ljs64
The state has a video recording of him staggering drunk that I have seen. Also another article that I've read gave his BAC which, while I can't remember it specifically, I do recall was considerably above the .08 level of legal intoxication.

I could be mistaken, but is he in a dry out center in Minnisota?

There is a very good reason why Jeff Wood did not appear.......
He called in drunk.

bobb1951, you're misunderstanding the point of requiring an appearance to an initial hearing. Having an attorney act on your behalf fulfills the requirement. I'm not sure what purpose mandating physical appearance in the courtroom would serve.
.
As for the issue of expulsion from the Assembly: while I can see the rationale, it should be considered carefully, as such action overrules the voters of the district. Given the circumstances, I don't see this as an emergency.

Maybe Sheridan is "dragging his feet" because so far Wood has only been CHARGED with a misdemeanor? It would be a little hypocritical to expel a member for being charged with something that the legislature doesn't have the guts to actually make a felony. After all, there is a prohibition against convicted felons from holding office, but not those convicted of misdemeanors.
"A 1996 constitutional amendment bars any candidate convicted of a misdemeanor which violates the public trust from running for or holding a public office. However, the legislature has not defined which misdemeanors violate the public trust. A candidate convicted of any misdemeanor is not barred from running for or holding a public office until the legislature defines which misdemeanors apply." WI form GAB-162
Sounds like the legislature should pass some laws to clean some stuff up first, then they can start saying someone can't serve the office voters elected them into.
The real reason Wood would get kicked out is to put the seat up for election. He is listed as Independent so he doesn't have any political base besides the voters in his district. If the voters want him representing them in Madison, who's business is it as long as there are no laws prohibiting it?
(And for the record, I think he should do the honorable thing and resign.)

JCK- Have you had the opportunity to examine all the evidence the state has? If not, how do you know the state has "overwhelming evidence"?

NO

And who votes in these "hypocrites?"

I don't have a problem with Wood's not appearing or standing mute. True, the burden of proof is on the state. Given the overwhelming evidence the state has that shouldn't be too difficult a task.

I would think your presence would be required to "stand mute". Otherwise, how do they know?? :)

He wasn't there to stand mute. Where was he? Having a cocktail down the street??

"Rep. Wood has to prove nothing."
>
>
>
True, he's already proven that he's a hypocrite and a scumbag who isn't fit for public office, yet the state politicians will keep him around because they're all hypocrites as well.

and by standing mute, the defendant retains some legal privileges in the case that he would have lost by entering a guilty/not guilty/no contest plea

This is called the INITIAL APPEARANCE. No one has called into evidence anything yet. Here we go with the dimestore lawyers and all the criminal experts. This should be fun..........
Rep. Wood has to prove nothing. The burden of proof is on the State of WI to prove guilt.....Please people get a clue..

what a jerk, you notice sheridan is dragging his feet on woods explusion, maybe so wood can get his pension?