In closing weeks of Wisconsin Supreme Court race, Republicans attack Crawford’s record as judge

With the election less than three weeks away, conservative Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel and his Republican allies are focusing their attacks on sentences Dane County Judge Susan Crawford handed down in a pair of child sexual assault cases. 

Ads claim she could have given the convicted men decades in prison. Experts say such a move would be rare.

In one of the cases, a lawyer for the defendant cited the Supreme Court campaign ad blitz against Crawford in a motion calling on her to recuse, arguing details of the case “have been taken out of context and sensationalized by right-wing media.”

Two ads from a political action committee backed by Elon Musk call Crawford “dangerous” and “wrong for Wisconsin” for prison sentences she issued against two men convicted on multiple first-degree child sexual assault charges.

Curtis O’Brien

The first ad by the Building America’s Future PAC focuses on Curtis O’Brien, who was convicted in 2022 of repeated sexual assault of the same child.

The ad names him and claims “Judge Susan Crawford could have given him 60 years in prison, but she let him walk: Two years in prison” and that she allowed him to live across the street from an elementary school.

“That was Crawford’s choice,” said the ad. 

The criminal complaint shows a 5-year-old girl told police in 2014 that O’Brien had repeatedly molested her, raped her and forced her to perform oral sex on him when he lived next door. He was charged in 2018 with repeated sexual assault of the same child, a felony that comes with a maximum sentence of 60 years in prison.

What the ad doesn’t mention is that O’Brien served 777 days — or more than two years — in jail during his trial, time that was credited toward the four-year prison sentence handed down by Crawford. Her sentence also called for six years of supervised release.

Court records show there were multiple competency hearings in the case, with an expert testifying in August 2022 that O’Brien had “unspecified mental disorders” associated with a genetic disorder and that his IQ was in the “upper 60s to 70s.” Ultimately, Crawford ruled O’Brien was competent to stand trial.

During their only debate, Schimel honed in on Crawford’s decision to order a $500 signature bond for O’Brien after the conviction.

“In spite of the pleas of the victim, she ultimately gave that offender a sentence that resulted in him being in prison for less than two years after that sentencing date,” Schimel said. “This is a dangerous flaw in my opponent’s judgment, and that’s just one example of many.” 

Crawford shot back and said she doesn’t regret the sentence “because I followed the law in that case.”

“You have to consider both the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the Supreme Court has said you have to order the minimum amount of prison time you believe is necessary to protect the public,” Crawford said.

She’s referring to a 2004 Supreme Court decision outlining factors judges must consider during sentencing including the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant.

Jonathan LaVoy has spent 25 years as a defense attorney and is now a partner with Kim & LaVoy Attorneys at Law in Milwaukee. He hasn’t endorsed or contributed to either Schimel or Crawford. He told WPR judges are required to consider the least restrictive sentence and a judge “is not allowed to simply give the maximum sentence unless it’s warranted” or the case could be overturned by a higher court. 

Also, LaVoy said, a defendant’s mental capacity is “incredibly significant and very, very important to a judge” during sentencing.  

“When a person has competency issues or major mental health issues, or there are mitigating factors related to why a person might be acting the way they’re acting, the judge must consider that as at least one factor when assessing what to do with a person,” LaVoy said.

In a motion filed Tuesday, O’Brien’s attorney, Anthony Jurek, said he plans to seek post-conviction relief and called on Crawford to recuse herself from the case because of the attacks involving his client.

“The right-wing attacks have had their intended result: Commentators on social media have called for Judge Crawford’s impeachment or disbarment, and the Defendant’s address has been published as he has been made the subject of death threats,” Jurek said.

Kevin Welton

The other case being used to attack Crawford’s judicial record involves Kevin Welton, who was convicted of two counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child and one count of attempted sexual assault of a child in 2019.

The criminal complaint shows two girls aged 6 and 7 told police Welton touched their private areas in a swimming pool in 2010 and 2018. During questioning, Welton admitted that he “groped” the girl making the latter claim.

The case appears in another attack ad from Building America’s Future PAC, but unlike O’Brien, Welton’s name isn’t mentioned. It says he faced “100 years in prison, but Judge Susan Crawford let him off with just four.”

As with O’Brien, nobody recommended the maximum sentence in the case. Prosecutors recommended he serve 10 years in prison along with five years of extended supervision, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Crawford sentenced Welton to four years in prison followed by six years of extended supervision for each of his convictions, but ordered that they be served concurrently. 

After his conviction, Welton’s attorney filed a motion seeking employment records related to the 2018 victim’s mother, who worked as a University of Wisconsin child abuse doctor and had been accused of misdiagnosing children as abused. During Welton’s trial, the daughter testified that she changed her description of what happened to her “just a little” after the mother “kind of” coached her. The mother denied the child’s testimony.

After requests for a new trial were rejected, Welton filed an appeal with Wisconsin’s District 4 Court of Appeals, arguing Crawford was wrong to oppose his attempts to introduce the mother’s employment records into the case. In an August 2024 decision, the appeals court upheld Crawford’s ruling.

Welton appealed again, filing a petition the same month that asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to review his case. Justices denied his request in December.

Cherry-picking cases ‘very off-putting’

LaVoy, the Milwaukee defense attorney, said both Crawford and Schimel are guilty of trying to “cherry-pick” a handful of cases to paint one another as being soft on crime.

“I find it to be very off-putting that candidates cherry pick other candidates’ one or two cases and try to indicate that that is evidence they’re soft on crime,” LaVoy said. “You have to look at the judge’s entire book of business. You have to look at the judge’s entire career.”

What’s more, he said, Supreme Court justices don’t even issue sentences in criminal cases. Their role is to review decisions from lower courts, and LaVoy said criminal law “is only one very small piece of what a Supreme Court justice does.”

“So, I always find it so odd that they’re focusing so much on criminal law sentences when we’re trying to pick somebody on the Supreme Court,” LaVoy said.