_____________
Petitions and Communications
hist198883Pursuant to Senate Rule 17 (5), Representative Roe added as a cosponsor of Senate Bill 2. _____________
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
February 3, 2025
The Honorable, the Senate:
This letter is to remove the following appointment from consideration for confirmation by the Wisconsin Senate:
hist198897BAUER, PAUL of Ellsworth, as a Consumer Representative on the Board of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, to serve for the term ending May 1, 2029. Respectfully Submitted,
TONY EVERS
Governor
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
February 3, 2025
The Honorable, the Senate:
This letter is to remove the following appointment from consideration for confirmation by the Wisconsin Senate:
hist198898HOGAN, JOHN J. of Hazelhurst, as a Wisconsin Bar Representative on the Public Defender Board, to serve for the term ending May 1, 2026. Respectfully Submitted,
TONY EVERS
Governor
_____________
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms
January 31, 2025
Dear Senator LeMahieu:
I have been asked by the Administration of President Donald Trump to return to Washington DC to serve in a senior leadership position in the United States Department of Health and Human Services. I have accepted this position and been asked to report to Washington DC, on Monday, February 10, 2025 to be sworn in and to begin my service there. As such, I am tendering my resignation as Wisconsin State Sergeant-at-Arms effective on the close of business on Friday, February 7, 2025.
It has been an honor and privilege to serve as the Wisconsin State Senate Sergeant-at-Arms since June of 2021. I have served in the capacity to the best of my ability and have always held the integrity my duties to highest level. I thank you for your support and friendship during my two terms.
Wishing you and all the members and staff of the Wisconsin Senate my very best as you continue serving the Citizens of the Great State of Wisconsin.
Sincerely,
TOM ENGELS
Sergeant at Arms
_____________
State of Wisconsin
Claims Board
January 31, 2025
Attached is the report of the State Claims Board covering the claims considered at the December 10, 2024, meeting of the Board.
This report is for the information of the Legislature, The Board would appreciate your acceptance and publication of it in the Journal to inform the members of the Legislature.
Sincerely,
ANNE HANSON
Secretary
STATE OF WISCONSIN CLAIMS BOARD
CLAIM OF: GABRIEL LUGO
CLAIM NO. 2024-010-CONV
Notice of Appeal Rights
This is a final decision of the Wisconsin Claims Board.
Any person aggrieved by this decision has a right to petition for judicial review in circuit court as provided in Wis. Stats. §§227.52 and 227.53. Any petition must be filed in court and served on the Board within 30 days of service of the decision. The time to file and serve a petition runs from the date the final decision is mailed. The petition shall name the Wisconsin Claims Board as the respondent. Any person aggrieved may also file a petition for rehearing with the Board under Wis. Stat. §227.49 (1); that petition must be received by the Board within 20 days of the service of this decision. This notice of appeal rights is provided pursuant to Wis. Stat. §227.48. DECISION
Background
Claimant, Gabriel Lugo, filed a claim seeking Innocent Convict Compensation pursuant to Wis. Stat. §775.05. Lugo claims that he was imprisoned for approximately 14 years for his 2009 conviction of first-degree reckless homicide. Lugo further claims that he is innocent of the crime for which he was imprisoned and seeks statutory compensation in the amount of $25,000.00, and attorney’s fees in the amount of $77,482.80. Lugo also requests that the Claims Board recommend to the Legislature additional compensation in the amount of $750,000.00, for a total claim of $852,482.80. Claimant’s Facts and Argument
In support of his claim for compensation, Lugo submitted a claim form and the following materials:
1. Statement in Support of Petition for Compensation for an Innocent Person Convicted of a Claim, with the following supporting materials:
a. Transcript of May 19, 2023, oral decision by Circuit Court Judge Yamahiro;
b. Affidavit of Partial Redantation [sic] of Testimony, signed by Luis Angel Correa on December 12, 2013;
c. Affidavit of Ramon Trinidad, dated December 22, 2020;
d. Handwritten letter from Reymundo Trinidad dated March 20, 2016;
e. Handwritten letter from Reymundo Trinidad dated February 1, 2018;
f. Affidavit of Martin Pruhs, dated March 16, 2021;
g. Milwaukee Police Department Incident Report, 081100035 (Draft);
h. Affidavit of Rex Anderegg dated March 8, 2024;
i. Affidavit of David Geraghty, dated March 7, 2024;
j. Affidavit of Isidoro Lugo, dated March 8, 2024.
2. Claimant’s Reply to Agency’s Position Regarding Petition for Compensation for an Innocent Person Convicted of a Crime.
Lugo requested a hearing and testimony was presented at the October 15, 2024 meeting of the Claims Board. The Board deferred a decision at that time and requested copies of post-conviction briefs from the parties. Consistent with that request, Lugo submitted the following materials.
1. A one-page summary of post-conviction briefing;
2. Brief in Support of Post-Conviction Motion for a New Trial, dated March 16, 2021;
3. Post-Evidentiary Hearing Brief in Support of Post-Conviction Motion for a New Trial, dated April 14, 2023.
In his petition, Lugo states that he was convicted of first-degree reckless homicide in relation to the April 19, 2008 killing of Jake Gerard. Lugo was 19 and spent more than 14 years in prison before his conviction was vacated on May 19, 2023. Lugo maintained his innocence throughout his arrest, trial, and post-conviction.
Lugo’s conviction was vacated and a new trial granted to him based on newly discovered evidence, which included the partial recantation of testimony by Luis Correa, the state’s main witness, and new testimony from Reymundo Trinidad, who was present at the shooting but did not testify at trial.
In support of his claim of actual innocence of the crime for which he was imprisoned, Lugo offers the following explanation of what happened the night Gerard was killed. This explanation is based on the affidavits of Luis Correa, Reymundo Trinidad, and Attorney Martin Pruhs and information that was presented in support of Lugo’s motion for a new trial:
On the night in question, Jose Luis Suares, Luis Correa, and Carlos Montanez arrived at an illegal after-hours bar in Milwaukee, where Reymundo Trinidad was working security. As the men approached, a friend of Trinidad’s identified Suares as someone who had previously stolen drugs from him. Trinidad stopped the men at the door and would not allow them to enter, and an altercation took place between Trinidad and Suares, during which Trinidad shoved Suares against the wall and threatened to shoot him.
Suares, Correa, and Montanez walked back to Suares’ vehicle about a half block away. After a few minutes, Trinidad approached Suares’ car to tell the men they could enter the bar after all, but they declined. A short time later Suares became angry, grabbed a gun, and fired 6 or 7 shots towards Trinidad. Suares missed Trinidad but struck and killed Jake Gerard as he exited the bar.
Suares, Correa and Montanez fled to Montanez’s house, where they learned that Gerard had been shot. While at the house, the men smoked marijuana and concocted a false story to blame the shooting on Lugo, who was known to them. Correa was initially reluctant to go along with the story, but agreed after Suares promised him $5,000 and an ounce of cocaine. The men agreed to say that after the initial confrontation with Trinidad, Correa called Lugo, who came to the bar with a gun and shot Gerard. When the three men were later arrested as suspects, Suares and Correa were housed together in custody and solidified their false story, which they stuck to at trial.
In addition to providing the affidavits that support the explanation above, Lugo notes that investigators found no forensic evidence connecting him to the crime and established no motive for him to shoot either Trinidad or Gerard; whereas, Suares, Correa, and Montanez were confirmed to have been at the crime scene and had motive to retaliate against Trinidad because of the altercation at the door.
Lugo also points to various conflicts in the testimony provided at trial by Suares, Correa, and Montanez, including surrounding whether the men claimed they went to pick up Lugo after the altercation with Trinidad and then returned to the bar, or remained at the vehicle where Lugo joined them. In addition, Lugo notes that detectives had discovered that while Suares was in custody he admitted to another inmate that his own gun had been used in the shooting, and described the shooter as “my little guy” who was “like family,” which conflicted with Suares’ trial testimony that Lugo used his own gun, and other statements Suares made to detectives that he did not know Lugo and had only seen him a few times. Finally, Lugo points out that the false story provided by the three men and proffered by the state at trial was unreliable from the beginning given that all three had significant felony records and obtained favorable treatment in other cases based on their willingness to testify against Lugo.
In Judge Yamahiro’s decision to vacate the conviction, which evaluated the evidence described above, with a focus on the credibility of Correa and Trinidad, the Judge stated that he believed the statements of Correa and Trinidad, and that he believed the statements “tell the real story [] about who killed Mr. Gerard.” Judge Yamahiro also opined that “[i]f there is another trial…there is a strong likelihood of a different result. Frankly, in this case, I believe there is substantial likelihood of actual innocence here.”
Lugo also asserts in his claim that the state erred in several additional ways, including by holding Suares and Correa in custody together, noting that Correa in his affidavit admits that he and Suares used that time to solidify their false testimony. Lugo also faults law enforcement for not acting sooner on unprompted statements made by Trinidad identifying Suares as Gerard’s killer, which were made as early as two years after Lugo’s conviction, even though law enforcement considered Trinidad to be a reliable source of information. Trinidad’s statements about Lugo’s innocence may never have been known if Trinidad had not again taken it upon himself to write to two different attorneys who he believed were representing Lugo in order to share what he knew. Not long after Trinidad’s outreach, Correa signed an affidavit recanting his testimony implicating Lugo in the murder.
In support of the amount claimed, Lugo argues that he was incarcerated during prime earning years and alleges to have lost the opportunity to join his father and brother when they started their own construction company. His conviction also deprived him of family relationships, including a relationship with his son, who was just one month old when Lugo was arrested. Lugo also continues to struggle with the psychological and emotional trauma of his wrongful conviction. He therefore requests that the Board award him the maximum statutory compensation of $25,000.00, plus $77,482.80 in attorney’s fees, for a total of $102,482.80. However, Lugo notes that the statutory maximum would compensate him at a rate of only $1,666 per year for the 15 years he spent in prison. He therefore also requests that the Board recommend to the Legislature an additional award of $750,000.00.
DA’s Response and Argument
In its June 20, 2024 response, the Milwaukee County District Attorney deferred to the Claims Board to determine if any compensation for Lugo is appropriate. Per the Board’s request for copies of post-conviction materials, the DA’s Office submitted the following:
1. State’s Response to Defendant’s Post Conviction Motion, dated August 18, 2021;
2. State’s Memorandum Regarding Luis Correa’s Invocation of the Fifth Amendment During Post-Conviction Proceedings, dated July 27, 2022;
3. Post-Evidentiary Argument from the State in Opposition of the Defendant’s Post- Conviction Motion for a New Trial, dated April 21, 2023.
The DA opposed Lugo’s motion to vacate his conviction, however, when the conviction was vacated, the State considered whether it could meet its burden of proof at retrial. The State determined that Correa’s multiple conflicting statements, including his sworn recantation of his original testimony at trial, compromised his credibility to the extent that he could not be called as a witness. The State was not able to locate Joel Ortiz (Suares), who would therefore not be available to testify. And, although the State did have contact with Montanez, he expressed difficulty recalling the details of the homicide as well as his prior testimony from 2009. Based on those circumstances, the State decided it could not meet its burden of proof at a retrial and dismissed the case. The State has taken no position on Lugo’s innocence.
Discussion and Conclusion
