Bruce Schroeder is a judge of the Kenosha County Circuit Court in Wisconsin know all about him in this article as like his Family, Net Worth, Parents, Wife, Children, Education, Age and Wikipedia
|Name||Judge Bruce Schroeder|
|Birthdate ( Age)||60’s|
|Place of Birth||United States of America|
|Spouse/Partner||Name not Known|
|Profession||Judge of the Kenosha County Circuit Court|
|Net Worth||$500K – $1 Million|
|Last Update||October 2021|
Bruce Schroeder is a judge of the Kenosha County Circuit Court in Wisconsin.He won the general election on 1 April 2014 without any opposition.His current term ends in 2026.
Schroeder was first appointed to the bench by Governor Anthony Earl (D) in 1983. Schroeder was elected to the seat in 1984.
Early Life and Family
Judge Bruce Schroeder was born in the United States of America. His full name is Bruce Schroeder. He completed his schooling at High School. He was graduated from Marquette University in 1967.He studied law at Marquette University in 1970.He is currently living in Wisconsin, United States of America.
Judge Bruce Schroeder Wife
Judge Bruce Schroeder is Possibely Married but there is no any information is available on social media about his marital and relationship stataus.
Judge Bruce Schroeder Net Worth
Bruce Schroeder is a judge of the Kenosha County Circuit Court in Wisconsin has an estimated Net Worth around $500K – $1 Million in 2021.
Judge Bruce Schroeder is the longest serving current judge in Wisconsin. He’s also becoming a polarizing national figure for his early decisions in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse.He was appointed a circuit judge in 1983 by then-Gov. Anthony Earl. He has been re-elected to the seat ever since, making him the longest-serving active circuit judge in the state. His current term expires in 2026.
During his tenure, he has presided overother high-profile trials, including a major reversal in one of them. He also prompted controversy recently after he quoted a racial slur, a moment caught on camera during online streaming of court proceedings last year.
In that controversy, Schroeder was discussing news about protests over statues of Confederate military figures when he said he could understand anger directed at Lt. General Nathan Bedford Forrest.Schroeder quoted an order given by Forrest to kill Black people, which included the slur.
Forrest, a former slave trader, gave the order after prevailing in an 1864 attack on a Union fort in Tennessee manned largely by Black union soldiers.Schroeder later addressed that controversy in a statement saying he “purposely used the revoltingly offensive order as it was uttered because I thought (and still do) that it is grossly inappropriate to veil the ghastly wickedness of this hateful and murderous command with a more delicate substitute.”
“It is a shocking statement, and it should shock us now and not be tidied up for modern audiences.”Now, national attention is turning to his handling of the Rittenhouse case, which Schroeder has tried to run “like any other homicide case,” while still acknowledging its high stakes and profile.
Schroeder has eschewed lawyers’ suggestions to use written pre-trial questionnaires to help screen potential jurors for biases in a case that has generated extreme feelings on both sides.Instead, Schroeder has said he will do jury selection in his normal fashion and that he expects one can be selected in a day. In the Georgia trial of three men charged with killing Ahmaud Arberry, a Black man who was running through their neighborhood, jury selection is in its second week.
He has said, “this is not a political case,” but it’s clear he’s aware of the raw feelings it has generated outside the courtroom.When he denied prosecutors’ request to demand Rittenhouse’s current address be made part of the public record, or raise his $2 million bail, Schroeder drew protests calling for his resignation.
On Wednesday, about a dozen nasty emails about Schroeder’s Monday ruling were put into the record of the Rittenhouse case. They called for him to resign or retire. Some said he must be senile. Most used a lot of language that is unsuitable for publication.
Schroeder has presided over high-profile cases before, most notably the trial of Mark Jensen, who was charged in the fatal anti-freeze poisoning of his wife, Julie.The case drew national attention, and Schroeder made one of the key pretrial rulings that led to Jensen’s conviction — and then to 20 years of appeals and two orders for a new trial. The latest is on hold while the state asks the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and keep Jensen in prison.
Crucial to the state’s case were a letter and statements Julie wrote and made to people suggesting Mark was likely responsible if she died. The Wisconsin Supreme Court found such so-called “voice from the grave” statements were inadmissible at trial, unless it was determined Jensen had forfeited his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him by killing the witness.
Schroeder made that finding, the statements were introduced at trial, and Jensen is serving life in prison. An appellate court ruled Schroeder erred, but that it was harmless to the outcome.Other courts disagreed and have ordered new trials twice.
Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals threw out part of a sentence Schroeder imposed against a woman convicted of shoplifting. He ordered that while on two years of supervision — following a 15-month prison term — the woman had to inform the management of any store she entered that she was on supervision for retail theft.“We are not persuaded that embarrassing or humiliating defendants with a state-imposed broad public notification requirement promotes their rehabilitation,” the court ruled.