
Yes, We Have a Prosecutor Problem
Waukesha's tragedy reminds us that ideas have consequences
Itās unclear whether Miranda Devine, a conservative Australian columnist and writer, has ever been to Waukesha, Wisconsin. But, nonetheless, she has strong opinions about what happened there.
āThereās a reason that the Waukesha massacre has faded from the national media,ā she wrote in her fellow Aussie, Rupert Murdochās New York Post. āThereās a reason that MSNBC and CNN and CBS refer to it as merely a āparade crashā and quickly move on to other news.ā
Thereās a reason that President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have not prejudged the violent, racist, BLM-supporting career criminal charged with murder for driving his SUV deliberately into a Christmas parade in the mostly white Wisconsin town of Waukesha on Sunday, killing six innocents, including an 8-year-old boy, and injuring 62 others.
Thereās a reason the media are incurious about the hate-filled, anti-white social-media posts of suspect Darrell Brooks.
It goes onā¦.
If youāve spent any time following right-wing media you know that the incident in Waukesha has been a major, recurring outrage, as commentators have rushed to score political points off the tragedy.
The reality is that, despite the speculation, we donāt know why Darrell Brooks drove into the parade route. We donāt yet know whether it was, in fact, a deliberate hate crime. And columnists like Devine arenāt waiting for the evidence to catch up to their priors.
But we do know a great deal about one aspect of the case: the role that Milwaukeeās progressive prosecutor played in putting Brooks back on the street in the days before the tragedy. And while some of the criticism of Milwaukee District Attorney John Chisholm is over-the-top, much of it is, in fact, richly deserved.
The night that Brooks ran into the Waukesha parade, he was out on $1,000 bail, in a case where he was accused of punching the mother of his child and running her over with the same SUV that he drove into the marchers.
It gets worse.
As the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported: āAt the time, Brooks was [also] out on bail in a different case, in which he was charged with firing a gun during an argument with a relative. Brooks was released on Nov. 16 after he posted the $1,000 bail.ā Brooks also had an outstanding warrant for his arrest in Nevada.
The absurdly low bail was so indefensible that Chisholm did not even try to defend it. In the wake of the Waukesha tragedy, the Milwaukee DA said that the $1,000 bail ā recommended by his own office, ā was āinappropriately low", and announced that he was ordering an āinternal review.ā
But this is hogwash, because the low bail was not an outlier in Chisholmās office. In fact, it represented his pattern and practice, as well as his well-known ideological approach to incarceration.
āThe liberal prosecutor believes cash bail is harmful to poor defendants who often can't afford to pay the sum set by judges for their release from jail before trial,ā noted columnist Daniel Bice.
The handling of the Brooks case was especially egregious.
Darrell Brooks has been charged with crimes 10 times since 1999, when Brooks ā who was then 17 years old ā pleaded guilty to a felony charge of inflicting substantial bodily harm.
A decade ago, during a traffic stop, a Milwaukee police officer jumped inside Brooksā car, fearing he was about to be run over. The officer had pulled him over for not wearing a seat belt. As Brooks began to drive away while the officer was talking to him, the officer got inside the car and wrestled for control of the steering wheel.
Eventually, the officer was able to stop the car and removed the keys. Brooks ran away from the car, court records say, and he was arrested hiding in a children's playhouse in the same block. He later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge in that case.
More recently, Brooks was charged in July 2020 with two felony counts of second-degree recklessly endangering safety and possession of a firearm by a felon. He was accused of getting into a fight with a relative and then firing a gun at the relative and a friend, according to court records.
His bail was set at $10,000 and then reduced to $7,500. Prosecutors were prepared to go forward with his jury trial on Feb. 9, according to the district attorney's office's statement. Brooks was still in custody at that time and had made a speedy trial demand, but because another jury trial was in progress in the same court, the case was postponed.
After hearing arguments from Brooks' attorney, bail was dropped to $500ā¦
**
Until this month, Chisolm was the very model of a Modern Progressive Prosecutor.
In 2015, he was featured in a glowing profile in The New Yorker headlined: āThe Milwaukee Experiment.ā The piece, by Jeffrey Toobin, recounted Chisholmās determination to reduce the number of offenders who were jailed. It quotes an admirer saying: āChisholm stuck his neck out there and started saying that prosecutors should also be judged by their success in reducing mass incarceration and achieving racial equality.ā
āJohn is a national leader in law enforcement, because he is genuinely interested in trying to achieve the right results, not only in individual cases but in larger policy issues as well,ā Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., the Manhattan District Attorney, told Toobin.
As The Free Beacon notes, Chisholm has ātaken credit for inspiring a new wave of prosecutors in cities like San Francisco, St. Louis, and Philadelphia who have enacted similar reforms. Chisholm congratulated San Francisco district attorney Chesa Boudin following his election in 2019, and the pair spoke at a forum earlier this year on the status of the progressive prosecutor movement.ā
Chisholm has aggressively pursued his policy of diversion and low bail, despite acknowledging the risks.
āIs there going to be an individual I divert, or I put into a treatment program, who is going to go out and kill somebody? You bet,ā Chisholm said in a 2007 interview. āGuaranteed. Itās guaranteed to happen. It does not invalidate the overall approach.ā
This month, Darrell Brooks killed six people.
**
The New York Times sought to downplay the role that Chisholmās policies may have had in the Waukesha incident, suggesting that āthe controversial release may have been not a policy decision, but the result of happenstance and other factors ā an inexperienced junior prosecutor and a rushed supervisor up against a huge backlog of cases that piled up during the coronavirus pandemic, according to court documents and interviews with judges, prosecutors, local officials and defense lawyers.ā
But Chisholmās policy of low bail, and his deferred prosecution program were controversial long before Brooks drove into the parade.
In 2010, the Journal Sentinel reviewed Chisholmās program and found ādozens of examples that raise questions about how the⦠program is being implemented.ā The newspaperās investigation found that the program āhas grown into a major initiative that allows hundreds of defendants each year to walk away from criminal charges with little or no consequences in exchange for getting treatment and staying out of trouble.ā
Some defendants awarded breaks under the program committed serious crimes, including several that prosecutors admit violate their own policy, a Journal Sentinel analysis of three years of court records has foundā¦.
Among the findings:
ā¢āMilwaukee prosecutors offered deferred agreements, in select cases, to defendants charged with felony sexual assault, high-volume cocaine and marijuana trafficking, armed robbery and other weapons crimes.
More than 200 defendants charged with offenses such as felony assault to police officers, prostitution, burglary, felony child abuse, lewd behavior and graffiti were given deferred prosecutions.
ā¢āSome offenders were given successive plea deals after getting arrested on new charges and failing to meet the terms of earlier agreements.
ā¢āAt least a dozen people with extensive criminal records were given deferred agreements.
In one case, the paper found, āa Milwaukee man had a first-degree sexual assault charge dismissed after he completed a year of treatment and counseling, even though he was accused of molesting a 2-year-old girl ā a crime that carries a maximum 60-year prison sentence.ā
**
More recent studies found that low bail had become a norm under Chisholmās watch, even as crime spiked in Milwaukee.
A 2019 study by the John K. MacIver Institute found that:
When it comes to crimes like felony hit and run, defendants are often released without any kind of supervision at all. So far this year, judges have released 11 of 31 defendants charged with hit and run involving injury or great bodily harm without supervision. Their bail was set as low as $250.
Additionally, there have been 5 felony hit and run cases involving death. One defendant, Christopher M. Grosskreuz is accused of running over a woman in a West Allis alley and leaving her to die. Video evidence showed his vehicle drug her body. He was released with minimal supervision and a mere $5,000 signature bond.
**
My colleague, Jonathan V. Last, wrote yesterday about the Democratsā crime problem, which he argued is largely a gun problem. He is, as usual, right.
But as the Waukesha-Milwaukee story ought to make clear: Democrats also have a Prosecutors Problem. And it will be a major issue in next yearās mid-term election (especially in Wisconsin).
Expect to hear a lot more about it.
I had some thoughts.

Quick Hits
1. Conservative Media Makes Up a Fake Florida Mansion for Nancy Pelosi
Absolutely fabulous piece by Jim Swift on the anatomy of a viral lie.
Over the weekend, Conservatism Inc. found a new scandal to promote: A false report that Nancy Pelosi had purchased a $25 million mansion in Florida, home to 2024 hopeful, Gov. Ron DeSantis and former President Trump. To underscore: This story is false. Nancy Pelosi has not bought a $25 million mansion in Florida.
But watching how the fake news blew through the conservative ecosystem is illuminating.
2. The Rightās New Legal Crusade Against Corporate Free Speech
Corbin Barthold in todayās Bulwark:
Conservatives have soured, to put it mildly, on corporate free speech. Last spring Senator Mitch McConnell urged ācorporate Americaā to āstay out of politics.ā (He later backtracked, perhaps realizing that he is not one to talk on the subject.) āBig Business has gone hard left,ā Senator Ted Cruz recently protested. At the Federalist Societyās national convention last month, many top conservative lawyers questioned corporate political power. āMassive corporations,ā one speaker asserted, are seeking āto destroy American freedom.ā Vivek Ramaswamy, a tech entrepreneur and critic of woke culture āhe is the author of the new book Woke, Inc.āendorsed the leftās objection to Citizens United v. FEC (the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that conservatives loved). In political debates, he said, āevery personās voice and voteā should be āweighted equally, unadjusted by the number of dollars they control.ā
As David Brooks observes, the right is coalescing around a new project: āusing state powerā to āhumble the big corporationsā and āpush back against coastal cultural values.ā But vowing to enact laws that tame woke capitalism is one thing; crafting and passing legislation another; and ensuring that that legislation is constitutional yet another.
Cheap Shots
Insanity update.
It strikes me that two things are true at once here. One, that he absolutely should not have been granted such a low bail. Two, that cash bail is almost always something that penalizes the poor, not the worst offenders. This isn't a matter of 'true communism has never been tried.' It's been demonstrated that cash bail is a way for lots of places to keep their poorest offenders in jail, where they are then charged for it, and then are imprisoned longer because of their inability to pay. It is decidedly un-egalitarian that one's wealth should decide whether or not they are in prison.
Again, none of this means that this person should have been granted such a low bail. But that doesn't take away that cash bail is a racket designed to punish the poor.
The purpose of bail is to ensure that the defendant shows up for court, not to punish defendants before they can be tried. Imposing reflexively high bail on all defendants may be politically popular, but it amounts to a presumption of guilt against the indigent, who are given the choice between pleading guilty or serving an entire sentence while awaiting trial. On the flip side, a wealthy person who can post a large bail may still pose a danger to the community. Imagine that the Waukesha defendant had posted bail of $10,000 or even $100,000. Does anyone think that would have stopped him, in the agitated state he was in, from driving into the parade? Higher bail would not have saved those people.
There is a solution here, and that is to deny bail altogether for defendants who are deemed to be dangerous or a flight risk. Force judges to go on record when making those determinations, and bring those cases to trial quickly. For other defendants, bail should be affordable, and not more than necessary to assure the defendant's return to court.