Stephanie Snyder Sentencing Raises Questions About Judicial Consistency, Public Interest, and Possible Bias

Manitowoc County Courthouse

The sentencing of Stephanie Snyder in Manitowoc County on Monday has raised questions about judicial consistency, prosecutorial decision-making, and the meaning of the phrase “interest of the public.” Snyder received one year in the Manitowoc County Jail for First Degree Reckless Homicide. While free on bail for the homicide charge, she was charged with seven new felony offenses, many of which were connected to ongoing drug activity.

Residents are questioning why Snyder received a plea agreement that spared her from prison, while the court continues to reject a plea agreement in the unrelated homicide case of Timothy Hauschultz. In Hauschultz’s case, the court stated that accepting the plea "does not serve the interest of the public". Critics argue that the contrast is stark: a defendant who committed no new offenses is denied a negotiated resolution, while a defendant who accumulated seven new felony charges while on bail received a plea agreement that resulted in a county jail sentence rather than a state prison term.

The disparity has increased scrutiny of sentencing patterns in Manitowoc County. Judge Anthony Lambrecht, who oversaw Snyder’s case, also serves as a Drug Court judge. He has issued other lenient sentences in cases involving drug activity that resulted in death. Observers state that this mirrors a pattern seen under Judge Jerilyn Dietz, who has been a public advocate for the recovery community. The trend raises questions about whether courts in Manitowoc County are prioritizing rehabilitation over accountability, even in cases involving fatalities.

The contrast between the Snyder sentencing and the handling of the Hauschultz plea has prompted residents to question how the judiciary defines the public interest. Taxpayers argue that they now face the cost of a lengthy jury trial for Hauschultz, while another homicide case concluded with a sentence that appears inconsistent with the court’s stated commitment to protecting the public.

Concerns about judicial consistency expand beyond criminal court. Judge Carey Reed, who presides over the Hauschultz criminal case, is also the presiding judge in a related but separate family court matter involving the mother of homicide victim Ethan Hauschultz. Court records show that Judge Reed granted the mother sole custody and sole placement of another child. This order was issued despite the fact that neither her attorney nor the Guardian ad Litem filed evidence indicating that the father was unfit. The decision was also made despite the mother’s documented history of child neglect, including the removal of all of her children from her home due to unsafe and drug-related conditions.

The removal of the children from the mother’s home directly resulted in Ethan being placed in the care of Timothy Hauschultz. Some locals contend that if the mother had not neglected her children, Ethan would never have been placed in Timothy’s home. This has led to questions regarding why the mother was never charged, investigated, or held responsible for the circumstances that placed Ethan in danger. Critics argue that she was the first person to expose Ethan to harm, yet she now holds full custody of another child.

Observers also question how this outcome aligns with the intent of Ethan’s Law. The statute was created to prevent children from being placed in unsafe environments or with individuals who pose a risk of harm from a history of child neglect or abuse. Some argue that the law should also prevent placement with parents who have previously exposed their children to dangerous or neglectful conditions that resulted in state intervention and fatal consequences. Critics say the court’s decision appears inconsistent with the very protections that Ethan’s Law was designed to provide.

There is no recorded finding of fact in Judge Reed’s custody order explaining what evidence supported the conclusion that granting the mother sole placement and custody was in the best interest of the child. The absence of findings raises questions about whether proper judicial standards were followed, and whether the decision relied on personal perceptions rather than documented evidence.

These overlapping cases have led to broader concerns regarding whether Judge Reed is protecting the public, or whether he is extending protection to a mother he may view as a victim in the homicide case and as a struggling parent in the family court case. Critics argue that these dual roles create a perception of bias, particularly if personal impressions influence rulings across unrelated legal proceedings.

A larger question has also emerged regarding whether individuals with addiction histories in Manitowoc County receive unintentional protection from judges who publicly support recovery organizations while off the bench. Residents argue that repeated leniency in cases involving drug-related deaths, combined with favorable treatment for individuals connected to addiction or recovery narratives, suggests a pattern where the court may view these individuals primarily as victims rather than as responsible offenders.

The debate continues as the community examines how Manitowoc County defines accountability, justice, and public safety. With inconsistent sentencing outcomes, disputed custody rulings, and contradictory interpretations of the public interest standard, residents are questioning whether justice in Manitowoc County is being applied evenly or influenced by personal beliefs, external affiliations, or subjective narratives.

More on this story later. Until then STAY VOCAL!