3/11/2008
For more information contact:
Thomas Solberg, State Bar of Wisconsin
(800) 444-9404, ext. 6025
tsolberg@wisbar.org March 11, 2008 -- The WJCIC believes two negative attack television ads produced by a group calling itself the Coalition for America’s Families unfairly attack the record and integrity of Justice Louis Butler. This group is not associated with any candidate or campaign and is not subject to state campaign finance laws. These ads were released on Thursday, March 6, 2008.
We note with approval that both candidates have now called upon third-party groups to cease attacking the candidates in this race and to allow the candidates to speak for themselves. We also urge both campaigns to refrain from alleging or insinuating that the other campaign is somehow colluding with independent, third-party groups not affiliated with either campaign, unless they can produce evidence to substantiate such a claim.
The ads in question here attack incumbent Justice Louis Butler in relation to two cases before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, State v. Mark Jensen and State v. Ralph Armstrong.
State v. Jensen
Citing media accounts, the ad in question asserts that in this case Justice Butler:
“. . . . would not have allowed the jury to hear the letter Julie Jensen wrote.”
This assertion is false. Justice Butler joined the entire court in ruling that the issue of whether the letter in question should be admitted into evidence should be remanded to the circuit court. Justice Butler disagreed in his dissent with the majority as to what legal test the circuit court should apply in making this determination. A review of his dissent shows that it offers no basis for asserting that Justice Butler would not have allowed the letter to be admitted at trial; the entire Supreme Court – including Justice Butler -- agreed that was a decision for the circuit court to make.
State v. Armstrong
This ad attacks Justice Butler’s majority opinion in a case that ordered a new trial for a man convicted of a 1980 murder; the decision was based primarily upon new DNA test results regarding some of the evidence used against the defendant at his trial, which indicated the evidence in question did not come from the defendant.
We note news reports that at least one television station, WISC Channel 3 in Madison, is refusing to run the ad because of its lurid and exploitative content.
We quote from and approve the analysis of this ad by the Annenberg Political Fact Check (a project of the Annenberg Pubic Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania):
“This 30-second spot gives a distorted, cartoon-like description of a tangled murder case that could easily be the basis for a 60-minute Law and Order episode. The real story involves recanted testimony from a colorful witness, an absurd police line-up and a conviction based in part on semen and hair that were later proved not to have come from the accused.
* * *
. . . . it's clear to us that the 'Armstrong' ad's presentation of facts about the murder case is meant to lead viewers to believe that Butler disregarded overwhelming evidence against Armstrong in setting him free. It doesn't mention the new DNA results, which have led to reversals of convictions in numerous cases nationwide in recent years. It dupes voters by bypassing one of the most important aspects of the case, and the reason for Butler's decision.”
Source: Annenberg Political Fact Check, “Judgment Day in Wisconsin: Misleading voters about corruption, rape and murder in a battle to oust a Wisconsin justice,” as reported in Newsweek, March 7, 2008:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/119952 “Butler sides with criminals nearly 60 percent of the time.”
Both ads make this highly questionable assertion. We have pointed out previously in a statement regarding an anti-Gableman ad by the Greater Wisconsin Committee the danger of using misleading or false statistics to evaluate the performance of a judge. This “statistic” is not explained or substantiated.
The harm here is exacerbated by the fact that Judge Gableman’s campaign has repeated this meaningless statistic at least twice in recent press releases, without attribution or substantiation. Judge Gableman, being the subject of the misleading GWC attack ad “Bottom” – which this committee has already condemned this week for this very same reason, in addition to others -- should understand better than anyone the danger of using misleading or false statistics to measure the performance of a judge. The role of a judge is to apply the law to the facts of each case, resulting in outcomes that do not lend themselves to statistical measurement. No one should lead voters to believe that the performance of a judge can be measured in such a misleading manner. Given Judge Gableman’s own pledge to “ensure the integrity of claims made by our campaigns by providing supporting evidence,” Judge Gableman should either produce such evidence or refrain from making such claims.
http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=120581 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
Replies to this thread
-
Guess what race all the criminals are.
-
That Fucker Should __________
