There are a few points I would like to make about Gossett's foray into judicial politics:
1. He endorsed Annette Ziegler last year - we know how that turned out.
2. The OshNW, just on Dec 7th, stated:
Let's hope the days of Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates cheaply accusing one another of "being soft on crime" or taking gobs of influential cash from litigious interest groups are on their way out.Yet here he is, part of a letter saying a sitting Supreme Court Justice was:
detrimental to our job of protecting the publicI would hope for a more clear and positive message and stop taking away from his job of protecting Winnebago County citizens.
3. But I am most disturbed by what DA Gossett says is so 'detrimental' about the Justice's votes and opinions such as:
Butler voted to require all interviews of juveniles to be recorded to be admissible in court for custodial interrogations.Seriously, does DA Gossett really think it is a bad thing to make sure that confessions are not forced? If you look at the case, In the Interest of Jerrell C J, the WI State Bar summed up the case as:
the court agrees with the court of appeals in its decision in the same case that "it is time for Wisconsin to tackle the false confession issue" and "take appropriate action so that the youth of our state are protected from confessing to crimes they did not commit." In the instant case, State v. Jerrell C. J., the court threw out the written confession of a juvenile who claimed the confession was involuntary.Does DA Gossett really want to have the opportunity to force confessions from juveniles?
And, while I am asking, because this passed with a 4-3 margin, does that mean that DA Gossett's candidate would have been the deciding vote to have secret coerced confessions from juvenile defendants?