I am raising my family here. As such, I believe I have a good understanding of the people here, their beliefs and values. This familiarity has been very beneficial as I perform my duties as their judge. In contrast, my opponent has lived and/or worked in five different counties over the past 16 years. That is not a bad thing, but it begs the question, who knows, and is best equipped to serve, the people of Wood County.
 
I also think the voters should be aware that my opponent is married to another sitting judge in Wood County. While there is nothing wrong with that, if she were elected, it would create administrative and legal issues or conflicts which could undermine the efficiency and fairness of our court system. For example, if two of the four judges in Wood County are husband and wife, should they decide to go on vacation together, they will effectively shut down half the court system. The remaining two judges will have to carry the caseload in their absence. Likewise, if one spouse or the other is required to recuse themselves from a case, it would be inappropriate to allow the other to be assigned to pick up the case. Again, this would increase the burden on the remaining two judges. Finally, when it comes time for the judges to set courtroom policies or make decisions about how the court system should be run, is it advisable to have two judges from the same family (and two of the four votes) either control those decisions, or at the very least, have veto power over them?