Skip to content

Plea Deal In The Works For Scott Jensen?

December 19, 2007

There is no way that former Wisconsin State Representative Scott Jensen wants to be placed in front of another jury.  It is in his interest to strike a plea deal like other criminals do in order to reduce the likely harmful outcome of a trial.

With that in mind it was interesting to read that the foundation for such a peal deal is already being laid.

Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen thinks that a retrial can be avoided by striking a plea deal.  Readers need to be mindful that a jury found Jensen, the former Republican Speaker of the Assembly, guilty of three felonies.  In other words any plea deal will have to be tough and serve the cause of justice.  Even though the three felony convictions were overturned in November there is no reason to assume that another jury would not conclude the exact same thing.  The actions of Jensen are no more right today than when he committed them while serving in the Wisconsin Legislature.

Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard must not forget the initial reason that Scott Jensen faced a trial.  The use of state tax dollars to pay state workers at the Capital to work on political campaigns on state time needs to be addressed honestly.  Scott Jensen needs to be reminded that his actions were wrong, and that there is a price to be paid.  The citizens of Wisconsin deserve to have justice served.

To allow the actions to slide in a sweet plea deal where much is forgiven and forgotten does not meet the smell test for those who pay the taxes and play by the rules around the Badger State.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

4 Comments
  1. Bob Laughalott permalink
    December 23, 2007 1:01 PM

    “Readers need to be mindful that a jury found Jensen, the former Republican Speaker of the Assembly, guilty of three felonies.”

    This has been the drumbeat and it is the basis of a simple lie. A “technicality” some say. The fact is that the conviction was thrown out because the judge not only misstated the law to the jury on the central issue — the judge instructed the jury that the jury should take as fact the very question the constitution requires a jury to determine. This was a “trial” in only the most superficial sense; it was no more than going through the motions. This is why the conviction was thrown out and it makes me cringe to hear folks dub the whole point of a jury trial to be a “technicality.”

  2. Raul permalink
    December 20, 2007 10:54 AM

    Idiot! There is no bar to felons voting in Wisconsin unless they are incarcerated or still on probation. Why don’t you cut him a break–he’s suffered enough.

  3. doug permalink
    December 19, 2007 4:17 PM

    i’ll be reallllllllllllllllllly disappointed if blanchard would settle for less than at least one felony. the bastard shouldn’t be allowed to vote

  4. December 19, 2007 3:15 PM

    Sounds like from the article that the State’s Attorney is prepared to give him a night in the Mayberry Pokey along with a home cooked meal prepared by Aunt Bee.

    Strap on a set sir… Please.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: