Supreme Court candidate Marla Stephens’ website says her work with the public defenders’ office is “preeminent among her career accomplishments.” But what she doesn’t highlight to voters is the fact that her accomplishments include her repeated efforts to protect the rights of convicted child molesters.

In one court brief that Stephens co-authored, she expressed the state public defender office’s “grave concerns” that community and governmental opposition to sexual predator releases (especially by Republican lawmakers) would “thwart” the ability for the predators to live in the community.

In an article in the Capital Times, Stephens admitted she would probably be cast as “soft on crime” because of her public defender work.

No wonder. In a 2005 news article, before she was running for a seat on the state’s highest court, Stephens admitted that she has only ever wanted to represent accused criminals.

“I always knew I’d be doing this kind of work. It goes back to my own personal politics and the era I lived through,” she said. “I was born in the ’50s, went to high school in the ’60s and college in the ’70s. I always thought the most noble thing I could do with my degree would be to defend individuals from the government. I still do.” (June 29, 2005 – Wisconsin Law Journal)

Her campaign website speaks generally about those experiences now. Perhaps not surprisingly, she doesn’t tout specific defendants’ cases by name – nor provide details.

But do a little digging and you’ll find them. The case of Kelvin Griffin is a good example. It was a horrific gang rape case. According to court documents, Griffin and two co-defendants set upon a 21-year-old woman who was walking to a party to meet her husband.

In his appeal, launched by Stephens, Griffin claimed that he received an “unduly harsh sentence” and said his trial lawyer was ineffective. The appellate court disagreed that the sentence was unduly harsh. Griffin also argued that the judgment should be reversed “in the interests of justice.”

According to court documents, Griffin threatened the victim while brandishing a firearm. He grabbed her arm and forced her to the side of a house. She was ordered to get down on her hands and knees and was sexually assaulted. She was sexually assaulted repeatedly by each of the three men and threatened to be killed. The incident occurred over a 50-minute time frame. At the time, Griffin was 17 but waived into adult court.

He received a 180-year prison term (eligible for parole at age 62). Among his arguments: That the crimes occurred within a short time span and that the other co-actors would serve less time because they were handled in juvenile court.

Stephens also co-authored a friend of the court brief in the case of Shawn Schulpius, one of the state’s most notorious sexual predators. For years, his case wound through the court system.

Specifically, Stephens’ brief stated that the public defender’s office had “grave concerns” that “governmental and community opposition to the notion of supervised release will continue to thwart efforts to effectuate timely placements in the community” under the sexual predator law. The brief stated it would “review efforts” to release various SPD (State Public Defender) clients. Among them: Schulpius.

Although the Stephens’ brief didn’t take a specific stand on the questions in the Schulpius case appeal (the court ordered that he did not deserve outright release), it did chronicle the extensive community and Republican legislative opposition to potential release of Schulpius and other sexually violent persons into the community.

Schulpius was convicted in 1991 of first degree sexual assault of a four-year-old boy he was babysitting, according to court records. He also had molested his six year old stepsister, one and a half year old brother, one of his preteen biological sisters, and girls in the neighborhood. Past attempts to treat him had failed. So, the state successfully sought to have him committed indefinitely under the Wisconsin Sexual Predator Law. This law allows the state to continue to detain for treatment certain sexually violent offenders.

Stephens also raised concerns about the state sexual predator law in a 1994 news article in the Capital Times. She commented on a judge’s decision to order a man to undergo evaluation to see if he should be confined as a sexual predator after a psychologist testified it was likely that he would commit violent sexual acts again because he had a sexual and anti-social personality disorder.

Stephens raised concerns about the decision, arguing, ”The whole of criminal law is based on the fact that behavior is intended, not compelled, After being convicted of intentionally committing a crime and serving the sentence, now the state says ‘this behavior is compelled. You will always be dangerous. We can’t let you out.’ ” The article noted that Stephens pointed out that many “psycho-sexual disorders” can’t be treated. ”If you commit someone for a disorder for which there is no treatment, you are committing them indefinitely.”

Representing those convicted of sexual assault has been something of a pattern for Stephens, according to a review of her higher case work. Among other sexual assault cases in which she was involved, court records showed:

-A Milwaukee man convicted of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old girl wanted to be able to accuse the child of being a liar to help his case. He appealed the court’s refusal to let him do so.

-A man convicted of repeatedly molesting his stepdaughter thought it was unfair the charges were amended to include a penalty enhancer for being a “repeater.” Stephens also argued his case.

Wisconsin citizens and parents need tough judges that will protect the children of this state. Stephens record calls her regard towards child protection into question.

The state supreme court primary vote is February 15.