KENOSHA, Wis. – Court Commissioner Alexandra Smathers is facing sharp criticism from a veteran criminal defense attorney who alleges she presided over a botched preliminary hearing so riddled with constitutional violations that felony charges may now have to be thrown out.

In a recently filed motion, Attorney Michael Cicchini asserted that it was “lawless chaos” after Smathers allowed a felony preliminary hearing to proceed without advising the defendant—whose name KCE is withholding—of his constitutional right to an attorney. Cicchini, who has published extensively about the preliminary hearing and criminal procedure, declined to comment for this article.

The State presented its case. The defendant cross-examined the State’s only witness—all without legal counsel. The commissioner then heard arguments from the prosecutor and the defendant. Only then did Smathers acknowledge her mistake: “I never went over your right to have an attorney, and I should have done that before we called the witness.”

Defendant Eventually Asked for a Lawyer

Despite having already participated in the hearing, the defendant ultimately told Smathers that he was not comfortable continuing without legal representation. When asked directly, he said, “I would like to have an attorney,” and confirmed that he wanted one for both trial and the preliminary hearing.

Smathers responded by saying the hearing would have to be postponed and blamed the public defender appointment delay. But by that point, the constitutional damage had already been done.

Cicchini argued in his motion that there were several defects in the hearing, citing violations of both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, as well as state statutes and state case law.

No Legal Waiver, No Competency Check

Smathers failed to conduct the required State v. Klessig colloquy to ensure the defendant’s waiver of counsel was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. She also failed to determine whether the defendant was competent to represent himself—another mandatory step under Wisconsin law.

Instead, she simply asked if he was “comfortable proceeding without an attorney” after the State had rested. That kind of after-the-fact cleanup, Cicchini argued in his motion, was not legally sufficient and could not retroactively validate a flawed hearing.

Hearsay From an Uninformed Witness

Compounding the issue, the State’s only witness had no personal involvement in the case and admitted multiple times under oath that he was merely summarizing the contents of the criminal complaint. When the defendant asked specific questions, the officer repeatedly replied, “That’s not in the complaint.”

Under Wisconsin law, such hearsay must be deemed reliable before it can be used to establish probable cause. Smathers never assessed its reliability, yet still ruled in favor of binding the defendant over for trial.

Troubling Judicial Ambitions

Smathers’ actions have rattled the local legal community—not just because of this case, but because she is reportedly seeking appointment to the bench in the event Judge Anthony Milisauskas retires, a possibility that has been widely rumored in recent months.

Many attorneys are deeply alarmed by the prospect. “She couldn’t follow the most basic constitutional rules,” one local defense lawyer told KCE, “and now she wants to be a full-time judge?”

Smathers was previously demoted while working at the Sheboygan County District Attorney’s Office, and left the Kenosha office shortly after conservative District Attorney Xavier Solis was elected—reportedly due to her extreme liberal views. She was involved in multiple failed sexual assault prosecutions and was later named in a state court defamation lawsuit involving lying about a sexual assault nurse examiner, causing the nurse examiner’s termination.

Despite that track record—and no family law experience—Kenosha’s judges appointed her as Family Court Commissioner in early 2025.

Judge Milisauskas Will Decide

Cicchini’s motion is now in the hands of Judge Anthony Milisauskas, a jurist known for his firm grasp of legal standards and little tolerance for sloppy or unlawful courtroom conduct.

If the motion is granted, the felony charges could be dismissed—or the State could be barred from using any of the defendant’s uncounseled statements in court.

Regardless of the outcome, this case has intensified concerns about Smathers’ fitness for the judiciary and renewed scrutiny on how judicial appointments are made in Wisconsin.