Title: Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. Frank Crivello
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1997AP001744-J
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: July 1, 1997

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
97-1744-J 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Judicial 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
the Honorable Frank T. Crivello, 
Circuit Court Judge. 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST 
CRIVELLO 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
July 1, 1997 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating: Geske, J., did not participate. 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
No. 97-1744-J 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 97-1744-J 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Judicial Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against the HON. FRANK T. 
CRIVELLO, Circuit Judge, Milwaukee County. 
FILED 
 
JULY 1, 1997 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
Judicial Disciplinary Proceeding.  Reprimand imposed.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The Judicial Commission of Wisconsin 
commenced this proceeding by filing a complaint with the court 
June 10, 1997 alleging that the Hon. Frank T. Crivello, circuit 
judge for Milwaukee county, engaged in judicial misconduct, 
defined in Wis. Stat. § 757.81(4)(a) as “a wilful violation of a 
rule of the code of judicial ethics,” by battering his wife and 
causing her bodily harm, thus violating former SCR 60.131 
proscribing a judge’s “gross personal misconduct.” With the 
complaint there was filed a stipulation of the Judicial 
Commission and Judge Crivello in which the judge admitted the 
judicial misconduct allegations of the complaint, acknowledged 
that he has no defense to those allegations, and agreed that the 
court might impose an appropriate sanction upon consideration of 
                     
1 The court replaced the Code of Judicial Ethics with the 
Code of Judicial Conduct, effective January 1, 1997. Because it 
occurred in 1996, Judge Crivello’s conduct is covered by the 
earlier Code.  
No. 97-1744-J 
 
2 
the admitted allegations and the matters set forth in the 
stipulation in respect to mitigation. The parties expressly 
waived referral of this matter for the appointment of a judicial 
conduct panel under Wis. Stat. § 757.87(1) and(3)2 for a hearing 
and submission of its findings of fact, conclusions of law and a 
recommendation regarding appropriate discipline to be imposed 
for the misconduct.  
¶2 
The complaint and stipulation filed in this proceeding 
make a hearing unnecessary and, as the parties have waived the 
hearing provided in the statutory procedure, we exercise our 
discretion to consider this matter on the pleading and papers 
filed, without first obtaining findings, conclusions and a 
recommendation of a judicial conduct panel. Having considered 
the allegations set forth in the complaint, Judge Crivello’s 
admission of them, and the parties’ stipulation of facts that 
                     
2 Sec. 757.87 provides, in pertinent part:  
Request for jury; panel., (1) After the commission has 
found probable cause that a judge or court commissioner has 
engaged in misconduct or has a permanent disability, and before 
the commission files a formal complaint or a petition under s. 
757.85(5), the commission may, by a majority of its total 
membership not disqualified from voting, request a jury hearing. 
If a jury is not requested, the matter shall be heard by a panel 
constituted under sub. (3). The vote of each member on the 
question of a jury request shall be recorded and shall be 
available for public inspection under s. 19.35 after the formal 
complaint or the petition is filed.  
. . . 
(3) A judicial conduct and permanent disability panel shall 
consist of 3 court of appeals judges or 2 court of appeals 
judges and one reserve judge. Each judge may be selected from 
any court of appeals district including the potential selection 
of all judges from the same district. The chief judge of the 
court of appeals shall select the judges and designate which 
shall be presiding judge.  
No. 97-1744-J 
 
3 
may be considered in mitigation of the discipline to be imposed, 
we determine that Judge Crivello’s misconduct warrants a 
reprimand.  
¶3 
Judge Crivello has served as judge of the circuit 
court for Milwaukee county since 1984 and has not been the 
subject of a prior disciplinary proceeding. His current term of 
office will expire July 31, 1997. After the conduct considered 
in this proceeding had occurred, he ran for reelection to that 
position and was defeated.  
¶4 
The misconduct charged and admitted was an incident 
that occurred in the late evening of January 7, 1996, when the 
police responded to an emergency telephone call from Judge 
Crivello’s wife at their residence. After observing cuts, 
abrasions and bruises on Ms. Crivello’s face and head, the 
police spoke with Judge Crivello and observed that he recently 
had been consuming alcohol. Following their investigation at the 
scene, they placed Judge Crivello under arrest for domestic 
violence/battery. Judge Crivello subsequently was charged in a 
criminal complaint in circuit court with battery -- causing 
bodily harm to his wife by an act done with intent to cause 
bodily harm, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 940.19(1), a Class A 
misdemeanor.  
¶5 
In determining appropriate discipline to impose for 
Judge Crivello’s misconduct, we consider the purpose of judicial 
discipline –- “to protect the court system and the public it 
serves 
from 
unacceptable 
judicial 
behavior.” 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Gorenstein, 147 Wis. 2d 861, 873, 434 N.W.2d 
603 (1988). To accomplish that purpose, we have disciplined 
No. 97-1744-J 
 
4 
judges for misconduct that “has demonstrated that [the judge] 
lacks the fitness to serve in our courts as a judge,” 
Gorenstein, supra, 874, and for misconduct that “can potentially 
have serious impact on the public trust and confidence in the 
judicial system,” Disciplinary Proceedings Against Dreyfus, 182 
Wis. 2d 121, 130, 513 N.W.2d 604 (1994).  
¶6 
The matter before us here involves a single incident 
of a judge’s purely personal, but for that no less opprobrious, 
conduct. It did not involve Judge Crivello’s use of his judicial 
office. Nonetheless, he stipulated that there is clear and 
convincing evidence he violated the battery statute and that by 
battering his wife he engaged in gross personal misconduct.  
¶7 
In their stipulation, the parties agreed that under 
the circumstances and in view of Judge Crivello’s admissions and 
his efforts to atone for his misconduct, an appropriate 
disciplinary sanction for it would be a public reprimand. The 
parties stipulated that since the misconduct, Judge Crivello 
“has taken significant steps to rectify the situation which gave 
rise to the event in question and has engaged in marital 
counseling and has also participated in appropriate recovery 
programs  . . . and  . . . has engaged in community outreach 
programs with the Milwaukee Women’s Center.” While we are in no 
way bound by the parties’ agreement on what constitutes 
appropriate 
discipline 
to 
impose 
for 
Judge 
Crivello’s 
misconduct, we do not ignore the factors on which they base that 
agreement.  
¶8 
It is our independent determination on our review of 
the record that Judge Crivello be reprimanded for his misconduct 
No. 97-1744-J 
 
5 
established in this proceeding. We recognize that Judge Crivello 
has 
well 
and 
ably 
served 
the 
judicial 
system 
and 
its 
administration, including, as the record shows, many years of 
service to the court’s Office of Judicial Education and the 
Wisconsin Judicial College, on the faculty of the National 
Judicial College, and on numerous Supreme Court and judicial 
administrative 
district 
committees. 
Under 
all 
of 
the 
circumstances 
presented, 
a 
reprimand 
is 
the 
appropriate 
disciplinary response.  
¶9 
IT IS ORDERED that the Hon. Frank T. Crivello is 
reprimanded for judicial misconduct.  
JANINE P. GESKE, J., did not participate.