Attorney Stephen Mays successfully argued for the release of a client convicted of 1st Degree Intentional Homicide

workers compensation lawyer
In a case of first impression not only in Dane County, but in the State of Wisconsin as a whole, Attorney Stephen Mays successfully argued for the release of a client convicted of 1st Degree Intentional Homicide as a Party to the Crime from prison after serving 23 years in custody.  

On February 19. 2001, our client was a party to the actions of another individual, wherein the other person caused the death of the victim by stabbing him 7 times.  Our client knew the victim personally, had been to his home, knew his family and knew that he had a broken bedroom window.  All of this knowledge was essential when it was decided that the killer and another accomplice should rob the victim of drugs they believed he had in his backpack at home.  Because of our client’s knowledge and steps she took to confirm that the victim was home, and because she drove them to the victim’s residence, she aided the killer when he entered the bedroom, unbeknownst to her at the time, with a knife and stabbed the victim, causing his death.  Our client and the killer were tried in Dane County, Branch 14, before the Honorable C. William Foust.  Our client testified at trial in her own defense.  More accurately, she lied at trial, casting herself as having no significant role in the crime and denying being present as the driver.  She maintained her denials through the presentence investigation process, and at sentencing, Judge Foust endorsed the jury’s verdict and stated that he believed our client lied in her testimony.  Thus, having been convicted of the most serious offense in Wisconsin law, Judge Foust imposed the required life sentence.    

In Wisconsin, the law on sentences for those convicted of such a charge is that they receive a mandatory life sentence.  The sentencing judge can then do 1 of 3 things: s/he can make the person never eligible for Extended Supervision (ES) (formerly known as parole); they can make them eligible for ES after serving a minimum of 20 years; or they can set a eligibility date some time after 20 years but short of never.  

*The reason this case is the first of its kind in Wisconsin is because of the sentence structure stated above.  That law went into effect in the year 2000.  As such, there hasn’t been a single person convicted of 1st Degree Homicide who has been eligible to petition for release to Extended Supervision – mostly because no one previously sentenced had been given the minimum 20 year eligibility.  Most have been given the maximum life sentences with no eligibility for ES.  Some have been given the last option – 20 yrs, plus some additional time for eligibility.  Our client was one of those.  So was the killer – but he is not eligible until having served 20 years + 35 additional years..  So he’ll be a while yet ….

Getting, then, to this case, (one, incidentally, which Attorney Mays did not represent the client at the homicide trial itself, but was retained to file and argue the Petition for Release to Extended Supervision) then-Dane County Judge Foust sentenced our client to life in prison.  He made her eligible for release to ES after serving 20 years + 3 years, for a total of 23 years in prison, before which she could petition the Court for release from her life sentence to ES.  Once a person is granted such release, the remainder of the life sentence is commuted to ES (i.e., parole) – meaning, if a person is granted release to ES, they are on ES for the remainder of their life (i.e., the “new” life sentence – life on “parole”).

At a hearing on such a Petition for Release to ES, the petitioner (the person in prison arguing for release) carries the burden in the petition.  As some background, the level of proof in any criminal case (in order to gain a conviction) is to the standard “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  The legislature specified that the burden of proof for a person convicted of a Class A felony and seeking release on extended supervision is lower.  There are two lower burdens of proof applicable in civil trials and, as here, in certain proceedings within the criminal law.  The lower burden of proof is the preponderance of the evidence standard, which requires the litigant to demonstrate by the greater weight of credible evidence the certainty of his or her claim.  The higher burden of proof is the clear and convincing standard, which requires evidentiary proof to a reasonable certainty by evidence that is clear and convincing.  Hence, our client had to convince the Court, to a reasonable certainty by evidence which is clear and convincing, that she no longer presents a danger to the public.  The statutory scheme requires the Court to determine whether now is the time that our client should be released to extended supervision.  The legislature has made the public policy determination that sentencing courts should use discretion in fashioning a sentence that is based on the nature of the criminal offense, the public’s need for protection and the rehabilitative needs of the convicted defendant.  Public policy requires a person convicted of a crime that carries a life sentence to serve a certain minimum number of years before being eligible for parole release.

At the hearing on our client’s petition (on Friday the 13th of December no less) the State argued that release should be denied, and a future date set for our client to meet additional goals or reach additional benchmarks of achievement or treatment/counseling, leading to a future conclusion that our client was no longer a risk to the public.  At the hearing, much evidence (4+ hours worth) was presented in our client’s favor that she was not a risk to the public nor that there were any additional goals for her to achieve.  The evidence at the hearing demonstrated, and the Court indeed held in its ruling, that our client met the necessary evidentiary standard and that no further efforts were necessary to safeguard the community or to rehabilitate our client prior to her release.  Specifically, the  evidence presented showed that our client sought opportunity, embraced counseling, and at every turn bettered herself throughout the majority of her 23 years in prison.  She steadily maintained employment while institutionalized, having been employed with little interruption for 23 years.  For over 12 years she oversaw the greenhouse and gardens.  She had been continually employed in property maintenance.  She participated as a mentor for new inmates and for mentally ill inmates.  She was employed in painting and maintenance of murals. She also worked in programs within the community.  She also sought to participate in therapy and counseling to address her needs.  Mental health treatment options were nearly non-existent to female inmates when our client began her incarceration.  Once available, she continuously engaged in therapy and counseling, including being the first inmate at Taycheedah to undergo EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing) therapy to treat PTSD.  Our client also also experienced the negative side of imprisonment – she was the victim of a sexual assault committed by a prison guard.  This event spurred her in her PTSD struggle and led to her EMDR therapy experience.  

She also used her term of incarceration to gain an education. She earned a bachelor’s degree while in prison in Natural Science and Holistic Nutrition, an associate degree in Health and Wellness Consultation and another in Energy Balance Therapies.  She also completed a two-year program and received a certificate for Building Maintenance.  

The Court, in granting the Petition for Release to Extended Supervision, ruled as follows:  “While there may be more she can achieve in prison over the next period of months or years, as clearly she is an achiever, there is nothing [our client] must achieve to be ready for her release. [She] has obtained an education, earned and saved money to support herself as she transitions into the community, and gained marketable skills that may provide or enhance employability. She has been substance free and recognizes the dangers of returning to the use of alcohol or drugs.  She has been committed to treating her mental health issues within the institution, and to being committed to continuing in the community.  [She] has built a record of giving to others within the prison community.   She has earned a level of respect from the warden and others, and has a generous amount of support awaiting her in the community.  [Her] crimes are heinous.  The loss of [the victim’s] life is an event which still reverberates within the community of his loved ones.  [Our client] testified credibly and with evident heartfelt remorse.  She took full responsibility for her crime and, looking face to face with the survivors who she damaged, reluctantly asked for forgiveness.”

As such, the Court ordered that our client be released to extended supervision under the original sentence imposed by Judge Foust.  She will now be supervised in the community by the Department of Corrections Division of Community Corrections for the rest of her life.  The Court believes that the DOC will supervise her and require her to continue in her mental health treatment and follow all the general and specific rules of supervision that they establish for her.  Due to the hard work and diligence by Attorney Stephen Mays, she was then released within 24 hours of the Court’s Order and was able to spend the first Christmas with her family in the last 23 years.  
CALL NOW