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.