2012 WI 104

 

Supreme Court of Wisconsin

 

 

 

 

 

Case No.:

2012AP566-J

Complete Title:

 

 

In the Matter of Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against the Honorable David T. Prosser, Jr.

 

Wisconsin Judicial Commission,

��������� Complainant,

���� v.

The Honorable David T. Prosser, Jr.,

��������� Respondent.

 

 

 

MEMORANDUM DECISION OF JUSTICE MICHAEL J. GABLEMAN

 

 

Opinion Filed:

August 10, 2012�

Submitted on Briefs:

     �

Oral Argument:

     �

 

 

Source of Appeal:

 

 

Court:

     �

 

County:

     �

 

Judge:

     �

 

 

 

Justices:

 

 

Concurred:

     �

 

Dissented:

�

 

Not Participating:

     �

 

 

 

Attorneys:

 

     

 

 

� 2012 WI 104

notice

This opinion is subject to further editing and modification.� The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports.�

No.� 2012AP566-J

 

 

STATE OF WISCONSIN��������������� �� :

IN SUPREME COURT

 

 

In the Matter of Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against the Honorable David T. Prosser, Jr.

 

Wisconsin Judicial Commission,

 

��������� Complainant,

 

���� v.

 

The Honorable David T. Prosser, Jr.,

 

��������� Respondent.

 

FILED

 

AUG 10, 2012

 

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Supreme Court

 

 

 

 

MEMORANDUM DECISION OF

JUSTICE MICHAEL J. GABLEMAN

 

 

Before Michael J. Gableman, J.

 

���� �1�� On May 8, 2012, I received a letter from Kevin P. Reak, counsel for Justice David T. Prosser, Jr., filed with the court, requesting that I recuse myself from participation in the captioned matter.� Justices Roggensack and Ziegler have issued orders, construing similar letters addressed to them individually as motions for disqualification, and granting those motions.� In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Prosser, 2012 WI 43, 340 Wis. 2d 292, 813 N.W.2d 208 (Roggensack, J.); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Prosser, 2012 WI 103, __ Wis. 2d __, __ N.W.2d __ (Ziegler, J.).� I wholly agree with the reasoning set forth in Justice Roggensack's and Justice Ziegler's orders and for the same reasons I interpret the May 8, 2012 letter as a motion for disqualification and grant the motion.�

���� �2�� As Justice Ziegler correctly notes, Wisconsin "Supreme [C]ourt justices follow a longstanding practice of recusing themselves without providing an explanation for the recusal."� In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Prosser, 2012 WI 103, �1 n.1 (Ziegler, J.).� Justices on the United States Supreme Court typically follow the same practice.� Sande L. Buhai, Federal Judicial Disqualification: A Behavioral and Quantitative Analysis, 90 Or. L. Rev. 69, 82 (2011).

���� �3�� Accordingly, for the reasons expressed in Justice Roggensack's and Justice Ziegler's orders, the motion is granted, and I disqualify myself from participation in the matter.��������������