KENOSHA COUNTY, Wis. — Court Commissioner William “Bargain Bail Billy” Michel II is attempting to defend his controversial bail decisions with a new courtroom practice, but early results suggest the strategy may be backfiring.

Facing increasing criticism from the public over what many view as consistently low bail amounts in serious cases, Michel this week began documenting in court minutes not only what bail he sets, but also what prosecutors and defense attorneys request during initial appearances.

The apparent goal is to show that defense attorneys routinely ask for low—or even no-cash—bail, providing context for his decisions and, in his view, helping explain why his bail amounts often come in lower than what the State seeks.

But rather than shifting public perception, the new practice is doing something else entirely: creating a clearer record of just how often Michel undercuts prosecutors’ recommendations.

Under Wisconsin law, bail decisions have evolved in recent years. Prior to April 2023, courts were largely limited to considering whether bail was necessary to ensure a defendant’s appearance in court. That framework changed after Wisconsin voters approved a constitutional amendment expanding what judges and court commissioners can weigh when setting bail.

Now, courts may also consider the seriousness of the alleged offense, the need to protect the public from serious harm, and a defendant’s criminal history—factors critics say should result in higher bail in more dangerous cases.

Despite that expanded authority, Michel has continued to emphasize that bail is primarily about ensuring court appearance, a position that has drawn frustration from those who believe public safety should play a more central role.

His new documentation policy is now putting those differences into stark relief.

In a case from March 25, 2026, involving defendant Marysa N. Cartagena, court minutes show District Attorney Xavier Solis requested a $10,000 cash bond. Defense attorney David Celebre asked for a low cash or signature bond. Michel ultimately set bail at $5,000 cash, along with conditions including no contact with listed individuals, no presence at a specified residence, and a prohibition on physical discipline of any children.

The minutes also reflect that Cartagena appeared in custody for her initial appearance and is scheduled to return for a preliminary hearing on April 1, 2026.

For Michel, documenting the defense request appears intended to demonstrate that low bail proposals are part of the adversarial process, not solely the result of his own judgment.

But for many observers, the side-by-side comparison is having the opposite effect.

By explicitly recording both figures, the court record now provides a running tally of how often Michel’s decisions land closer to the defense’s request than the State’s. Critics say that visibility is reinforcing, not resolving, concerns that his bail decisions are out of step with the seriousness of the charges and the expanded authority granted under Wisconsin’s constitution.

What Michel may have intended as a reputational defense is, in practice, functioning as a transparency tool—one that is making it easier for the public to scrutinize his rulings in real time.

And as more cases are documented under the new system, the gap between what prosecutors seek and what is ultimately imposed is likely to remain at the center of an increasingly heated debate in Kenosha County.