CIRCUIT COURT SHEBOYGAN COUNTY

STATE OF WISCONSIN
BRANCH 5

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. ll?CF?371

CHARLES L. AMWEG,

 

Defendant.



Proceeding: Sentencing Hearing
Date: April 4, 2012
Before: Honorable James J. Bolgert,
Circuit Court Judge, Branch 5
Appearances: Mr. Joel Urmanski, Assistant District

Attorney, appearing on behalf of the
State of Wisconsin.

Mr. Kirk B. Obear, Attorney?at?Law,
appearing on behalf of the Defendant,

Charles L. Amweg, who appeared in
person.

2? 
we 
d3 Pv 3h



LawEffReported by: Michelle M. Gudex, RMR

1

9:21 by?)

 

 

 

conditions that you can impose to address all of these
concerns would be appropriate. so I would ask the
Court to adopt Mr. Urmanski's recommendation but stay
all of that, place him on probation for a 
period of time, and impose whatever conditions you
feel are appropriate.

THE COURT: Mr. Amweg. anything you would
like to say?

THE DEFENDANT: NO. NO.

THE COURT: Okay. Then give me just a
moment. I will be right back.

(A recess was taken.)

THE COURT: I will withhold sentence, place
you on probation for three years. As a condition, six
months in jail with work release. No Contact with the
victim or the family. No unsupervised Contact with
juveniles. Submit a DNA sample and pay for that.
Register as a sex offenderl

Here is why: This is not a prison case, I
believe, Mr. Urmanski, on the facts despite the
classification of the offense. I respect the jury's
verdict, but I will not expand upon the credible
evidence. That credible evidence is the statement
that _gave in his interview to Detective Urban,

which I thought was very well done.

22

 

 

 

imposing sentence, I have considered the
nature of the offense, the character of the accused,
and the need to protect the public.

The nature of the offense, as I understand it
from that interview, is that Mr. Amweg touched--
once with one finger over his clothes. The credible
evidence is that the boys were at the house with their
mother, who is a friend of the defendant's girlfriend.
Mr. Amweg never got out of bed, according to both
boys. He was in bed under a blanket, either red or
white, according to the boys. He was in shorts
without a top, and that is why he appeared nakedi

That was Mr. Urmanski's argument at trial. I think it

we 5 accepted.

1 don't think it was credible that -was
blindfolded. At some point he thinks he was Both
boys said that Mr. Amweg was always in bed, though the
defendant may have told -to close his eyes or
look backwards.

I reviewed the taped interview by Detective Urban
several times. -te11s Detective Urban that his
pants were up at the time of touching, that the
defendant touched with one finger and for a short
time, and I think that is the credible evidence that

allowed this case to go to the jury and upon which

23

 

 

 

they convicted.

Mr. Umanski hasn't discussed the testimony at
trial, which I appreciate, because 1 don't think it
can be relied upon for terms of sentencing. First of
all, did demonstrate an ability to tell the
difference between a truth and a lie, but not between
something he saw and a fabrication. That was
demonstrated when Mr. Urmanski asked him the color of
his house.

The testimony at trial about the bathroom was
inconsistent with the statement given to Detective
About the time of year, he said it was in the

Urban .

Summer rather than Christmas. The place, that it was

downstairs in the bathroom rather than up. And,
according to he wasn't describing a different
incident, but the same one he had related to Detective
Urban, and that he had conveyed this to his mother in
the kitchen at the same time right right after if
happened.

I think those are the findings of the jury,
because Mr, Umanski, I think properly, argued that
the confirmation of the event was they confirmed there
was a water bed up in his bedroom, confirmed there
were toys up there, published pictures of that to the
jury.

24

 

 

these facts, we lack some of the common
aggravating factors. First of all, there is no
intercourse, no claim of that, no fondling, no
grooming in my opinion, no enticement, no abuse of
authority. I don't think there is any allegation that
he tried to get the boys to come upstairs. In fact,
they came upstairs I think with the blessing of the
other adults downstairs, not suspecting and not any
reason they should that anything would happen, but
I am saying that I don't think there is any enticement

on his part.

There is no exposure, according to both boys. In
fact, Michael said to Detective Urban that the boys
left the bedroom so he could get out of bed and get
dressed.

I don't think there was touching under the
clothes. I appreciate in Detective Urban's interview
does say inside and outside, but he doesn't
elaborate. To Detective Urban's credit, he repeats
the phrase but doesn't suggest to what that
meant or how it happened, and _hever explains.
The jury found sexual gratification, but it must have
been minimal given the event.

I count on Dad's statement, which was very

powerful, about the affect on the boys, and I am sorry

25

 

 

for that. Although, they appeared comfortable in the

courtroom, for whatever that is worth.

As far as his character, it is certainly a mixed

'bag, but recent no record recently, a good worker,

positive things from.other people, no indication or
allegation or claim.of a coverup of any other contacts
of this type, nor pornography found in the residence
of any kind, let alone juvenile pornography, none of
the other indicators we would expect in the case of a
pedophile.

I think this incident, as far as we know from all
of the facts, is isolated and hard to explain from.my
point of view, and that is the reason he is on
supervision. There is a Deniers Program that is
available in the community. I assume that will be his
stance, at least initially. I think in terms of a
need to protect the public, I think the supervision is
sufficient.

.Again, I very much appreciate Dad's statement.

I don't think, Mr. Qbear, that this came on the
suggestion of Mom. If it did, I think the story would

have been more consistent. .It certainly was a

confusing case, a troubling case. I suspect that Mr.

Amweg is going to have trouble on probation. I

watched the interview, too, with Detective Urban. He

26

 

 

 

 

seems to be a somewhat combative individual. So I
hope he complies with the program.

The six months in jail is not his sentence. The
sentence is being withheld. If he complies with the
probation, then he won't be sentenced. If he does
(sic), he will be.

I don't want to do an imposed sentence, Mr. Obear
or Mr. UrmanSki, because I really would like to see if
he is revoked What the nature is, whether it is
sexually related or just a stubbornness to comply with
the program. I don't know. I don't feel comfortable.
I think if there is a revocation, I would want to know
the facts of the revocation before I did the
sentencing.

So as far as a report date, Mr. Obear?

ATTORNEY OBEAR: Your Honor, obviously, we
didn't know what the Court was going to do today. I
think a couple of weeks to make sure that he can set
up his Huber release would be appropriate.

THE COURT: JMay 3rd?

ATTORNEY OBEAR: That is fine.

THE COURT: Okay. Anything else?

ATTORNEY URMANSKI: As to the subpoena fees,
Judge?

THE COURT: Yeah. Pay all of the costs. We

27

 

will take it out.of the bond. The balance will be

returned to-those who posted it. I have got the
letter on the additional plus the standard
costs.
Any claim for sentence credit if revoked, Mr.
Obear? It looked like maybe three days.
ATTORNEY OBEAR: Four days.
THE COURT: Four days credit if revoked.
Anything else, Mr. Obear?

.ATTORNEY OBEAR: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: .Anything else, Mr. Urmanski?

ATTORNEY URMANSKI: No, thank you.

THE COURT: I realize, especially Dad, how
emotional you are about this decision. I know you
disagree with it, but I very.much appreciate your
conduct here today. .And although it probably doesn't
need to be said, it needs to continue outside the

courtroom. So why don't you hang around. Dione, you

are excused.

Thank you.

28