Friday, April 27, 2007
Ninety-Eighth Regular Session
The Chief Clerk makes the following entries under the above date.
__________________
The Chief Clerk records:
Senate Bill
55
Senate Joint Resolution 41
Senate Joint Resolution 42
Report correctly enrolled on April
27, 2007.
__________________
Read first time and referred:
Senate Bill 169
Relating to: the regulation of certain structures in navigable waters, granting rule-making authority, and making an appropriation.
By
Senators
Breske, Kedzie, Darling, Plale and Roessler; cosponsored by Representatives Gunderson, Kleefisch, Kreuser, Albers, Ballweg, Bies, Hahn, Kaufert, Kerkman, LeMahieu, Lothian, Montgomery, Mursau, Musser, Nelson, Nygren, Soletski, Staskunas, Tauchen, Townsend, Vruwink and Vukmir.
To committee on Environment and Natural Resources.
Senate Bill 170
Relating to: a notice to parties in civil actions of the Supreme Court rule regarding judicial recusal and regarding access to a statement of economic interests.
By
Senators
Hansen, Lehman, Taylor and Kreitlow; cosponsored by Representatives Sinicki, Grigsby, Schneider, Travis and Berceau.
To committee on Campaign Finance Reform, Rural Issues and Information Technology.
Senate Bill 171
Relating to: public financing of campaigns for the office of justice of the supreme court, making appropriations, and providing penalties.
By
Senators
Kreitlow, Coggs, Robson, Schultz, Erpenbach, Miller, Risser, Lehman, Lassa, Jauch, Sullivan, Hansen, Vinehout and Wirch; cosponsored by Representatives Hintz, Musser, Pocan, Kreuser, Boyle, Sheridan, Travis, Mason, Hraychuck, Cullen, Shilling, Benedict, Jorgensen, Schneider, Sinicki and Berceau.
To committee on Campaign Finance Reform, Rural Issues and Information Technology.
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Claims Board
February 15, 2007
The Honorable, The Senate:
Enclosed is the report of the State Claims Board covering the claims heard on December 13, 2006 and February 2, 2007.
The amounts recommended for payment under $5,000 on claims included in this report have, under the provisions of s.
16.007, Stats., been paid directly by the Board.
The Board is preparing the bill(s) on the recommended award(s) over $5,000, if any, and will submit such to the Joint Finance Committee for legislative introduction.
This report is for the information of the Legislature. The Board would appreciate your acceptance and spreading of it upon the Journal to inform the members of the Legislature.
Sincerely,
John E. Rothschild
Secretary
STATE OF WISCONSIN CLAIMS BOARD
The State of Wisconsin Claims Board conducted hearings at the State Capitol Building in Madison, Wisconsin, on December 13, 2006, upon the following claims:
Claimant Agency Amount
The following claims were considered and decided without hearings:
Claimant Agency Amount
3. Tracy L. Delrow Oconto County District Attorney's Office $790.50
4. Ronald A. Keith, Sr. Department of Health & Family Services $2,900.00
5. Milwaukee Wave, LLC Department of Revenue $12,000.00
S192
6. Laura A. Outland-Symicek
Department of Revenue
$2,635.20
7. Gordon Ray Department of Administration $50.00
8. Daniel F. Salopek Department of Commerce $3,006.10
The Board Finds:
1. Anthony T. Hicks of Houston, Texas claims $131,061.71 for compensation of an innocent convict pursuant to §775.05, Wis. Stats. In December 1991, the claimant was wrongfully convicted of robbery, burglary and sexual assault and sentenced to 19 years in prison. He served 4.5 years before he was exonerated by DNA evidence. In November 1990 the victim was sexually assaulted and robbed in her apartment after allowing a black male to come in to use her telephone. The claimant lived in the same apartment complex as the victim and when he was arrested for an unrelated offense, a clerical employee at the police station believed he resembled the composite sketch of the attacker. The victim picked him out of a lineup, even though the claimant lacked a cleft chin, the one defining facial feature of her attacker which she recalled.
At trial, the state provided testimony that a microscopic examination of hairs found on the scene showed that they were “consistent" with samples provided by the claimant. This sort of microscopic hair comparison has since been resoundingly discredited. The claimant's trial counsel failed to inform him of the possibility of DNA testing, which was relatively new at the time, and failed to order such testing. The trial counsel also failed to secure the testimony of an alibi witness, a co-worker of the claimant, who would have testified that he was on the phone with the claimant at about the same time the assault was taking place and that the claimant was perfectly calm and collected. The claimant retained Steve Hurley to pursue post-conviction relief. Mr. Hurley obtained DNA testing of the hair evidence and the results excluded the claimant as the source of that hair. Mr. Hurley moved for a new trial, which was ultimately granted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The claimant was released on bail and Mr. Hurley pursued additional DNA testing on hair samples from the crime scene. This additional round of testing even more conclusively excluded the claimant as the source of the hairs. Exclusion of this evidence left only the eyewitness testimony of the victim. Eyewitness testimony, especially that involving cross-racial identification has been shown to be unreliable. Faced with the new DNA evidence and given the unreliability of the victim's identification of the claimant, the state chose not to retry the claimant and all charges against him were dismissed.
The claimant has suffered significant financial losses due to his wrongful imprisonment. Although the claimant did pursue legal action against his trial attorney, who was found to be negligent, the eventual settlement that proceeded from that action was based upon the attorney's very limited ability to pay. The claimant requests compensation in the full statutorily allowed amount of $25,000. The claimant also requests reimbursement for the significant legal fees he has incurred to prove his innocence in the amount of $106,061.71.
The Dane County District Attorney's Office does not dispute the facts of this claim as presented by the claimant. Since the claimant's conviction microscopic hair analysis has been wholly discredited and the strength of eyewitness testimony has been generally undermined. In addition, there is the compelling DNA evidence excluding the claimant as the source of the hairs found at the scene. The State concludes that, were they presented with all the facts of this case today, the claimant never would have been charged. The State therefore does not hesitate to recommend approval of this claim.
