New Legal Moves in Ethan Hauschultz Case as Trial Nears

Timothy Hauschultz (Photo Credit Fox 11 News)

MANITOWOC COUNTY, Wis. — Nearly eight years after the 2018 death of 7‑year‑old Ethan Hauschultz, new legal developments are unfolding in a case that continues to draw scrutiny across Northeast Wisconsin.

Convicted Defendant Seeks New Relief

In recent court filings, Damian Hauschultz is seeking postconviction relief related to his 2021 conviction for first‑degree reckless homicide. Hauschultz, who was 14 at the time of Ethan’s death, is serving a 20‑year prison sentence. His attorneys argue that a judicial conflict of interest existed during earlier proceedings. The judge named in the filing has since recused, and the matter is now pending review in Manitowoc County Circuit Court.

According to reporting by WBAY, the request does not immediately alter Hauschultz’s sentence but could impact prior rulings if the court determines a conflict affected the proceedings.

Guardian’s Trial Remains Scheduled

Meanwhile, Timothy Hauschultz, Ethan’s great‑uncle and legal guardian at the time of the child’s death, is still scheduled to go to trial in February. Prosecutors allege Timothy ordered a series of punishments that escalated over several days and ultimately led to Ethan’s death. Timothy Hauschultz has pleaded not guilty.

Court records indicate that judges have rejected multiple proposed plea agreements, including attempts to resolve the case through an Alford plea, citing the severity of the allegations and the need for a jury to hear the evidence.

What Happened to Ethan Hauschultz

Ethan was found unresponsive outside a home in Newton in April 2018 after being buried in packed snow. Investigators later revealed the child had been forced to carry a heavy log and was subjected to repeated physical punishment. The Milwaukee County Medical Examiner ruled Ethan’s death a homicide caused by hypothermia and blunt force trauma.

Damian Hauschultz later told investigators he acted under Timothy Hauschultz’s direction. Those statements were documented in court filings and corroborated by law enforcement interviews and forensic findings reported by multiple news organizations.

Verification and Use of Social Media

Social media posts embedded in this story originate from verified newsroom accounts operated by WBAY, and FOX 11. Information shared in those posts was cross-checked against court documents, charging records, and prior reporting to confirm accuracy. Public comments attached to the posts were reviewed but not independently verified and are not relied upon as factual sources.

Court records reviewed through Manitowoc County Circuit Court and prior sentencing transcripts were used to confirm timelines, charges, and judicial actions referenced in this report.

In reviewing the legal arguments raised in recent filings, this reporting also considered longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent governing a defendant’s right to confront witnesses. In Douglas v. Alabama, the Court held that a conviction must be reversed when the defense is denied the opportunity to cross-examine a key witness, finding such a denial violates the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. In Crawford v. Washington, the Court further clarified that testimonial statements made outside of court cannot be used against a defendant unless the witness is unavailable and the defense had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Earlier, in Pointer v. Texas, the Court ruled that confrontation rights apply to state criminal proceedings through the Fourteenth Amendment, requiring state courts to honor a defendant’s ability to question adverse witnesses.

Judicial Dispute Over Trial Timing

Court filings and prior hearings reflect a dispute over whether the trial of Timothy Hauschultz should be delayed due to the availability and legal status of Damian Hauschultz, whom both the defense and prosecution have identified as a material witness. Attorneys on both sides have argued in open court that Damian’s testimony is central to the factual narrative of the case and that proceeding without it could limit the jury’s ability to hear relevant evidence.

Those arguments have focused on the fact that Damian is currently pursuing postconviction relief in his own case, including claims related to judicial conflict of interest. As a result, attorneys have asserted that calling Damian as a witness at this stage could implicate his Fifth Amendment rights and complicate ongoing appellate proceedings.

Despite those joint concerns, Judge Carey Reed has declined requests to delay the trial. According to court records and hearing transcripts, Reed has determined that the case should proceed as scheduled. Defense filings have raised the issue that the asserted conflict stems from Reed’s prior role as Damian Hauschultz’s guardian ad litem before ascending to the bench, a relationship they argue would not be impacting the current proceedings had recusal occurred earlier. Judge Reed has disputed that her prior involvement requires recusal in Timothy Hauschultz’s case.

The disagreement highlights a broader legal question about witness availability, conflicts of interest, and a defendant’s ability to present or challenge testimony at trial. Courts have long held that trial scheduling decisions fall within judicial discretion, but appellate courts have also recognized that such discretion must be balanced against a defendant’s constitutional rights, including the right to confront witnesses and present a defense.

Broader Impact

Ethan Hauschultz’s death prompted renewed calls for reform in Wisconsin’s child welfare system, including proposals commonly referred to as “Ethan’s Law,” which seek to strengthen safeguards for children placed in non‑parental care.

As the February trial date approaches, the case remains a focal point for discussions about accountability, judicial oversight, and the limits of plea negotiations in cases involving child abuse resulting in death.