One word. Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley would have thrown out a murder conviction over one inconsequential word.

Donyil Anderson, a confessed murderer of his ex-wife and mother of his child, appealed his 2008 conviction based on jury instructions that said Anderson was under the influence of “drugs OR alcohol” when it should have said “drugs AND alcohol.”
That’s it. Bradley would have given a confessed murderer a re-trial and another chance at going free over the word “or.”
A release from Rock County Judge James Daley, a candidate for Wisconsin Supreme Court and the judge who handed Anderson his life sentence for murder, explained the case:
The Rock County case involves the August 2008 first-degree intentional homicide conviction of Donyil Anderson (State v. Anderson). Anderson, while intoxicated and under the influence of prescription medication, broke into his ex-wife’s house, murdering the mother if his child. Anderson confessed to the murder, and with Judge James Daley presiding was convicted to life in prison. During jury instructions, Daley instructed the jury to use the words “drugs OR alcohol” as having provided for a diminished capacity as asserted by the defense.
Anderson appealed his conviction based on the single word in the Judge’s jury instruction – that of OR versus his contention that the jury instruction should have used the conjunction AND when considering the impact of drugs/alcohol. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Rock County Court finding the trial judge erred in the jury instruction.
The State appealed the reversal by the Appeals Court to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In a 5-2 decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the Appeals Court, upholding Judge Daley’s original life sentence conviction for the murderer.
Justice Ann Walsh Bradley was joined by Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson in the dissent, agreeing with the Appeals Court Decision. Bradley’s objection had she been successful would have brought a retrial of Anderson, forcing a more sympathetic view of the insanity defense, and increasing the likelihood of a “not guilty” charge.
In a concurring opinion for the majority that re-instated Daley’s conviction, Supreme Court Justice David Prosser wrote, “any error in the jury instruction would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” But Justice Bradley was willing to give the confessed murderer the benefit of the doubt.
Daley squares off against Justice Bradley on April 7.
He released a radio ad Tuesday to highlight Bradley’s baffling decision in the Anderson case.
Published with permission.
Leave a Comment
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.