Italics indicate direct quotes from the application. Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.
Name: Owen Piotrowski
Appointed to: Milwaukee County Circuit Court
Appointment date: Jan. 7, 2026, (effective Feb. 1, 2026) to term ending July 31, 2027. (Piotrowski was earlier appointed to a planned retirement vacancy in Branch 38 and then named to Branch 31 to fill the immediate vacancy created by resignation of Judge Hannah Dugan.)
Education:
Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison
Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Eau Clarie
High School – Pacelli High, Stevens Point, Wisconsin
Recent legal employment:
September 2014-present – Assistant district attorney, Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office
Bar and administrative memberships:
State Bar of Wisconsin
General character of practice:
I am an Assistant District Attorney in Milwaukee County. My practice is exclusively in the area of criminal prosecution. For the past several years, I have supervised a team of four Assistant District Attorneys and two Assistant Attorney Generals who are responsible for the prosecution of non-fatal shooting in Milwaukee County.
Describe typical clients:
I serve the people of Milwaukee County. Given the size of the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office, I have served in a number of units prosecuting specific kinds of offenses: the domestic violence unit, the sensitive crimes unit, and the violent crimes unit.
Number of cases tried to verdict: 63
List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years:
State v. Xavier Sevilla, Milwaukee County case 22CF2693
This was a serious case that received significant media attention. As a 15 year old, Mr. Sevilla fired a gun during an ongoing dispute with another group of young people inside Mayfair Mall. Ultimately he shot 8 people inside the mall, four of whom had nothing to do with the ongoing dispute. The case began as a juvenile case and was waived into adult court only after the juvenile proceeding was appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
I inherited this case shortly before the sentencing hearing when the prior ADA left my office for different employment. I had one week to familiarize myself with the case, communicate with victims, and make an appropriate sentencing argument. I succeeded in making an persuasive sentencing argument for an appropriate sentence without demonizing a defendant who was only 15 at the time he committed a mass shooting.
State v. Kendall Love (22CF1689 and 22CF2000) and State v. Marvin Johnson (22CF1690 and 22CF1999)
These cases involved two individuals who, acting together, shot two people around three hours apart in Milwaukee. In a nutshell, each defendant found a person they had a previous dispute with, hunted them down, ran up behind them, and repeatedly shot at their intended target. I charged the case, litigated the pretrial issues, and tried each defendant separately. Both defendants were convicted of a number of charges, including Attempted First Degree Intentional Homicide. Both defendants had significant criminal records. In each case the Judge followed my recommendation for an appropriately significant sentence of 40 years of initial confinement.
State v. Sanchez Wilson, Milwaukee County case 19CF1411
This was a horrific case in which Mr. Wilson sexually assaulted a young girl in the morning and then, during a shootout with her uncle later that day, shot the same girl he had assaulted. This was my case from the beginning: I met with the family at charging, handled the pretrial litigation, tried the case (securing convictions on all counts), handled the sentencing, and consulted with the Wisconsin DOJ on the appeal. This case sticks out to me as significant because of the severity and variety of the crimes committed. It involved a wide variety of evidence: forensic interviews of children, DNA evidence, ballistic evidence, and many others. Ultimately during cross examination the defendant admitted to shooting the young victim.
Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies:
My career has been spent prosecuting cases in Circuit Court, so I have never practiced before an administrative agency or commission.
Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation).
My career has been spent litigating criminal cases, so I do not have significant experience with arbitration or mediation.
Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization:
I have never held an official position in a political campaign, partisan or otherwise. I was publicly involved in and did some campaign work on a State Senate campaign in 2020. My father ran as the Democratic candidate for the 24th Senate District. I made some public appearances as part of the campaign and engaged in some fundraising.
Previous runs for public office: N/A
All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: N/A
Professional or civic and charitable organizations:
Historic Brewers Hill Association, April 2025-present
Public office to which you were appointed or elected:
Kenosha Housing Authority, appointed, July 2019-present
Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service:
As an attorney for the State of Wisconsin I cannot provide pro bono legal services.
A few years ago I joined the Milwaukee Curling Club. The MCC is run mostly by club members volunteering their time, and I regularly volunteer at these events. My wife and I co-chaired/ chaired the MCC’s end of year event for club members in the Spring of 2024 and 2025. I have also volunteered at Polish Fest for the last couple of years.
Quotes:
Why I want to be a judge:
I have served the people of Milwaukee County as a prosecutor for over eleven years, and I believe that I can best continue to positively impact my community as a Circuit Court Judge. I have the courtroom experience, professional judgment, and empathy necessary to be a judge in a trial court.
Circuit Court Judges are uniquely situated to positively affect their community. The Court system, whether in the criminal or civil context, is where we as a people resolve our disputes. Both parties advocate their positions, but ultimately the Judge makes the tough decisions. I have spent my time in the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office seeing how judges make those tough decisions every day. I have the courtroom experience to make the appropriate calls regarding evidence and the willingness to listen to the parties and make the right decision for the community.
As a prosecutor I have served not only as a zealous advocate, but more importantly as a minister of justice. Acting in that role in Milwaukee County criminal courts presents unique challenges because of the volume of cases and the amount of information that needs to be processed. Throughout my career I have developed the ability to handle that volume without losing sight of the most important question in every case: is what I am doing the best thing for the community in this situation?
Simply put, I love Milwaukee County. I am a lifelong Wisconsin resident who grew up in Stevens Point, then went to college in Eau Claire, and law school in Madison. But Milwaukee is where I have made my home. There’s no place else I would rather be. and there is no better way I can serve my community than as a Circuit Court Judge.
Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin.
I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court decision that had the biggest negative impact on the people of Wisconsin, and people across the United States, in my lifetime is Citizens United v. F.E.C., 558 U.S. 310 (2010). For more than 100 years before that case was decided, there were some limits on independent expenditures by people and corporations. The U.S. Supreme Court obliterated those long held limits in Citizens United. The only potential beneficiaries of that decision are large corporations and extremely wealthy individuals.
Every Wisconsin resident has experienced firsthand the consequences of that decision. As a traditional political battleground State, Wisconsin residents are subjected, election after election, to ads run by Political Action Committees. These ads, as long as they aren’t formally coordinated with a candidate, are entirely legal after Citizens United. This has changed the entire tenor of political discourse for the worse.
As a Political Science student at the University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire between 2007 and 2011, I remember many debates about the effectiveness and appropriateness of attack ads in political campaigns. Those debates feel like ancient history. Citizens United has turned political campaigns into a series of increasingly dishonest and vitriolic attacks on candidates, which has shunted actual political discussion to the side. Possibly worse, because PACs are allowed to run these ads technically “independently” of candidates and campaigns, it’s unclear to people watching just who is responsible for spewing the lies and hatred common in ads these days.
Virtually everyone in Wisconsin seems to agree that political discourse has degraded over the past ten years or so. Every dinner table at every family gathering across the State seems to include a lament about the way politics used to be. Citizens United is directly responsible for that degradation by allowing PACs to spend virtually unlimited amounts on blatantly dishonest and hateful advertising.
Two or three judges whom I admire and why:
I have been fortunate throughout my career to practice in front of many excellent Circuit Court Judges, two of whom have now been elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Justice Rebecca Dallet is the current Judge or Justice who I admire most. Early in my career, while she was the Judge in Br. 40 of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, I was primarily assigned to her courtroom. At the time, she was assigned to a calendar of domestic violence cases.
I was able to see firsthand how Justice Dallet conducted her courtroom. I was consistently struck by her ability to maintain firm control over her courtroom (and as anyone who has practiced in Milwaukee County in the domestic violence courts can attest, maintaining control over those chaotic calendars is one of the most difficult tasks a judge can face) while treating everyone with respect and dignity. I remember trying one particularly difficult case in Justice Dallet’s court with a particularly difficult pro se defendant. She demonstrated tremendous patience with the defendant while holding me to a high standard.
I have been impressed with Justice Dallet’s work on the Supreme Court. She always held me to a high standard as a young lawyer, and she continued the hold prosecutors statewide to that same high standard in State v. Wayerski, 385 Wis. 2d 344 (2011). That case, arguably, expanded a prosecutor’s obligation to uncover and disclose exculpatory information to the defense. I believe that prosecutors should be held to the highest standards, and I admire Justice Dallet’s willingness to enforce that standard.
As a historical figure, I have always admired former Chief Justice Earl Warren. I don’t think that the impact of the decisions made by the Supreme Court can be overstated. The landmark Brown v. Board of Education Decision that abolished segregation in public schools may be the most significant civil rights decision in the history of the United States. It is also indicative of two things this I admire about Justice Warren.
First, this was the controversial topic of the day, and Justice Warren managed to author a unanimous opinion on the topic. Obtaining that unanimity, rather than showing the public a divided judiciary, I believe contributes to the lasting impact of that decision. Second, Justice Warren considered social science research about the effects of segregation in reaching this decision. I believe that the most important quality that a Judge or Justice can display is a willingness to listen. Justice Warren, by engaging with and considering social science, opened the door for courts to consider a wider variety of information and reach better decisions.
The proper role of a judge:
I believe that a good judge serves three main functions. First, a good judge listens to the parties. Second, a good judge properly administers the rules of procedure. Third, a good judge makes substantive decisions on a case with the good of the community in mind.
A judge needs to really listen to and engage with the parties in a case. When a party states their positions, I believe that a good judge considers it, and asks follow-up questions as needed. Listening is not a passive activity. This also means carefully considering the written submissions of the parties. This active listening is one of the things that I believe separates a lawyer’s functions from a judge’s function. A lawyer will zealously advocate for their positions. The judge must listen to the positions of both parties, sifts through the self-serving statements by both parties, and reach the appropriate legal decision.
Second, a judge must accurately administer the rules of procedure. We have a justice system that runs on an adversarial model. The rules of evidence, rules of civil procedure, and rules of criminal procedure set the expectations of the parties. A judge must have a mastery of those rules so that the parties have a basis from which to litigate a case. I firmly believe that this does not involve splitting the proverbial baby; if a call on an evidentiary or procedural issue is close, a good judge considers all of the available information and makes a tough decision. Ultimately the system falls apart and becomes unpredictable if procedural rules are not applied accurately and consistently.