Whatever happened to Curtis Schmitt of Franklin?

You remember Curtis Schmitt of Franklin, don’t you?

If not, here’s the backstory.

Prosecutors in Milwaukee charged Curtis Schmitt Jr., 38, of Franklin, with three felony counts of possession of child pornography on Jan. 23.

Gov. Tony Evers, who appointed Schmitt to the Wisconsin Board of Veterans Affairs in 2019, asked him the day after he was charged to resign from the board.

Back in March Schmitt resigned from the board, bowing to mounting pressure to step down as he fights child pornography charges.

Schmitt has pleaded not guilty to the charges, and his case remains pending.

Here’s important background.

JANUARY 23, 2022. FROM THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT:

Count 1: POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

The defendant on or about Monday, December 20, 2021, at (his Franklin residence) did, having attained the age of 18, knowingly possess photograph(s) of a child engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and knew that the child was under the age of 18.

Upon conviction for this offense, a Class D Felony, the defendant may be fined not more than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000), or imprisoned not more than twenty five (25) years, or both.

And furthermore, the Court shall impose a surcharge of $500.00 for each image or each copy of an image, as defined in 973.042(1), associated with the crime. The court shall determine the number of images or copies of images associated with the crime by a preponderance of the evidence and without a jury.

And furthermore, upon conviction the Court shall impose a bifurcated sentence including a term of initial confinement for at least three years.

Count 2: POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

The defendant on or about Monday, December 20, 2021, at (his Franklin residence) did, having attained the age of 18, knowingly possess photograph(s) of a child engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and knew that the child was under the age of 18

Upon conviction for this offense, a Class D Felony, the defendant may be fined not more than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000), or imprisoned not more than twenty five (25) years, or both.

And furthermore, the Court shall impose a surcharge of $500.00 for each image or each copy of an image. The court shall determine the number of images or copies of images associated with the crime by a preponderance of the evidence and without a jury.

And furthermore, upon conviction the Court shall impose a bifurcated sentence including a term of initial confinement for at least three years.

Count 3: POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

The defendant on or about Monday, December 20, 2021, at (his Franklin residence)  did, having attained the age of 18, knowingly possess photograph(s) of a child engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and knew that the child was under the age of 18.

Upon conviction for this offense, a Class D Felony, the defendant may be fined not more than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000), or imprisoned not more than twenty five (25) years, or both.

And furthermore, the Court shall impose a surcharge of $500.00 for each image or each copy of an image, as defined in 973.042(1), associated with the crime. The court shall determine the number of images or copies of images associated with the crime by a preponderance of the evidence and without a jury.

And furthermore, upon conviction the Court shall impose a bifurcated sentence including a term of initial confinement for at least three years.

I am a Department of Justice criminal investigator and base this complaint upon my investigation and my review of Department of Justice Police reports.

The defendant admitted to having a porn addiction and stated that his addiction is for adult porn because his marriage is struggling and since has been viewing a lot of porn. Curtis stated that his majority of porn viewing has been on Snapchat. The defendant explained how for approximately 2 years he has been chatting with women on Snapchat who he stated all these women stated that they are adults. Curtis stated that some do look young but that he makes sure he always ask for their age or asks for picture to make sure that they are adults. Curtis stated that he gets a lot of nude photos sent to him on Snapchat and that sometimes they send him pictures of child pornography.

The defendant stated he comes across a lot of child porn on Snapchat via photos sent to him or on Snapchat stories. The defendant admitted to sometimes downloading the child porn to his phone and then uploading to his Dropbox account, but stated that the main purpose of him downloading the child porn was to send it back to Snapchat to report it. The defendant was not able to say how many times he has come across child pornography since he has been viewing porn for the last two years but stated that it has been “a lot and its all the time”.

SA (Special Agent) Juanez then showed the defendant a printed photo that was reported on the CyberTipline report and asked the defendant if he remembers seeing this photo. The defendant could not remember that specific photo because he has come across many photos similar to those on Snapchat and he could not say if that was the one or one of them. SA Juanez asked how old he thought the ages of the two people depicted on the photo were. The defendant stated that he thought they both looked to be approximately 8 years of age.

SA Juanez then showed the defendant a printed photo that was reported on the CyberTipline report and asked the defendant if he remembers seeing this photo. The defendant could not remember that specific photo because he has come across many photos similar to those on Snapchat and he could not say if that was the one or one of them. SA Juanez asked how old he thought the ages of the two people depicted on the photo were. The defendant stated that he thought the the small child would be about 4 years old.

The defendant stated that the pictures SA Juanez showed him were clearly child pornography. The defendant stated the youngest child of child pornography he has come across on SnapChat was about 1-2 years old.

COURT ORDER, JANUARY 24, 2022

IT IS ORDERED, effective immediately, and also as a condition of release in this case, the defendant have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTACT with the following witness(es) or victim(s), their residence, subsequent residence, their workplace or other location:

Name

Defendant’s wife and children

Children under the age of 17 unless supervised by a responsible adult

NO CONTACT” means that YOU, the defendant, shall not contact the above person(s) or location(s) by telephone, in person, through the mail or any delivery service, by pager or fax or computer or any other electrical or electronic device, or through another person. The aforementioned condition of release is set pursuant to Wisconsin Statutes § 969.02(3)(d).

This is an official Order of the Court. NO PERSON OTHER THAN THE COURT MAY CHANGE THIS ORDER.

Any violation of this Court Order is a crime, and can result in immediate arrest. YOU, the defendant, could also be charged with the crime of Bail Jumping in violation of § 946.49, Wis. Stats. This Court Order stays in effect as long as this case continues, unless the Court changes this Order. YOU MUST NOT DISREGARD THIS ORDER.

YOU are the defendant. This Order restricts YOU, and it is YOUR responsibility to avoid contact. If the person(s) named above contacts you on the telephone, YOU must hang up immediately. If the person(s) named above comes somewhere near to you, YOU must walk away. If you accidentally come into contact with the above named person(s) in any private or public place, YOU must leave immediately. The person(s) named above cannot give you legal permission to change this Order. If YOU go near the above named person(s), even with permission or consent, YOU can be arrested for violating this No Contact Order.

You may pick up clothing and personal items from the above residence ONLY in the company of a uniformed law enforcement officer and only upon reasonable notice to the person(s) named above.

COURT ORDER, FEBRUARY 17, 2022

WHEREAS 
the current conditions of bond prohibit the defendant from having any contact with his wife and his children; and

WHEREAS the attorneys of record for the State and the defense have reached an agreement to vacate the no contact order as it relates to the defendant’s wife and to modify the no contact order relative to the defendant’s own children;

The State and the defense request that the Court modify the previously entered January 24, 2022 no contact order to read as follows: “No contact with the defendant’s children unless supervised by a responsible adult; no contact with any other children.”

COURT ORDER, FEBRUARY 21, 2022

Based upon a Stipulation signed by the parties and filed with the Court, the Court HEREBY AMENDS the January 24, 2022 No Contact Order to read:

“No contact with the defendant’s children unless supervised by a responsible adult; no contact with any other children.”

The previous no contact order as it related to the defendant’s wife is vacated.

The latest: The case is before Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge J.D. Watts. A status conference was scheduled for May 3, 2022. Schmitt’s address was updated from one Greenfield location to another in Greenfield. The defense requested an adjournment due to a delay in receiving information about evidence from the state. A status conference was scheduled for July 1, 2022.

July 1, 2002: The court was advised that there is a significant delay obtaining information. The defense requested further adjournment. A status conference was scheduled for September 8, 2022.

September 8, 2022: The defense has received new discovery (the exchange of information between the parties about the witnesses and evidence they’ll present at trial) and requested a 30 day status date. A status conference was scheduled for October 10, 2022, when another delay is certainly possible.

Meanwhile Schmitt who is out on bail has been seen almost daily in his old neighborhood on the west side of Franklin, even dropping off children at Franklin’s Robinwood Elementary. Remember he has not been found guilty of any of the charges.

The wheels of justice generally move very slowly. The Curtis Schmitt case is no exception.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s