Manitowoc Bail Practices Raise Questions About Judicial Accountability and Favoritism

Manitowoc County Circuit Courthouse

In Manitowoc County, Commissioner Patricia Koppa has faced public criticism for her handling of bail. Community members have questioned whether her decisions are too lenient, particularly in cases involving repeat offenders. Bail hearings are streamed live each weekday around 12:45 p.m., and Koppa reminds the public that she must consider the defendant’s ability to pay, the need to ensure the defendant returns to court, and public safety when setting bond. While the scrutiny focuses heavily on Koppa, it raises a critical question: why are the presiding judges who set policy, guide her actions, and determine the framework of criminal case outcomes not receiving the same attention?

Bail is only the first stage of a criminal case. Its purpose is to guarantee that defendants appear in court and to protect the community from potential harm. In Manitowoc County, however, many defendants who are required to post bail are later enrolled in treatment programs under the Drug Court umbrella. While these programs offer rehabilitation opportunities, they can also reduce or eliminate criminal penalties for offenses that would otherwise carry jail time or fines. Commissioner Koppa administers bail hearings, but her decisions operate within the discretion and direction established by Judge Mark Rohrer, Judge Jerilyn Dietz, Judge Robert Dewane, and Judge Anthony Lambrecht.

Judicial Policies and Ethical Concerns

Judge Robert Dewane nomination for "ally" Award (Photo: LRCC Public FB Page)

Judge Anthony Lambrecht Nomination for "ally" Award (Photo: LRCC Public FB Page)

Over the years, several of these judges have been publicly recognized and nominated for awards by the same recovery organizations whose members appear in their courtrooms. Judge Rohrer, for example, hosted weekly cooking sessions at the Light House Recovery Community Center, with the organization advertising him as the host and quoting him directly saying, "Bring your knives from last week." Judges Dietz, Dewane, and Lambrecht have also received recognition and nominations from the Light House Recovery Community Center for their involvement in these programs.

Judge Mark Rohrer posing with memebrs of LRCC at a private event (Photo: LRCC Public FB Page).

Advertisement for a private event specifically for "those in drug court and recovery community" with Judge Rohrer (Photo: LRCC Public FB Page)

Judge Mark Rohrer (Photo: LRCC Public FB Page)

These relationships raise serious ethical questions. According to Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule SCR 60.03(2), judges may not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of themselves or others. SCR 60.03(2) notes that judges who participate in civic or advocacy-oriented organizations must not be publicly identified as a judge when acting on behalf of the organization, because even inadvertent use of the title could constitute leveraging judicial prestige. In Manitowoc, judges who are publicly celebrated and featured in organizational events create the perception of conflict of interest, particularly when their courtrooms oversee cases involving members of these organizations.

Bail, Sentencing, and Rehabilitation Programs

The April 2023 bipartisan bill signed by Governor Tony Evers amended Wisconsin law on bail. Under Wis. Stat. §969.01(B), prior violent convictions may now be considered when setting bail for new violent offenses. Bail is intended to secure a defendant’s appearance and protect the public. However, law enforcement frequently characterizes incidents as isolated, limiting the ability to cite community safety as justification for higher bail. This leaves two primary factors: the defendant’s ability to pay and the likelihood of returning to court.

Assistant District Attorney Marconi de Franca Barros typically argues for higher bail, citing prior convictions or alleged violent behavior. In some hearings, past cases are dismissed as outdated or irrelevant, weakening the state’s position and allowing the defense to successfully argue for lower bail. When bail is set, it often functions as only the first stage in a case that may result in reduced criminal penalties if the defendant is enrolled in treatment programs.

While treatment programs are a vital resource for rehabilitation, they can also serve to bypass the imposition of criminal penalties. For example, a defendant may avoid jail time entirely by participating in a Drug Court program, even for offenses that would normally carry significant sentences. This raises questions about fairness, particularly when defendants connected to recovery organizations appear to benefit more than others.

Overdose Deaths and Public Safety

The stakes of judicial decisions are not abstract. Quietly, multiple overdose deaths have occurred over the years within recovery homes housing members of these recovery communities. While judges have cited these programs as tools for mitigation in criminal cases, the tragic outcomes within the very facilities they are connected to highlight the need for transparency, impartiality, and oversight. Public safety, rehabilitation, and fairness must be balanced, yet the repeated leniency for some defendants creates the appearance of selective accountability.

Judge Jerilyn Dietz nomination for "Ally" Award (Photo: LRCC Public FB Page)

For instance, in 2019, Judge Jerilyn Dietz sentenced a man to eight years of probation, with no prison time, for selling drugs that caused another person’s death. Her justification was that the defendant should be allowed to “teach the community.” That individual was and is an active member of the Light House Recovery Community Center, which also nominated Dietz and other judges for awards.

The Need for Accountability

Patricia Koppa live streaming Bail Hearing (Photo: WI Court Live Stream)

Bail hearings and sentencing decisions in Manitowoc County highlight the authority of the presiding judges. Commissioner Koppa carries out the hearings, but her decisions reflect the framework and guidance provided by the judges. The question arises: if the community scrutinizes the commissioner for following their directives, why are the judges who create policy, participate publicly in recovery organizations, and influence sentencing outcomes not held to the same standard?

When judges are publicly involved with organizations whose members appear in their courtrooms, including hosting events or being featured in promotional materials, the perception of favoritism is unavoidable. Ethical standards, including SCR 60.03(2), exist to ensure impartiality and prevent the use of judicial prestige for private interests. In Manitowoc, these standards may appear compromised, raising legitimate questions about accountability.

Ultimately, the public debate should extend beyond Commissioner Koppa.

While she administers bail hearings, the presiding judges hold the real authority in shaping outcomes, guiding mitigation decisions, and participating in programs that influence the defendants’ future. Public scrutiny and oversight are essential to ensure that rehabilitation programs complement justice rather than replace it, and that every defendant is treated equitably, without influence from relationships or accolades tied to recovery organizations.