Court Opinion

ID: 9860341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:18:17.924445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:10.565639
License: Public Domain

CONNOR T. HANSEN, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority and would affirm the order of the trial court.
The facts are undisputed. Forte was returned to Wisconsin from Illinois to appear as a witness in response to a certificate and summons issued pursuant to sec. 976.02, Stats., Uniform Aet for the Extradition of Witnesses in Criminal Actions. The proceedings for the return of Forte were instigated by the defendant in a case then pending in the Wisconsin court. It also appears that at the time Forte returned to Wisconsin to appear as a witness, he was on parole for a prior conviction in Wisconsin and that he was in Illinois with the knowledge and consent of the Wisconsin parole authorities.
During the course of the trial in which Forte was to testify, the trial court found him in contempt of court and he was incarcerated. While thus incarcerated,- his parole agent in making a routine check of the jail roster observed Forte’s name, and instituted parole revocation proceedings based upon his conduct prior to his return to Wisconsin to appear as a witness. His parole was revoked and he was returned to a penal institution.
On these facts, the majority would hold that a writ of habeas corpus should be granted because under sec. 976.02, Stats., when Forte was returned to Wisconsin as *513a witness in a criminal case he was afforded “protection from arrest and the service of civil and criminal process.”
The majority sees the narrow issue to be whether Wisconsin, having proceeded under sec. 976.02, Stats., may thereafter determine it is not bound by the statute. They then continue to hold as a matter of “public policy” that Wisconsin may not withdraw or limit the protections assured by the laws involved or the court documents filed. I do not perceive this to be the issue of the case, nor do I consider it to be an appropriate case for the exercise of a judicial public policy determination.
In my opinion, the issue is whether sec. 976.02, Stats., is applicable to or can be construed so as to include parole revocation proceedings. Forte was not returned to Wisconsin because he was on parole, but to appear as a witness in a criminal case. One is prompted to inquire what would happen if the conduct of Forte, while in Wisconsin under summons as a witness, was such that in the judgment of the parole authorities, proceedings should be instituted to revoke his parole?
I respectfully submit that the majority has, in effect, by judicial decision amended a legislative enactment. The statute must now be read to say that a proceeding under sec. 976.02, Stats., requires the state to “give to the witness protection from arrest and the service of civil and criminal process and parole revocation proceedings.” The provisions of sec. 976.02 do not apply to parole revocation proceedings and the order of the trial court should be affirmed.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice HANLEY and Mr. Justice ROBERT W. HANSEN join in this dissenting opinion.