Advertisement
Victim: A trial would have been difficult
 |
Testifying about her sexual assault while facing her assailants in court hearings was intimidating and scary.
The trials would have been worse, she said.
A plea agreement guaranteed a conviction and likely imprisonment, she said, while sparing her several lengthy and emotionally draining trials.
“I just, more than anything, wanted to make sure they got some sort of punishment,” said the high school-age victim, who the Tribune is not identifying.
Prosecutors said they regularly consider a victim’s wishes and willingness to proceed to trial as the case moves through the legal system.
As the teen’s case proceeded, La Crosse County District Attorney Tim Gruenke explained the pros and cons of a plea agreement and trial. By going to trial, she would have to testify, be cross-examined by defense attorneys and risk acquittals.
And the multiple defendants already had drawn out the court process, leaving her emotionally drained.
Gruenke got her approval on all the plea agreements before they were accepted, she said.
While the rest of the defendants opted to plead to a reduced third-degree sexual assault charge, one seemed determined to go to trial.
She arranged to do schoolwork at home and took time off from work. She prepared with Gruenke and a counselor for the coming trial. Witnesses were arranged.
Just days before the trial was to begin, the final defendant accepted the agreement to the same reduced sexual assault charge. It was a relief, she said.
Her mother wasn’t happy with the agreement — the initial charge carried 30 more years in prison as a maximum sentence than the charge the group pleaded to, she said.
“That really bothered me,” the teen said. “If it was up to me, they’d be in there for life.”
Before sentencing, Gruenke explained it was rare for a judge to impose the maximum. She had prepared for less.
But the judge went for the maximum five-year prison terms to all defendants.
“That was really cool. I was shocked,” she said of the judge’s ruling.
Looking back, she’s pleased she didn’t have to endure a trial.
Still, she said, “I guess I’ll always have that question in the back of my head, like, ‘What if we would have went to trial? What would have happened?’”
Anne Jungen La Crosse Tribune
Defendant: No chance to prove innocence
Two years ago, Steve Kowalewski pleaded no contest to three misdemeanors so he could see a felony stalking charge go away.
“Nothing good came of it,” Kowalewski said today of the plea arrangement, even though he avoided a felony conviction, spent only 60 days in jail and had to serve just 18 months of a three-year probation sentence.
He remains bitter that he faced charges at all and gave up his chance to prove his innocence in court.
Kowalewski said his legal troubles came in the midst of an ugly break-up with his estranged wife, who told police Kowalewski was controlling, had a hot temper and made her feel threatened. She even got a restraining order against him.
Kowalewski disputed her accusations, saying they were meant to get him in trouble so he couldn’t see the couple’s young child.
In August 2004, Kowalew-ski went to a wedding reception he said he thought his estranged wife wouldn’t attend, even though she was the groom’s cousin. She saw his vehicle and called police. Kowalewski left to avoid a scene, he said, but was taken to jail later that evening for violating a restraining order.
After being released from jail on a $600 cash bond, Kowalewski took a cab back to the Onalaska American Legion to retrieve his vehicle and, he said, congratulate the groom. Again, his estranged wife called police.
This time, he remained in jail over the weekend before being charged with felony stalking.
Kowalewski said he was confident he would be able to prove his innocence, but just days before going to trial, his attorney called a meeting to discuss a plea offer.
Assistant District Attorney Julie Nelson agreed to drop the stalking charge if Kowalewski would plead no contest to disorderly conduct, bail jumping and obstructing an officer — all misdemeanors.
Kowalewski’s attorney, Frank Doherty, strongly encouraged him to take the offer, but Kowalewski had other feelings.
“I said, ‘I’m not going to sign my name to this or accept what they’re offering when I did nothing wrong.’”
Kowalewski claims he agreed to the deal after his attorney said the case wouldn’t go to trial unless Kowalewski came up with more money. By this time, he was broke.
Doherty disputed that, but said he could not discuss the reasons Kowalewski decided to take the offer due to attorney-client privilege.
“They had no stalking,” Kowalewski said. “I didn’t stalk her, no matter what they alleged. And the witnesses all corroborated the times and the facts of what I did do and what I didn’t do.”
Dan Springer La Crosse Tribune
Defense attorney: Plea offer stuns attorney in murder case retrial
La Crosse attorney Keith Belzer usually looks forward to telling his clients about plea offers that spare them prison or jail time.
This time was different.
This time, the offer came as Belzer was working to clear the name of Evan Zimmerman, a former police officer who had been convicted in 2001 of killing a woman in Eau Claire, Wis., but was given a second trial on appeal.
Four months before Zimmerman’s second trial was to begin, Eau Claire County District Attorney Richard White threw Belzer for a loop by offering a deal that would allow Zimmerman to remain free if he pleaded guilty to reckless homicide.
The offer left Belzer struggling over his next move: Should he urge Zimmerman to swallow a bitter pill and be guaranteed his freedom, or risk a trial that could put his client back in prison for life if convicted?
Before telling Zimmerman about the offer, Belzer called some colleagues for advice.
“Everybody I called ... said, ‘You have to convince him to take it. If you go to trial and lose ...’” Belzer didn’t finish the sentence but just shook his head.
So Belzer all but told Zimmerman to take the deal.
“It was hard for me to do that, because I did believe in him so much, and I thought that he would think I didn’t have faith in him,” Belzer said.
Belzer later learned Zimmerman had told family and friends his attorney no longer believed in the case.
Zimmerman called off the deal the next day, telling Belzer, “I don’t want anybody thinking I committed that crime. I do not want to ruin the name or reputation of my children by taking the easy way out.
“I would rather spend the rest of my life in prison and proclaim my innocence than taking the easy way out and letting people think I did this horrible crime.”
Zimmerman’s resolve left Belzer “relieved and refocused,” and more determined than ever to exonerate his client. That happened in April 2005, when White dropped the charges in mid-trial.
While a free man, Zimmerman never got his old life back. Though his conviction was overturned, employers still were reluctant to hire him, and he struggled with money and health problems until his death in July.
Despite this, Zimmerman was able to live out his last days knowing he had been vindicated, his family and friends said.
While Belzer calls the victory his most rewarding, he still remembers how close he came to letting his client plead.
Dan Springer La Crosse Tribune
Prosecutor: Agreement leads to nagging ‘what if’ questions
La Crosse County Deputy District Attorney Loralee Clark seldom is satisfied when a case ends with a plea agreement.
Plea agreements often leave Clark with nagging questions about whether she should have pushed harder for more charges, how a jury would have viewed the evidence and what kind of sentence the defendant might have received if convicted in trial.
One such “what if” case for Clark involved a La Crosse man who strangled a woman and then bound her with duct tape in a motel room in June 2006.
Eric Thompson Jr., 24, accepted a plea agreement for stalking, false imprisonment and aggravated battery — and received four years in prison earlier this year from La Crosse County Circuit Judge Michael Mulroy.
“I was hoping for more,” Clark said, noting the three charges carried a maximum 15½ years.
Clark had charged Thompson with three counts of kidnapping, first-degree recklessly endangering safety, false imprisonment and other felonies and misdemeanors after the victim told of earlier assaults she did not report because she feared Thompson and his family, according to court records.
She knew some of the charges would be a tough sell, Clark said, and the victim’s intense fear of retaliation made going to trial a daunting prospect.
Yet she was confident she could gain a conviction. “There were some problems with part of the case, mainly because of the delay in reporting,” she said, “but that could have been explained.”
She rejected an early plea offer from defense attorney Ken Peterson. But, just before the January trial, Clark agreed to drop several felony and misdemeanor charges, including kidnapping and first-degree recklessly endangering safety while armed. She also reserved the right to argue for prison, but agreed to leave the length of sentence up to the judge.
She still believes she could have proven Thompson kidnapped the woman in the motel. “Looking back, I wish I would have held onto the kidnapping (charges),” Clark said. “At the time, I just felt we were bringing enough charges that would not limit the judge.”
The less-than-expected prison term left Clark second guessing whether a trial would have worked out better.
“Sometimes you don’t know if you’d gotten more at trial and more at sentencing if we had tried the case,” Clark said. “Unfortunately, all of that is judgment calls.”
Dan Springer La Crosse Tribune
