Date: 2/14/2009
By RYAN J. FOLEY
Associated Press Writer
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Unsolicited praise from a convicted cop killer isn’t the kind of endorsement that a judge with a tough law enforcement stance wants.
But that’s what Jefferson County Judge Randy Koschnick got from former client Ted Oswald, a man convicted of killing a police captain in 1994. The judge is now seeking a position on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
In a letter sent from prison to The Associated Press, Oswald said Koschnick, his former public defender, did “exceedingly productive and good work” on his case in 1994 and 1995.
“If Judge Koschnick is selected for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, his voluminous first-hand knowledge of defense cases and the personalities of accused criminals would bestow to that court a fairer, more effective and more trustworthy perspective … .” Oswald wrote. “I only observed his practice on one case, but I would be inclined to see it his way.”
Oswald is serving a life prison term for killing a Waukesha police captain after robbing a bank with his father. Oswald, then 18, and his father were pulled over after the robbery and opened fire on police with semiautomatic rifles. They also took a woman hostage and injured two other officers before they were arrested.
Koschnick was assigned to represent Oswald along with colleague Samuel Benedict. They argued that Oswald’s abusive father brainwashed him into participating in the crime spree.
Koschnick’s defense of Oswald and his 14 years as a public defender before serving as a judge since 1999 have become an issue in his race against Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson in the April 7 election.
Although Koschnick’s campaign has been endorsed by police chiefs, sheriffs and district attorneys, critics, in the past, have successfully argued that the work of public defenders undermines that of law enforcement. Another public defender-turned-judge, former Justice Louis Butler, was defeated in his re-election bid last year by critics who said his background indicated he was soft on crime.
Koschnick predicted his critics would exploit Oswald’s case but said he was proud of his work as a defense attorney. Still, he didn’t return the convicted killer’s praise.
“He is free to say whatever he wants, but his endorsement is no honor to me,” the judge said in a statement.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Cheerleading is a contact sport, Wis. court rules
Date: 1/27/2009
By RYAN J. FOLEY
Associated Press Writer
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — High school cheerleading is a contact sport and therefore its participants cannot be sued for accidentally causing injuries, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a case being closely watched in the cheerleading world.
The court ruled that a former high school cheerleader cannot sue a teammate who failed to stop her fall while she was practicing a stunt. The court also said the injured cheerleader cannot sue her school district.
The National Cheer Safety Foundation said the decision is the first of its kind in the nation.
At issue in the case was whether cheerleaders qualify for immunity under a Wisconsin law that prevents participants in contact sports from suing each other for unintentional injuries.
It does not spell out which sports are contact sports. The District 4 Court of Appeals ruled last year cheerleading doesn’t qualify because there’s no contact between opposing teams.
But all seven members of the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to overturn that decision. In the opinion, Justice Annette Ziegler said cheerleading involves “a significant amount of physical contact between the cheerleaders.” As an example, she cited stunts in which cheerleaders are tossed in the air.
The lawsuit was brought by Brittany Noffke, who was a varsity cheerleader at Holmen High School in western Wisconsin. Practicing a stunt in 2004, Noffke fell backward off the shoulders of another cheerleader and suffered a serious head injury.
She sued a 16-year-old male teammate who was supposed to be her spotter but failed to catch her; the school district; and the district’s insurer.
Ziegler rejected Noffke’s argument that “contact sports” should mean only aggressive sports such as football and hockey. She wrote they should include any sport that that includes “physical contact between persons.”
The decision means cheerleaders can be sued only for acting recklessly. The court said Noffke’s teammate only made a mistake or showed a lack of skill. As for the school district, Ziegler said it cannot be sued for the coach’s behavior under a Wisconsin law that shields government agencies from lawsuits for the actions of employees.
Many observers had warned that families of cheerleaders would be forced to take out big insurance policies if the lower court decision stood.
Because of the increasingly difficult stunts, injuries among high school cheerleaders are a problem. Researchers at the University of North Carolina have found that two-thirds of the roughly 100 cases of “catastrophic” sports injuries among high school girls since 1982 have involved cheerleading.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
By RYAN J. FOLEY
Associated Press Writer
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — High school cheerleading is a contact sport and therefore its participants cannot be sued for accidentally causing injuries, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a case being closely watched in the cheerleading world.
The court ruled that a former high school cheerleader cannot sue a teammate who failed to stop her fall while she was practicing a stunt. The court also said the injured cheerleader cannot sue her school district.
The National Cheer Safety Foundation said the decision is the first of its kind in the nation.
At issue in the case was whether cheerleaders qualify for immunity under a Wisconsin law that prevents participants in contact sports from suing each other for unintentional injuries.
It does not spell out which sports are contact sports. The District 4 Court of Appeals ruled last year cheerleading doesn’t qualify because there’s no contact between opposing teams.
But all seven members of the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to overturn that decision. In the opinion, Justice Annette Ziegler said cheerleading involves “a significant amount of physical contact between the cheerleaders.” As an example, she cited stunts in which cheerleaders are tossed in the air.
The lawsuit was brought by Brittany Noffke, who was a varsity cheerleader at Holmen High School in western Wisconsin. Practicing a stunt in 2004, Noffke fell backward off the shoulders of another cheerleader and suffered a serious head injury.
She sued a 16-year-old male teammate who was supposed to be her spotter but failed to catch her; the school district; and the district’s insurer.
Ziegler rejected Noffke’s argument that “contact sports” should mean only aggressive sports such as football and hockey. She wrote they should include any sport that that includes “physical contact between persons.”
The decision means cheerleaders can be sued only for acting recklessly. The court said Noffke’s teammate only made a mistake or showed a lack of skill. As for the school district, Ziegler said it cannot be sued for the coach’s behavior under a Wisconsin law that shields government agencies from lawsuits for the actions of employees.
Many observers had warned that families of cheerleaders would be forced to take out big insurance policies if the lower court decision stood.
Because of the increasingly difficult stunts, injuries among high school cheerleaders are a problem. Researchers at the University of North Carolina have found that two-thirds of the roughly 100 cases of “catastrophic” sports injuries among high school girls since 1982 have involved cheerleading.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Court: Relatives who assist in suicide can inherit
Date: 9/25/2008 5:10 PM
By RYAN J. FOLEY
Associated Press Writer
MADISON, Wis. (AP) _ The wife and daughter of a man who committed suicide can inherit his estate even if they assisted him in the act, a state appeals court ruled Thursday.
State law prohibits anyone who “intentionally kills” another from inheriting from the person, but Wisconsin’s District 4 Court of Appeals said that provision does not apply to those who assist in suicide.
“Providing (the man) with a loaded shotgun did not deprive him of his life: he deprived himself of life by shooting himself with the shotgun,” Judge Margaret Vergeront wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel.
Wisconsin Right to Life, which opposes assisted suicide, said the ruling gives people a financial incentive to help relatives die prematurely.
“It’s a horrendous decision,” said Barbara Lyons, the group’s executive director.
“I think the implications are enormous,” she said.
Boston College law professor Ray Madoff, an expert on inheritance law, said she has never heard of a similar ruling in the nation.
“This is something that people have been curious about where the law would draw the line, and it’s interesting to actually have a case addressing it,” she said.
Edward Schunk, 63, shot himself in 2006 in a cabin on his property while he was terminally ill with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a form of cancer. He left an estate valued at nearly $500,000.
The court ruled in favor of his wife, Linda, and youngest child, Megan Schunk, now 20, who were granted most of the estate under Schunk’s will.
Schunk’s six older children received little or nothing, according to court records. Five of them challenged the will, arguing that Linda and Megan Schunk took Schunk to the cabin, gave him a loaded shotgun and left even though they knew he was suicidal.
The two acknowledged they took him home from the hospital on a one-day pass but denied assisting his death. They said he had told them he wanted to go turkey hunting.
For the purposes of deciding the dispute, the court assumed the other children’s allegations were true but still ruled in favor of the wife and younger daughter.
Under Wisconsin law, assisting in a suicide is punishable by up to six years in prison. Thursday’s ruling did not address that law, and no one has been charged in Schunk’s death.
Terry Moore, lawyer for Megan Schunk, called the case a “one-in-a-million situation” and said he doubted it would have broad impact. Lawyers for Schunk’s other children did not immediately return phone messages. They could ask the Wisconsin Supreme Court to review the case.
Boston College’s Madoff said courts often struggle with whether someone who kills another should be allowed to inherit their money, she said. It’s an easier question when dealing with murder but more difficult in instances such as drunken driving, self-defense against spousal abuse or assisted suicide, she said.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
By RYAN J. FOLEY
Associated Press Writer
MADISON, Wis. (AP) _ The wife and daughter of a man who committed suicide can inherit his estate even if they assisted him in the act, a state appeals court ruled Thursday.
State law prohibits anyone who “intentionally kills” another from inheriting from the person, but Wisconsin’s District 4 Court of Appeals said that provision does not apply to those who assist in suicide.
“Providing (the man) with a loaded shotgun did not deprive him of his life: he deprived himself of life by shooting himself with the shotgun,” Judge Margaret Vergeront wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel.
Wisconsin Right to Life, which opposes assisted suicide, said the ruling gives people a financial incentive to help relatives die prematurely.
“It’s a horrendous decision,” said Barbara Lyons, the group’s executive director.
“I think the implications are enormous,” she said.
Boston College law professor Ray Madoff, an expert on inheritance law, said she has never heard of a similar ruling in the nation.
“This is something that people have been curious about where the law would draw the line, and it’s interesting to actually have a case addressing it,” she said.
Edward Schunk, 63, shot himself in 2006 in a cabin on his property while he was terminally ill with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a form of cancer. He left an estate valued at nearly $500,000.
The court ruled in favor of his wife, Linda, and youngest child, Megan Schunk, now 20, who were granted most of the estate under Schunk’s will.
Schunk’s six older children received little or nothing, according to court records. Five of them challenged the will, arguing that Linda and Megan Schunk took Schunk to the cabin, gave him a loaded shotgun and left even though they knew he was suicidal.
The two acknowledged they took him home from the hospital on a one-day pass but denied assisting his death. They said he had told them he wanted to go turkey hunting.
For the purposes of deciding the dispute, the court assumed the other children’s allegations were true but still ruled in favor of the wife and younger daughter.
Under Wisconsin law, assisting in a suicide is punishable by up to six years in prison. Thursday’s ruling did not address that law, and no one has been charged in Schunk’s death.
Terry Moore, lawyer for Megan Schunk, called the case a “one-in-a-million situation” and said he doubted it would have broad impact. Lawyers for Schunk’s other children did not immediately return phone messages. They could ask the Wisconsin Supreme Court to review the case.
Boston College’s Madoff said courts often struggle with whether someone who kills another should be allowed to inherit their money, she said. It’s an easier question when dealing with murder but more difficult in instances such as drunken driving, self-defense against spousal abuse or assisted suicide, she said.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.