When he’s in court, the show is Shellow’s.

As he speaks – knowledgeably, wittily, sarcastically at times- he leans to one side sometimes, one foot in front of the other, as if he is about to attempt a difficult dance step. Other times, he rocks in slow motion, underlining what he says with the noise he makes with change or keys in his pocket.

Shellow seemingly cited a thousand cases dating back to 1798, trying to prove that Loveday should be at home instead of in a correctional institution.

In turn, the judge sometimes questioned Shellow, and Fine’s questions sent Shellow’s right hand to the top of Shellow’s head. You could say Fine’s words mussed Shellow’s hair. But the judge and the attorney obviously respect each other.

When the piece of paper had reached the end of its first day, Fine praised Shellow for his long representation of Loveday without pay; and Fine also praised Bruce Landgraf, an assistant district attorney who did an excellent job although he didn’t get his turn to speak until after 3 p.m. in this hearing that started at 9:30 a.m.

Milwaukee Sentinel, William Janz re State of Wisconsin v. Stanley Loveday.

To understand what is going on at the double murder trial of Donald Goll, Jr., you have to know a little about the inner workings of three legal heavyweights named James Shellow, Gerald Boyle and Stephen Glynn.

Most of us are loved by a few, hated by some and ignored by most. But Shellow’s career has reached the point where he is ignored by almost no one, loved by more people than his opponent’s suspect, and hated by more than he suspects.

Shellow, 52, designed weapons for a living before he started going to law school at the age of 31. To deal with him as a defense lawyer, your first have to understand the meaning he attaches to the German word schrecklichkeit.

He defined it “as that which engenders terror.” He added that it referred to the sirens used on World War II German buzz bomb “not to make them fly better, but because they created this awful racket coming down and frightened people.”

Shellow said that the word applied to courtroom situations in which he tried to instill fear in prosecution witnesses who are professionals in highly specialized areas.

“Its original application,” he said, “was when I learned the reaction of persons who claimed they were experts in the field of accounting to the knowledge that I was a certified public accountant.”

He added that he took that technique of intimidation and began to use it on expert prosecution witnesses in other fields, such as the chemical analysis of drugs.

“This became kind of a generalized concept . . . that pretty much can be applied to anyone who asserts that he’s an expert in any field,” Shellow said. “You find that these people really aren’t experts, and they’re terrified.”

He claimed that most so-called expert witnesses in criminal cases really were nothing more than participants in a confidence game. “And what they’re frightened of,” Shellow said, “is that the confidence game will be exposed.”

“If they think that you are experienced and expert in the areas in which they claim to be expert, what you bring to it is a sense that they interpret it as a certainty that their con game will be uncovered.”

He said that when the technique was handled right it “. . . produces anxiety, which produces fear, which produces even greater clumsiness and more inept testimony and less conscientious analysis . . . until finally they’re trembling so much they can’t hold the slide rule, they can’t read the book.”

Milwaukee Journal, Walter Fee, re State of Wisconsin v. Donald Goll, Jr.

Shoffner, however, had in his corner one of the best criminal lawyers in the city, James M. Shellow, who convinced the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 1966 to broaden the legal definition of insanity from the narrow confines of the century- old M’Naghten rule.

Shellow persuaded the high court to allow consideration of the ALI’s more liberal definition of legal insanity. Under that definition, a person could be considered insane if he lacked either substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or the ability to conform his conduct to the law.

In a second appeal, Shellow persuaded the Supreme Court to order two separate trials for those claiming insanity as a defense: one to determine guilt and a second to determine sanity.

Any other arrangement, Shellow argued, would set up a conflict between the defendant’s right to be protected from self-incrimination and the mental examination compulsory for those claiming insanity as a defense.

Milwaukee Journal re State of Wisconsin v. Jeffrey Dahmer.

“James Shellow is considered the best criminal lawyer in the State of Wisconsin,” Frankel said. “We needed somebody like him for such an important and complicated case.”

Milwaukee Journal, Attorney Mark Frankel, re United States v. David Fine.

Files of the Milwaukee Journal call Shellow Milwaukee’s best known criminal lawyer and say he made his reputation defending Indians at Wounded Knee, Vietnam protesters, accused murderers and alleged mobsters.

Milwaukee Journal re State of Alaska v. Neil Mackay.

None of this, however, washes with noted Milwaukee lawyer Jim Shellow, a former president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers who has represented many local organized-crime suspects during his long career – including Balistrieri relatives and associates. Shellow thinks the government often sees only what it wants to see: a sophisticated network, when something much less organized is at work – if it exists at all.

“The hard data I have – and this is based on experience, not only in Milwaukee, but in Chicago, Seattle, New York, Detroit, Denver, Philadelphia and Las Vegas – I never saw what has been defined as the Mafia in Milwaukee, and I don’t see it now.”

Shepherd Express, Chuck Nowlen.


< Return