Update On Predatory D.A.

(Trigger warning for discussion of domestic violence, prosecutorial misconduct in domestic violence cases, attempts to coerce sex from a position of authority, and lawyerly attempts to impugn the motives of victims)

Action is being taken by the state of Wisconsin which may remove D.A. Kenneth Kratz, the subject of my previous post It's Hard Out There For A D.A., from his position as District Attorney of Calumet County, WI.

As detailed in this story at JSOnline, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle Wednesday received several formal complaints about Kratz from residents of Calumet Co. regarding his treatment of crime victim Stephanie Van Groll, in response to which Doyle has appointed a state lawyer and former D.A. of a different county, Bob Jambois, to be the commissioner of a public hearing into whether there is cause to remove Kratz from office.

Jambois will then report back to the governor, who will make the determination as to whether to remove Kratz. Grounds for removal include “inefficiency, neglect of duty, official misconduct or malfeasance in office.”

The state Department of Justice will prosecute the case against Kratz at the hearing. This is the same state DOJ which previously found that Kratz had "not acted illegally" in bombarding Van Groll with personal and sexually suggestive text messages for several days after interviewing her about the criminal case against her ex-boyfriend, who had attempted to strangle her.

The texts stopped only when the victim reported them to the police, out of fear that if she did not accede to the D.A.'s suggestion of a sexual relationship between them, he might not pursue the case against the man who tried to kill her.

It may be, however, that public outrage since the D.A.'s behavior became known may cause the state DOJ to take a more rigorous look at that behavior, and view the situation more as one of an officer of the court preying on crime victims, rather than, say, a fellow attorney and public official trying to have a little fun on the side. Pure speculation on my part, of course.

It's also worth noting that "illegal conduct" and "official misconduct" measure different standards of conduct.

Several people suggested, in the comment thread to my previous post on this, that this was likely not Kratz' first attempt to coerce sex from someone he dealt with in a professional capacity. Way to recognize a practiced predator, commenters! Since the story of Kratz' behavior toward this victim became public, at least three other women have come forward to say that Kratz behaved inappropriately toward them.

One woman whom Kratz had met through an online dating service said that (.pdf), while she was having dinner with him, he had taken several calls regarding the case of a missing woman, who police suspected had been killed by her boyfriend. This woman says that Kratz inappropriately shared information about the case with her, and subsequently invited her to attend the victim's autopsy with him, with the condition that she "would be his girlfriend and would wear high heels and a skirt."

Another young woman, a law student, has reported that, when she sought D.A. Kratz' support in securing a pardon for an earlier drug conviction, to enable her to join the bar on completion of her studies, he agreed to assist her, and then pressured her for sex. The governor, who did grant that woman the pardon she had applied for, says he is "particularly troubled" by these allegations.

There was an (alleged) attempt to use my power as governor — my pardon power — to somehow have a relationship with a woman. That is something I take very seriously. Subverting the pardon power of the governor — that’s a very serious allegation.

Well, yes, governor, yes it is. But then preying on crime victims from the position of District Attorney strikes me as "particularly troubling" and "a very serious allegation" also. I don't see the problem of a predatory District Attorney rising to the point of being "particularly troubling" and "very serious" only when it impacts the governor's office.

Kratz' attorney, Robert Craanen, you will sadly not be surprised to learn, has said, "There are no depths to which I will not sink in attempting to defend the indefensible."* Oh, wait, no — he didn't say that, exactly. What he said was that he questions the motives of the women who have come forward since the story of Kratz' behavior with Van Groll became public.

“It really is an economic opportunity for these individuals. I look at their stories in that light. There’s something to be gained by these people, other than to correct a wrongdoing.

Craanen hasn't actually talked to his client about any of these additional accusations, as it happens, leaving him free to speculate out his ass about the motives of the victims.

D.A. Kratz, it seems, is "receiving inpatient therapy" and had, at the time his attorney threw these completely baseless accusations against his client's accusers into the mix, conveniently not been available to discuss with his attorney his actual behavior toward them.

The governor has also questioned why the Office of Lawyer Regulation, operated by the state Supreme Court, found Kratz guilty of no misconduct after he had taken it upon himself to report to them last year the allegations made by Van Groll. An OLR intake investigator subsequently sent Van Groll a letter saying that the messages Kratz had texted to her were "inappropriate", but “did not appear to involve possible professional misconduct.”

State Representative Terese Berceau is also questioning the actions of the OLR in that case, and has written to the legislature's audit committee requesting an audit of the OLR, although the article does not give any information about what is involved in such an audit.

(*For the record, I understand, and believe, that everyone accused of a crime or of other misconduct which may carry substantial penalty, is entitled to present a defense, and that the duty of an attorney is to make the most persuasive case possible for the innocence of hir client. I do not, however, believe that that includes an entitlement to publicly cast aspersions which have no basis on the character of victims, nor do I believe that relying on and attempting to encourage public misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc. to create a general fog behind which a client can hide, constitutes proper defense.)

H/T to Shaker Rina