By Jerry Holisky
Is crime and public safety an important issue to you? How about domestic violence and violence against women? Are you outraged by the epidemic of missing and murdered indigenous women in the upper Midwest? If you answered YES to any of these questions, please make sure Mark Munger is NOT sent to St Paul to represent the citizens of Two Harbors.
This is extremely personal for me. I have been practicing law in Chicago for the past 35 years. But I grew up in Two Harbors. And in May of 2015, my brother, William James Holisky II (“Jimmy”), killed a Native American woman, Lisa Jean Isham, in her Duluth home. The crime was particularly heinous, with the victim found two weeks after the murder with the weapon – a knife – still protruding from her chest. The autopsy concluded that she was stabbed at least 24 times, with some of the wounds inflicted post-mortem.
But there is another level to this tragedy: the abject failure of the criminal justice system, and specifically then- Judge Mark Munger, to protect the public and Lisa Jean Isham when he had the chance and the responsibility to do so. In my opinion, Mark Munger’s conduct in the series of cases involving my brother, without more, should disqualify him from earning your vote.
Munger & Jimmy
In January of 2015, Jimmy found himself in Mark Munger’s Duluth courtroom (and not for the first time), accused of violating the conditions of his parole on a Felony Domestic Assault conviction just four months earlier. Munger found that Jimmy failed to report for a domestic abuse intervention program, a 27-week course with an extremely successful track record in preventing recidivism by the enrolled offenders. But despite Jimmy’s extensive criminal record of violence against women, Mark Munger decided to remove Jimmy from supervised probation altogether, and he vacated all of the remaining conditions of his parole: specifically, that Jimmy get a mental health evaluation and participate in a domestic abuse program.
Facts are important so let’s review. (All this is in the court record and/or reported by the Duluth News-Tribune.) By January of 2015, no one in the criminal justice system understood better than Mark Munger what a serious threat Jimmy was to public safety. Because Mark Munger had been the presiding judge in some of Jimmy’s most notorious crimes against women. The following is only a partial listing of Jimmy’s criminal record; it does not include the many DWI arrests and convictions, the disorderly conduct charges, and the many orders of protection entered by family courts on behalf of numerous women, all part of his “rap sheet”.
• 2003: Jimmy charged with Felony Burglary In the Second Degree, caught by Duluth Police in the act of removing possessions from a former girlfriend’s residence, with the front door damaged.
• 2007: Jimmy pled guilty to a felony for making terroristic threats and assaulting an elderly female neighbor with a golf club in Two Harbors.
• 2008: In May of 2008, Mark Munger was the presiding Judge when Jimmy was about to be tried for a 2006 incident, in which he fired multiple shotgun blasts into a former girlfriend’s home in Congden Park. Just before jury selection Munger signed off on a plea deal which included (i) a three-year prison sentence, and (ii) the County’s promise not to object if Jimmy petitioned to have his gun rights restored once he had served his time.
Yes, you read that right. In a case involving the criminal discharge of a shotgun into a woman’s residence, Mark Munger (as well as the County Attorney) saw nothing wrong with the County agreeing to stand down if Jimmy asked for his guns back two years later (his release date). Live and learn, I guess. By the way, after he was released, Jimmy did ask for his guns back and a Two Harbors judge obliged because no one bothered to oppose Jimmy’s petition in writing! That resulted in Jimmy being featured in a 5,000 word Sunday New York Times article in 2011, focusing on violent felons who have been successful in getting their State gun rights restored.
• 2014: In September, Jimmy was convicted in a Virginia courtroom for assaulting a female correctional officer on the way to a court appearance, attempting to beat her with the chains being used to confine him. He was sentenced to one year and one day, with sentence stated in lieu of time served, probation and a $75 fine.
That same month, Mark Munger was the presiding judge when a Duluth jury convicted Jimmy of felony domestic assault for a 2013 incident in which he repeatedly struck, kicked, and stomped his then live-in girlfriend. Munger’s sentence: 21 months, but Jimmy was not required to serve any additional time; instead Munger released Jimmy and gave him only two years of “supervised probation” that required Jimmy to: (i) enter the Domestic Abuse Intervention Program, (ii) obtain a mental health diagnostic assessment, (iii) stay in contact with his probation officer, and (iv) provide notice of his living arrangements. Parole would run through October of 2016.
Probation Violation: Munger Talks, Jimmy Walks
Jimmy didn’t do any of those things so less than four months after the September 2014 felony domestic assault conviction, his probation officer filed a report of probation violation. At a court hearing on January 21, Jimmy of course denied everything and proceeded to cross-examine the probation officer. Mark Munger denied the officer’s request for a brief recess to access records from his courthouse office that would verify his statements (and prove the falsity of Jimmy’s denial). The next day Munger ruled against Jimmy but only on the failure to report for the domestic abuse program: According to Munger, “[Holisky] was given a specific date to report. He had no explanation as to why he didn’t report.” However, Munger did NOT order Jimmy to be incarcerated because he had already been credited for time served before the 2014 trial – time which exceeded the statutory minimum amount of time a felon is required to serve: 2/3 or 14 months of the 21-month sentence.
But at that point Mark Munger really went completely off the rails. Despite the probation violation, and despite Jimmy’s failure to report for the domestic abuse program, and although his supervised probation was scheduled to run for almost two more years, Mark Munger, “without further elaboration, vacated all of the conditions of Holisky’s original sentence, which had him on supervised probation through October 2016. The judge placed him on unsupervised status and shortened the probationary term to January 2016.”
Less than four months later, Lisa Jean Isham was dead.
Enough is Enough
It is important to be very clear what Judge Mark Munger did here, with my brother. He took an individual that he knew to be a serial felony domestic abuser (and who had been twice convicted of crimes against two different women in just the previous few months), and he put him back on the streets, completely unsupervised.
The consequences, sadly, were catastrophic – and entirely predictable. Jimmy was known by everyone in the Duluth area criminal justice system to be both alcoholic and bi-polar. Yet Mark Munger let Jimmy walk, with no more supervision or restrictions on his movement than you or I have. In May of that year, Lisa Jean Isham’s body was found two weeks after her murder, and a warrant for Jimmy’s arrest was finally issued on July 30 at Douglas County Jail, where Jimmy was being held on unrelated charges. (After the murder, Jimmy moved to Superior, Wisconsin and went on yet another mini crime spree.)
What a difference it might have made had Jimmy still been on supervised probation in May of 2015. What if Jimmy had been required to enroll and participate in the Domestic Abuse Intervention Program (an internationally recognized program boasting a 70 percent success rate in preventing recidivism)? What if Jimmy had been required to obtain a mental health assessment as a condition to terminating his probation? Perhaps if Jimmy had been required to meet regularly with his probation officer and report on where he was living, the probation officer may have been able to gauge Jimmy’s compliance with his medication regime; or the probation officer might have been able to identify Jimmy’s rapidly deteriorating mental health condition in the Winter and Spring of 2015, and to intervene appropriately.
The truth is we will never know … because of Mark Munger.
Let me be clear. Mark Munger isn’t the only one in the criminal justice system to error in handling my brother. But time after time, Mark Munger was the final decision-maker in a judicial system that protected Jimmy pretty well, but not so much Lisa Jean Isham and Jimmy’s many other victims. In January of 2015, Mark Munger had the duty and the responsibility to use all the available tools at his disposal to both protect the public and, if possible, to give Jimmy a chance at recovery.
And he failed miserably.
The Legal Community Noticed
But you might ask: That happens all the time, right? Nothing unusual about THIS case, right? WRONG. My five sisters and I were incredulous that Munger could have made such a decision, that he sent Jimmy back on the streets without a single guardrail in place to protect the community. And the Duluth News-Tribune picked up on the story. In a March 16, 2016 article, reporter Tom Olsen noted that the decision and series of events “raised eyebrows within the local legal community.” According to Olsen, while Jimmy was waiting for his murder trial, “the handling of Holisky’s probation violation … [remained] a hot topic in legal circles, but those involved had little to say publicly”:
• Several officials in the criminal justice system, who spoke to the News Tribune under the condition of anonymity because they appear before Munger, said the outcome underscores flaws in the judicial system that allow violent criminals to re-offend.
• “I’ve never seen anything like this,” said one attorney with knowledge of Holisky’s criminal record. “With his history of violence, it seems like the message was not sent.”
• “All I can say is we outlined our recommendations to the court, and the court did what they did.” – Wally Kostich, the chief probation officer for Arrowhead Regional Corrections
• Another local attorney who practiced before Munger and requested anonymity to speak candidly, said “This guy, with his record, is still not a prison commit? Why are so many drug dealers and users in prison, and this guy is not? How many times do you have to shoot at people and attack people before you do hard time?”
For Mark Munger, the answer to that question apparently is “Until somebody is dead.”
Ironically, Jimmy’s murder case was assigned to Judge Munger. Prosecutors negotiated a plea deal for second degree murder and a thirty-year sentence. During the sentencing and family impact statements, Munger said he hoped Jimmy’s confession and plea bargain would keep him from ever reaching the streets again.
“Too little, too late” would be an understatement.
A Decision for Voters
In Mark Munger’s 20 years on the bench, he wrote and self-published a number of books, including some with legal, mystery, and murder themes. Strangely, exactly a week before Tom Olsen wrote about Munger’s controversial decision to remove Jimmy from probation restrictions, the News Tribune published a piece of self-promotion written by … Mark Munger, in which he described his unappreciated 30-year writing career and announced a pre-sale for a soon-to-be-released legal thriller set in Ely and Grand Marais. (“A writer’s lament: Literary efforts are labors of love, but bittersweet.” Duluth News-Tribune, March 5, 2016.) That’s all well and good but residents of District 3B might wonder whether they would have been better served had Mark Munger actually paid attention to his day job and focused on protecting the community and on legal thrillers in his courtroom.
Mark Munger wants you to send him to St. Paul to make laws. But remember, just this past session, the Minnesota Legislature reduced the minimum amount of time that must be serviced on any felony sentence. The Minnesota Rehabilitation and Reinvestment Act (“MRRA”) cuts that minimum period of incarceration from two-thirds to only one-half of the sentence. Well, surely there is an exception from that reduction for violent offenders, right? NOPE. All felons are eligible for the program and the reduction in time served (whether their crime was retail theft or an unspeakably horrific murder) unless the original sentence was a life sentence. Thus, the MRRA could shave another FIVE years off Jimmy’s minimum time served – from 20 to 15 years. Sadly, we CAN’T afford any more politicians like Mark Munger: those who consistently allow criminal rights and “criminal reform” to trump the rights of victims and public safety.
The irony is that Mark Munger has made public safety the first principle of his campaign. His website, campaign literature, and many of his public appearances lead with this statement: “I’m in this for one reason: my grandchildren. I want to ensure a world where they can be safe …” And from a video on his campaign website: “I’ll be diligent in protecting our families and public safety when you send me to St. Paul.”
Thanks but no thanks. District 3B can do better.
Law Enforcement Speaks Out
Is it really any surprise that the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association and the St. Louis County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association have endorsed his opponent, Natalie Zeleznikar?
Crime is on the ballot in House District 3B and its name is Mark Munger. Hopefully next Tuesday the good people of House District 3B will keep Mark Munger where he is today – in retirement.
