Court Opinion

ID: 9666985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:32:02.898824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:33.946484
License: Public Domain

STEINMETZ, J.
(Concurring). I disagree with the Chief Justice's statement in his concurring opinion that secs. 968.02(3) and 968.26, Stats., may be against *373good public policy from a historical perspective. These statutes are a part of the public policy of this state and have withstood the test of time, and as Justice Day describes in his concurring opinion, these statutes promoted victims' rights before that term became popular in political circles.
The fear that, "What will be charged can lie within the whim of any complainant" (Chief Justice Heffer-nan's concurring opinion at 367) is an unfounded one. Section 968.02(3), Stats., requires the circuit judge to find that "there is probable cause to believe that the person to be charged has committed an offense after conducting a hearing" and the judge "may" then issue a complaint. Section 968.26 only requires the issuance of a complaint "[i]f it appears probable from the testimony given that a crime has been committed and who committed it. . ." The validation of these statutes does not, as the concurrence suggests, revive "the pernicious practice of private prosecutions by persons who owe no allegiance to society as a whole." (Chief Justice Heffernan's concurring opinion at 367.)
The John Doe statute particularly assists the district attorneys as well as victims. The district attorney can ask a judge to conduct a John Doe and thereby (1) force victims to testify under oath; (2) ask for witness immunity to develop the investigation; and (3) have an investigation conducted in secret at the judge's discretion to protect the development of the investigation. These are tools of investigation not within the authority of the district attorney.
I agree entirely with the majority decision.
I am authorized to state that JUSTICE LOUIS J. CECI joins this concurring opinion.