Is Justice Bradley Unstable?
September 8, 2011
With all due respect, that question is begged by the Dane County Sheriff’s Department and its handling of information disclosed to its investigators in the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court controversy.
Several sentences describing interviews with Justice Bradley and her husband are blacked out in the official reports:
The Department’s explanation is that it was observing statutory guidelines in redacting material concerning “medical, mental health, juvenile, and financial information” that could be damaging to “the reputation of any person referred to” in the investigative record. But it was OK to include Bradley and her husband’s statements to investigators that damaged the reputation of Justice David Prosser?
It’s clear the person referred to is Justice Bradley. What’s less clear is why her husband, who witnessed nothing of the now-discredited “choking incident,” was interviewed. The redactions deepen the mystery of why a non-witness—and only this non-witness—was thought capable of contributing to the investigation.
We’re told by persons with law enforcement experience that it’s highly unusual for medical or mental health information to be redacted from an investigator’s report. Such a redaction would seem especially unusual in a case where the information withheld could be crucial to understanding what happened in Justice Bradley’s office this past June.
Wisconsin citizens deserve to know if a Justice who has been accused by four colleagues of rushing one of them and waving a fist in his face might be using a medical or mental health issue as justification..
At least someone’s doing the right thing. The weekly newspaper in Sun Prairie is apologizing to Justice Prosser for damaging his reputation.