Judge William Hanrahan (left) says the defendants’ rights were violated when the prosecution “flagrantly violated” its obligation to provide witness lists. District Attorney Ismael Ozanne calls the judge’s response — to disallow witnesses — “not proportionate with the actual violation in these cases.”
In a case that highlights simmering tensions between the Dane County District Attorney’s Office and the local judiciary, charges of felony armed robbery were dismissed against three defendants last month because the office was unable to proceed with a scheduled trial — and the judge was unwilling to grant a delay.
“[T]his really is distressing,” Dane County Circuit Court Judge William Hanrahan said in court June 26, according to a transcript. He alleged “a major failure” on the prosecution’s part, accusing the office of “a willful disregard … of the court’s efforts to keep [the case] on track.”
Jury selection was set for that morning, after two prior postponements, both granted at the prosecution’s request. The defendants were charged with robbing two small-time drug dealers at gunpoint in Madison last fall. If convicted, they faced a combined (though unlikely) maximum of 264 years in prison.
But the prosecution did not provide a witness list until that same morning, and then only to one of the three defendants. Hanrahan said the office “ignored” his email seeking earlier production of these lists, which under a local court rule are supposed to be provided by the Thursday of the week before a scheduled trial. He deemed the DA’s office “noncompliant with the discovery statute.”
Assistant District Attorney William Brown argued that the defense knew from police reports who would potentially be called as witnesses, “so the defendants are at no disadvantage today.” He asked that, if witnesses were excluded, the case be dismissed without prejudice, meaning that the charges could be refiled.
“This isn’t an egregious breach,” Brown said in court, citing the legal standard for dismissal set by Wisconsin case law. “This is an administrative failure. We apologize. My office messed up. But the state deserves its day in court. The victims deserve their day in court.” Assistant DA Andrea Raymond took responsibility, citing personal life events, saying “this is my mistake and not Mr. Brown’s.” She apologized, adding, “this is not how I normally do cases.”
But Hanrahan, like another Dane County judge did earlier this year, refused to further delay the proceedings. He proposed letting the trial proceed, with the state’s witnesses excluded. Knowing that it could not win without witnesses, the state agreed to dismiss the charges with prejudice, meaning that they cannot be refiled.
Hanrahan, in an interview, says his decision to strip the state of its ability to present witnesses was unprecedented in his 10 years on the bench. He admits this was “a strong sanction, but under the case law I cited I believe it was an appropriate sanction.” He adds that the three defendants were merely accused of a crime and “presumed innocent.” Their rights were violated, he said, when the DA’s office “flagrantly disregarded” its obligation to provide witness lists.
Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, in an email response to questions, defends his office’s handling of the case while acknowledging that the “normal” timeline for witness lists was not met. He says two of the defendants “intended to resolve their cases” by pleading guilty and testifying against the third man, so only one case was headed to trial.
As for Hanrahan’s decision to disallow witnesses, Ozanne says: “The judge may have been within his authority to do this but in my mind this action was not proportionate with the actual violation in these cases.” He notes that the alleged crime involved “real guns” and behaviors dangerous to residents in Dane County.
“This action is very troubling to me as this community is dealing with gun violence as we have not seen in the past,” says Ozanne, whose office is dealing with high levels of staff turnover. “I will be the first to admit that a prosecutor in my office made a mistake but I do not believe that mistake prejudiced the defense in this case. … I will work with my office to ensure prosecutors do not repeat this situation but I also think it is fair to ask the judge why he believed his actions served the ends of justice.”
The dismissals happened the day before an unrelated armed robbery that led to the death of a contractor at a Culver’s restaurant on the west side.
The three men in the dismissed case were George Lazar, Sebastian Johnson and Richard Wallace.
Each faced two counts of armed robbery, which carries a maximum penalty of 40 years in prison. Johnson and Wallace also faced up to six additional years on each count for being repeat felony offenders.
On Oct. 30, Madison police responded to a call from a residence on Schroeder Road on Madison’s west side. Two distraught men said they were robbed of their cellphones and wallets by two other men wearing hockey masks and brandishing handguns while a third man stayed in a car. They recognized Lazar as the man in the car.
Both victims admitted they had earlier arranged to sell Lazar an ounce of marijuana for $300. Lazar told police he did not realize his companions planned to rob the two dealers “until it was too late,” according to the criminal complaint. Ozanne says that Lazar and Johnson were both prepared to testify against Wallace.
The dismissal of charges against the three men was similar to another recent local case reported by Isthmus. On April 26, Judge Josann Reynolds balked at allowing a delay due to a prosecutor’s unavailability in a third-degree sexual assault case against an incarcerated man that had already dragged on more than two years.
Reynolds blasted Ozanne’s office for “its complete, cavalier disregard of the defendant’s rights.” Ozanne, saying his office has been “understaffed ... going on four years,” accused Reynolds of overstepping her bounds in telling an assistant to line up a backup prosecutor. She refused his request for a dismissal without prejudice, calling the scheduling snafu “a situation that’s entirely of the district attorney’s making.” The charges were dismissed.
Judges, in particular, seem unmoved by Ozanne’s assertions that his office is overworked. Last year, Hanrahan and Judge Juan Colas sent him sharply critical letters for missing a meeting on a new bail hearing process (that Ozanne belatedly tried to block), while Judge Nicholas McNamara ripped Ozanne for having “clearly and completely abandoned any effort toward open, collaborative dialogue” on scheduling-related issues.
On the afternoon of June 26, after the charges against the three men were dismissed, Hanrahan received an email from Rachelle Hocking, a victim-witness specialist in the DA’s office. It said she had contacted one of the drug-dealer victims of the Oct. 30 robbery, who was “very upset about what happened.” So upset that he had asked for the judge’s number. Instead, Hocking gave the victim’s number to Hanrahan.
“It was kind of like, ‘You explain it,’” Hanrahan recalls. And while he felt this was not his role, Hanrahan took the highly unusual step of writing the victim. He referenced “the failures by the prosecution to comply with Wisconsin law and Dane County Circuit Court rules,” saying he hoped the DA’s office “made a good faith attempt to explain to you why they failed and how their neglect was considered ‘egregious’ under Wisconsin law.”
Hanrahan said he had ordered a court transcript, which is not automatically produced, so the victim could see for himself what happened. A few days later, he passed this on with another note, saying “I hope this will answer some of the questions that the District Attorney’s Office may not have been able to fully explain.”
The victim, whom Isthmus is not naming because he was not charged with a crime, did not respond to a letter seeking his perspective for this story. Ozanne says both victims are displeased with the dismissals but suggests there isn’t much they can do, since the state Supreme Court recently ruled that the state’s Crime Victims Rights Board has no authority to sanction judges.