Vol. 73, No. 2, February 2000

Public Service

Previous Page

Wisconsin's Judicial Emissaries:
Reshaping Justice Systems Worldwide

Storck and Abrahamson spent roughly two weeks in the summer of 1997 in Shanghai and Xian, working with another group of 75 judges and law professors. "When you're explaining our system to somebody else, you have to focus on the great aspects and the shortcomings," Abrahamson says. "Every system has shortcomings. I think you have to be honest with people. You have to talk about those shortcomings and what you're doing to improve the system - and what kinds of pitfalls others might avoid."

"When you're explaining our system to somebody else, you have to focus on the great aspects and the shortcomings. ... I think you have to be honest with people." Justice Shirley Abrahamson, Wisconsin Supreme Court, traveling to Shanghai and Xian, China

Storck took a highly participatory approach to teaching about American civil procedures, engaging his students in a mock trial involving a Chinese judge injured in a car accident while visiting Madison. They role-played the events all through the process, from hiring an attorney through the end of the trial. Along the way, Storck taught about discovery procedures, rules of evidence, jury selection, and other concepts - all of which are foreign to the Chinese justice system. In that system, a panel of three judges oversees all phases of a case - investigation, evidence gathering, witness questioning, and so on - as well as deciding the final outcome.

Judges in China are not lawyers by background, but come to their positions through government appointment. This is another targeted area for reform. "One of the problems they have," Storck explains, "is that during the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s the government closed all the law schools. Not only that, but also many attorneys either disappeared or were sent to the countryside. So you have a generation of attorneys now missing. Eventually you're going to see more legal training for judges. But right now they couldn't possibly require it because they wouldn't have enough judges."

"[D]uring the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s, the government closed all the law schools. ... So you have a generation of attorneys now missing." John Storck, Dodge County circuit court judge, traveling to Shanghai and Xian, China

Storck also explained to the Chinese participants how judges are elected in the United States, again taking a show-and-tell approach complete with campaign posters, balloons, stickers, and other paraphernalia from his own most recent campaign. Apparently his audience members got into it. "At the end of my talk," Storck recalls, "one of the judges blew up one of my balloons and said how much he'd enjoyed the time with us, and that in my next reelection, they'd be there to help. I said, 'Thanks, but please don't send any checks.'"

Building Foundations

Eastern Europe is another arena where judicial reforms are just getting under way. In October 1998, District I Court of Appeals Judge Ted Wedemeyer Jr. and four other American judges traveled to three former Soviet-ruled countries: the Ukraine, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. The judges went as volunteers under sponsorship by the Central and East European Law Initiative of the American Bar Association and the People to People Program, which strives to create cross-cultural exchanges of people from various occupations.

"In all three countries," Wedemeyer says, "they'd had a constitutional form of government for less than three years [at the time of his visit]. So they're struggling because they have no basic tradition" to fit with the new governmental form. This is especially true, he adds, for the Ukraine, which has had only one year of freedom before, back in 1919. Hungary and the Czech Republic have had more recent stints of constitutional government, so they have more experience to draw from.

"In all three countries, they'd had a constitutional form of government for less than three years ... so they're struggling because they have no basic tradition [to fit with the new governmental form]." Ted Wedemeyer Jr., District I Court of Appeals judge, traveling to Ukraine, Hungary, and the Czech Republic

"Imagine you're living in Wisconsin," Wedemeyer says, "and there's no banking law, no real estate law ... the party runs everything. And then you suddenly have to switch. There is no body of law with which to function. That's what these countries are going through."

What struck him most, Wedemeyer says, were the younger lawyers who are pushing for change. They, for instance, are the ones championing the legal claims of Chernobyl victims in the Ukraine. "The young lawyers realize that the government is obligated under the agreements with the European Union to grant human rights and to have an open society," Wedemeyer points out. "They are the molders of change. It was great working with them because they want to know everything" about the U.S. justice system.

"Professionally, I gained a lot of enthusiasm for what we have in our system," Wedemeyer adds, "and for our obligation to try to help these people establish a solid foundation. If they can develop the [independent judicial system] culture and it continues for a couple of generations, then it will be part of their way of life."

On the other side of the globe, Portage County Circuit Court Judge Frederic Fleishauer ventured to Uruguay for several weeks in 1998, under a Fulbright grant. He lectured, in Spanish, to judges and lawyers about American civil procedure and judicial ethics, and also visited courts, talked with judges, and observed the Uruguayan judicial system in action.

Unlike the other countries mentioned earlier, Uruguay has had a stable democracy since 1828, except for a couple of relatively brief stints of dictatorship. Still, Fleishauer noted major differences between their judicial system and ours.

"The judicial role is far more expanded than it is in our system. Their system is based on a collection of depositions and a review of that by the court, although the court also is involved in deciding who gets deposed and what evidence gets collected. It's an amazing involvement by our standards." Frederic Fleishauer, Portage County circuit court judge, traveling to Uruguay

In civil procedures, "they have no concept of a trial per se," Fleishauer explains. Instead, the "trial" is the creation of a record from the beginning to the end of a lawsuit. Any gathered evidence goes into a case file. "The judicial role is far more expanded than it is in our system," Fleishauer notes. "Their system is based on a collection of depositions and a review of that by the court, although the court is also involved in deciding who gets deposed and what evidence gets collected."

Judges also play a more expanded role in criminal cases. They decide whether a case should come before the court, what charges should be brought, and what evidence should be collected. Later, the judge determines which evidence is to be believed and renders a decision. "It's an amazing involvement by our standards," Fleishauer notes. Uruguay is now examining ways to separate the judicial and prosecutorial roles in criminal cases, in accordance with the Costa Rican Accord, a treaty signed by several Latin American countries.

While some practices are by our standards an overstepping of judicial authority, the Uruguayan system's nonadversarial nature has its benefits, Fleishauer says, noting that all parties involved in a case are sworn to do justice. "Some aspects of that we could use a little of in our system," Fleishauer says. "Other parts of it seem strange to us."

Through first-hand observation of another country's justice system, "I gained another perspective on my own work," Fleishauer says, "and on our legal proceedings. When you see other systems, you realize there are things we do well and things others do better than we do. That's always an interesting awakening."

Dianne Molvig operates Access Information Service, a Madison research, writing, and editing service. She is a frequent contributor to area publications.