November 20, 2021

By Leroy Knohl

I am not a lawyer, but I always believed this country at least tried to dispense equal justice for all.  But, as I followed the proceedings in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial what I saw was just the opposite.  Although Rittenhouse killed two people, had no justifiable business even being in that protest, was illegally toting a fully-loaded assault rifle and certainly deserved to go to jail for his crimes, the judge would have none of it!  And throughout the trial the judge took actions to insure Kyle would go free. 

When I heard the verdict, I expected that the judge would be the focus of any newspaper account of the acquittal because it was his continued violation of his professional code of conduct that led to acquittal—nothing else—and I was shocked when I found no reference to him in the entire coverage.

I would love to recount every instance I learned of the judge violating proper procedures for a judge, but the most egregious should suffice: by ruling that the defendant didn’t violate Wisconsin’s gun law the judge in essence declared an under-age person who carries a deadly assault weapon is not in violation while a person carrying brass knuckles definitely would be in violation—a more obvious example of fraud on the court I cannot conceive.

The lieutenant governor of Wisconsin stated precisely what I had come to conclude: Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes denounced the outcome. “Over the last few weeks, many dreaded the outcome we just witnessed,” Barnes said. “The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is what we should expect from our judicial system, but that standard is not always applied equally. We have seen so many Black and brown youth killed, only to be put on trial posthumously, while the innocence of Kyle Rittenhouse was virtually demanded by the judge.”  virtually demanded by the judge!  Definitely the most apt description.

We really have to demand that the Department of Justice conduct an investigation of the criminal justice system of Wisconsin.  This case has so many red flags: “Bruce Edward Schroeder is the longest-serving state court judge in Wisconsin.” (WIKIPEDIA); numerous news articles about the case mentioned that all of the prosecutors were very familiar with his biased handling of cases to favor the accused; his actions in the Rittenhouse case were not merely slights of his duty to avoid bias or prejudice, but more properly described as him demanding innocence for the defendant; the fact that such an unprofessional judge, and one known to “bend the rules” in favor of the defendant, had been assigned to hear this case smells of the fingerprints of the NRA and the gun manufacturers desperately wanting to create a verdict that they can claim as justification for Americans to go on killing with their favorite toy.  And while they conduct their investigation, I suggest that the DOJ explore the possibility of criminal charges for the judge; his behavior parallels the types of damaging actions that many of our criminal laws address.

And I’m sure that you expect our judges to deliver equal justice in their every case, as do I.  The blatant violation of this principle leads me to present the dictates which Judge Schroeder was required to follow:

“Center for Professional Responsibility Publications Model Code of Judicial Conduct Model Code of Judicial Conduct: Canon 2

Rule 2.3: Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment

 (A) A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, without bias or prejudice.

(B) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice.

“ABA Groups Center for Professional Responsibility

Rule 2.3: Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment

 (A) A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, without bias or prejudice.

(B) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice.

Just in case you thought you misunderstood the judge’s job, now you know you were right!