Exonerees experience gap in support in Wisconsin
The exoneration of David and Robert Bintz in a 1987 murder case has increased attention on what happens in Wisconsin after defendants' convictions are overturned and they are released from prison.
The Wisconsin Claims Board considers compensation claims by innocent people who were convicted of a crime. The board can award up to $25,000, not including attorneys' fees, and not more than $5,000 for every year of wrongful imprisonment. It can recommend that the state Legislature award additional compensation.
Exonerated people often experience more difficulty accessing services to help them reenter society than people who were released on probation or parole, according to Rachel Burg, co-director of the Wisconsin Innocence Project.
State programs work with people on probation or parole before release, Burg said, and include pre-release job training, assistance with applications to public benefits and general release planning. After release, a person may have court or supervision-mandated programs, such as school or work requirements.
'By no means am I saying being on probation or parole is easy or conducive to successfully reentering society, but in theory there is access to resources that are not available to the wrongfully convicted,' Burg said in an email to the Examiner.
Exonerated people don't have probation officers making sure they have their identification cards and get set up for Medicaid, she said, or parole agents helping with job applications.
A guilty person gets more support from the state than an innocent person who was exonerated, Keith Findley, co-founder of the Wisconsin Innocence Project and an emeritus law professor at UW-Madison, said in an interview in November.
'They've spent often decades in prison, had their livelihoods taken away from them, their relationships, their homes, their professions, their good names,' Findley said. 'And then when we discover we got it wrong and made a mistake, we just open the door and say, 'OK, have a good life,' with nothing more from the state.'
Findley said Wisconsin could create a state forensic science commission, as well as conviction integrity units (CIUs) in prosecutors' offices. In neighboring Michigan, the CIU in the state attorney general's office investigates claims of innocence that are accompanied by new evidence.
Exonerees in the U.S. may receive compensation through a civil lawsuit, a private bill passed by a state legislature or a state law, if the state has a compensation statute.
Wisconsin's compensation cap for wrongfully convicted people is one of the lowest caps in the country. The rare exception to the cap is if the Wisconsin Legislature approves a higher amount.
The Wisconsin Claims Board decides whether to grant compensation to an exonerated person and can recommend that the Legislature award an amount higher than the $25,000 cap.
The members of the Wisconsin Claims Board come from the Wisconsin Senate, the Wisconsin Assembly, the governor's office, the Wisconsin Department of Justice and the Wisconsin Department of Administration. Currently, the legislative representatives are Rep. Alex Dallman (R-Green Lake) and Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto).
Wisconsin pays an average of about $4,200 per year of wrongful incarceration to those who filed and received compensation, according to an analysis of data collected by the National Registry of Exonerations, Wisconsin Watch reported.
A bipartisan bill that would have increased the $25,000 cap to $1 million passed the Wisconsin State Assembly in 2016, the Capital Times reported. It didn't become law. The bill would have also granted assistance for transitioning back into society and up to 10 years in the state's health insurance program for public employees.
There were 39 states, along with the District of Columbia, with compensation statutes for wrongful imprisonment as of March.
Some states' compensation statutes allow exonerees to receive services, like assistance with tuition, job search and housing, Rachel Burg of the Wisconsin Innocence Project said.
As of July 2023, 62 Wisconsin exonerees were wrongly convicted in state courts since 1989 and potentially eligible for compensation, according to a research paper that used information from the National Registry of Exonerations. Jeffrey Gutman of George Washington University Law School published 'Compensation under the Microscope: Wisconsin' in 2022, and it was updated in 2023.
As of July 2023, 25 of the 62 had filed claims. 17 of 25 applicants were granted compensation, and 8 were denied.
Gutman wrote that Wisconsin's filing rate was significantly below a national average of 58% and said that 'Wisconsin's low compensation is a logical explanation.'
In Findley's view, Wisconsin's compensation plan for exonerees 'puts a very high burden' on innocent people to prove their innocence.
Wisconsin's compensation statute does not give compensation to people because they show their conviction was overturned, the claims board said when it denied compensation to Lavontae Stinson in a 2024 decision.
Stinson's conviction was overturned due to ineffective assistance of his legal counsel, the claims board said. For this to happen, Stinson had to show there was a 'reasonable probability' that more effective counsel would have led to a different result.
According to the board's decision, the Milwaukee County District Attorney decided not to retry Stinson because the state could not meet its burden of proof. According to the DA, additional information from Stinson's post-conviction counsel 'cast some doubt on whether Stinson was involved at all in the crimes for which he was sent to prison.'
To receive compensation, Stinson had to meet a different standard — proving his innocence with 'clear and convincing' evidence — and the board ruled his arguments and evidence did not meet the standard.
In 2014, then-Gov. Scott Walker signed a bill granting Robert Lee Stinson an additional $90,000. In the end, Stinson was awarded the $115,000 he had requested from the Wisconsin State Claims Board — $5,000 for each year of his imprisonment.
Gutman's 'Compensation Under the Microscope' reported 17 cases of exonerees receiving state compensation, going back to 1989. Stinson's case appeared to be the only example of the Wisconsin Legislature ordering additional compensation for a wrongfully convicted person following a claims board recommendation, he wrote.
Stinson spent over two decades incarcerated for a conviction based on flawed evidence, FOX6 Milwaukee reported. He settled litigation with the city of Milwaukee for $7.5 million.
Jarrett Adams, an attorney working with David and Robert Bintz, didn't yet know if the brothers could make a claim for a federal lawsuit, he told the Examiner in late February. Wisconsin's compensation statute might be the brothers' only opportunity for compensation, he said.
In the case of Daryl Holloway, the claims board recommended an additional $975,000 in March 2022, Gutman wrote, and the Legislature hadn't acted on the recommendation as of June 2023.
After a 3-2 vote, in a Jan. 30 decision, the board awarded Gabriel Lugo $25,000 in compensation, not including attorneys' fees.
Lugo had been sentenced to 30 years in prison for a 2008 shooting and released in 2023 after his conviction was vacated. The board recommended that the Legislature award Lugo an additional $750,000.
This is Part Two in a series on wrongful convictions. Read Part One here.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
13 hours ago
9/11 victims' fund architect slams changes to New Hampshire abuse settlement program
CONCORD, N.H. -- An attorney who helped design and implement the 9/11 victims' compensation fund says New Hampshire lawmakers have eroded the fairness of a settlement program for those who were abused at the state's youth detention center. Deborah Greenspan, who served as deputy special master of the fund created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, recently submitted an affidavit in a class-action lawsuit seeking to block changes to New Hampshire's out-of-court settlement fund for abuse victims. She's among those expected to testify Wednesday at a hearing on the state's request to dismiss the case and other matters. More than 1,300 people have sued the state since 2020 alleging that they were physically or sexually abused as children while in state custody, mostly at the Sununu Youth Services Center in Manchester. Most of them put their lawsuits on hold after lawmakers created a settlement fund in 2022 that was pitched as a 'victim-centered' and 'trauma-informed' alternative to litigation run by a neutral administrator appointed by the state Supreme Court. But the Republican-led Legislature changed that process through last-minute additions to the state budget Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed in June. The amended law gives the governor authority to hire and fire the fund's administrator and gives the attorney general — also a political appointee — veto power over settlement awards. That stands in stark contrast to other victim compensation funds, said Greenspan, who currently serves as a court-appointed special master for lawsuits related to lead-tainted water in Flint, Michigan. She said it 'strains credulity' to believe that anyone would file a claim knowing that 'the persons ultimately deciding the claim were those responsible for the claimant's injuries.' 'Such a construct would go beyond the appearance of impropriety and create a clear conflict of interest, undermining the fairness and legitimacy of the settlement process," she wrote. Ayotte and Attorney General John Formella responded by asking a judge to bar Greenspan's testimony, saying she offered 'policy preferences masquerading as expert opinions' without explaining the principles beyond her conclusions. 'Her affidavit is instead a series of non sequiturs that move from her experience to her conclusions without any of the necessary connective tissue,' they wrote. The defendants argue that the law still requires the administrator to be 'an independent, neutral attorney' and point out that the same appointment process is used for the state's judges. They said giving the attorney general the authority to accept or reject settlements is necessary to give the public a voice and ensure that the responsibility for spending millions of dollars in public funds rests with the executive branch. As of June 30, nearly 2,000 people had filed claims with the settlement fund, which caps payouts at $2.5 million. A total of 386 had been settled, with an average award of $545,000. One of the claimants says he was awarded $1.5 million award in late July, but the state hasn't finalized it yet, leaving him worried that Formella will veto it. 'I feel like the state has tricked us,' he said in an interview this week. 'We've had the rug pulled right out from underneath us.' The Associated Press does not name those who say they were sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly. The claimant, now 39, said the two years he spent at the facility as a teenager were the hardest times of his life. 'I lost my childhood. I lost things that I can't get back,' he said. 'I was broken.' Though the settlement process was overwhelming and scary at times, the assistant administrator who heard his case was kind and understanding, he said. That meeting alone was enough to lift a huge burden, he said. 'I was treated with a lot of love,' he said. 'I felt really appreciated as a victim and like I was speaking to somebody who would listen and believe my story.' Separate from the fund, the state has settled two lawsuits by agreeing to pay victims $10 million and $4.5 million. Only one lawsuit has gone to trial, resulting in a $38 million verdict, though the state is trying to slash it to $475,000. The state has also brought criminal charges against former workers, with two convictions and two mistrials so far. The 39-year-old claimant who fears his award offer will be retracted said he doesn't know if he could face testifying at a public trial. 'It's basically allowing the same people who hurt us to hurt us all over again,' he said.
San Francisco Chronicle
16 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
9/11 victims' fund architect slams changes to New Hampshire abuse settlement program
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — An attorney who helped design and implement the 9/11 victims' compensation fund says New Hampshire lawmakers have eroded the fairness of a settlement program for those who were abused at the state's youth detention center. Deborah Greenspan, who served as deputy special master of the fund created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, recently submitted an affidavit in a class-action lawsuit seeking to block changes to New Hampshire's out-of-court settlement fund for abuse victims. She's among those expected to testify Wednesday at a hearing on the state's request to dismiss the case and other matters. More than 1,300 people have sued the state since 2020 alleging that they were physically or sexually abused as children while in state custody, mostly at the Sununu Youth Services Center in Manchester. Most of them put their lawsuits on hold after lawmakers created a settlement fund in 2022 that was pitched as a 'victim-centered' and 'trauma-informed' alternative to litigation run by a neutral administrator appointed by the state Supreme Court. But the Republican-led Legislature changed that process through last-minute additions to the state budget Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed in June. The amended law gives the governor authority to hire and fire the fund's administrator and gives the attorney general — also a political appointee — veto power over settlement awards. That stands in stark contrast to other victim compensation funds, said Greenspan, who currently serves as a court-appointed special master for lawsuits related to lead-tainted water in Flint, Michigan. She said it 'strains credulity' to believe that anyone would file a claim knowing that 'the persons ultimately deciding the claim were those responsible for the claimant's injuries.' 'Such a construct would go beyond the appearance of impropriety and create a clear conflict of interest, undermining the fairness and legitimacy of the settlement process," she wrote. Ayotte and Attorney General John Formella responded by asking a judge to bar Greenspan's testimony, saying she offered 'policy preferences masquerading as expert opinions' without explaining the principles beyond her conclusions. 'Her affidavit is instead a series of non sequiturs that move from her experience to her conclusions without any of the necessary connective tissue,' they wrote. The defendants argue that the law still requires the administrator to be 'an independent, neutral attorney' and point out that the same appointment process is used for the state's judges. They said giving the attorney general the authority to accept or reject settlements is necessary to give the public a voice and ensure that the responsibility for spending millions of dollars in public funds rests with the executive branch. As of June 30, nearly 2,000 people had filed claims with the settlement fund, which caps payouts at $2.5 million. A total of 386 had been settled, with an average award of $545,000. One of the claimants says he was awarded $1.5 million award in late July, but the state hasn't finalized it yet, leaving him worried that Formella will veto it. 'I feel like the state has tricked us,' he said in an interview this week. 'We've had the rug pulled right out from underneath us.' The Associated Press does not name those who say they were sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly. The claimant, now 39, said the two years he spent at the facility as a teenager were the hardest times of his life. 'I lost my childhood. I lost things that I can't get back,' he said. 'I was broken.' Though the settlement process was overwhelming and scary at times, the assistant administrator who heard his case was kind and understanding, he said. That meeting alone was enough to lift a huge burden, he said. 'I was treated with a lot of love,' he said. 'I felt really appreciated as a victim and like I was speaking to somebody who would listen and believe my story.' Separate from the fund, the state has settled two lawsuits by agreeing to pay victims $10 million and $4.5 million. Only one lawsuit has gone to trial, resulting in a $38 million verdict, though the state is trying to slash it to $475,000. The state has also brought criminal charges against former workers, with two convictions and two mistrials so far. The 39-year-old claimant who fears his award offer will be retracted said he doesn't know if he could face testifying at a public trial. 'It's basically allowing the same people who hurt us to hurt us all over again,' he said.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Washington DC restaurants suffer sharp drop in diners since Trump crackdown
The number of people eating at restaurants in Washington DC has plummeted since Donald Trump deployed federal troops to the city, according to data, as the president's purported crackdown on crime continues. Research by Open Table found that restaurant attendance was down every day last week compared with 2024, with the number of diners dipping by 31% on Wednesday, two days after Trump ordered the national guard to patrol Washington. Trump announced the move on 11 August, claiming that Washington had been 'overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged out maniacs and homeless people'. His claims contradicted official statistics which show that violent crime in the capital is at a 30-year low. Data from Open Table shows that the number of people making online reservations dropped by 16% on Monday compared with the previous year. The number fell by 27% on Tuesday and 31% on Wednesday, as military vehicles and armed troops were deployed to the city. Metropolitan Washington Summer Restaurant week in 2024 was from 12 to 18 August. The 2025 edition of the event, during which diners are generally offered premium experiences at more affordable prices than usual, began on Monday. The data did not immediately make clear to what extent that may have factored into the year-to-year drop. On Friday, Democrats introduced a joint resolution to end what they described as 'egregious attacks on DC home rule', stating that Trump was overreaching in his actions in Washington. The Democratic US congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland issued a statement saying Trump's decision to send the military into the nation's capital was meant to distract the public from the president's 'close friendship' with the late convicted sex offender and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Related: Three states to deploy hundreds of national guard troops to Washington DC Raskin's statement also alluded to broken promises from the Trump administration to fully divulge all files pertaining to the prosecutions of Epstein and his associate, the convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell. 'The only emergency here is a lawless president experiencing a growing public relations emergency because of his … stubborn refusal to release the Epstein file despite his promise to do so,' Raskin's statement said. Other Democrats echoed the sentiment that Trump's move was an attempt to distract from criticism over Epstein and an economy that was struggling amid the passage of his congressional agenda bill, which included a historic $1tn cut to Medicaid. 'What's happening here in Washington DC is just a stunt. Donald Trump didn't like the fact that the walls were closing in on him, that his own base was questioning why he wouldn't release the Epstein files, why he was protecting very powerful people,' Chris Murphy, the US senator from Connecticut, told NBC on Sunday. 'He didn't want to talk any more about the fact that our healthcare system is about to collapse because of the cuts that they have made, that premiums are going to go up by 75% on Americans. And so true to form, he just decided to create a new news cycle.' Murphy added: 'He's just trying to distract from the stories he doesn't want Americans to be talking about.' Solve the daily Crossword
