Editor’s note: The following article has been updated from the version in the Dec. 18 print issue to reflect that a Monroe County Circuit Court hearing set for 9 a.m. Friday, Dec. 26, will focus on arguments and evidence related to Barton’s request for a guilty-plea withdrawal.
By Sarah Parker | County Line Editor
Public defender Russell Hammer, the attorney for former Wilton clerk/treasurer Leigha Barton, submitted a motion in Monroe County Circuit Court on Friday to withdraw the guilty plea she had agreed to Aug. 28, asking that the matter go to trial instead.
Barton is accused of stealing about $135,000 in Village of Wilton municipal funds during her tenure as clerk/treasurer.
On Wednesday, Judge Todd Ziegler wrote a letter to district attorney Kevin Croninger saying, “While the motion is late, 1 am still going to allow the motion to proceed as originally scheduled on December 26, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. Ms. Barton should not lose her opportunity to potentially withdraw her pleas simply because of a late filing by her attorney.”
Hammer’s deadline to submit the motion was Friday, Dec. 5. After the court had received no motion by Wednesday, Dec. 10, district attorney Kevin Croninger asked the hearing be changed from a motion hearing to a restitution and sentencing hearing. But two days later, Hammer did submit the motion.
The court had been amid a restitution and sentencing hearing on Nov. 17, until Barton’s attorney announced her intention to withdraw her plea.
When Barton agreed to the plea bargain in August, the felony charges were reduced from 20 to two — theft in a business setting over $10,000 and misconduct in public office — although the two would reflect increased severity compared with the original charges.
Hammer’s motion
Hammer made an assortment of assertions in his written motion. Specific examples did not accompany the claims.
Croninger said in an email to the County Line on Monday, “The defendant does carry the burden of showing that withdrawal of plea is necessary to correct a manifest injustice. To do so, the defendant would have to introduce evidence of some form (sworn testimony, sworn affidavits, exhibits, etc.). Given that, I assume, without knowing, that the defense would intend on presenting further information but have not been provided any documentation to support their claims.”
• Hammer wrote in his motion, “(Wilton Police Chief John) Stavlo testified to purported financial records and initially attributed the compilation of those records and calculations to ‘village staff.’ Later, under cross-examination, he clarified that ‘village staff’ referred to three individuals who did not work for the village during Ms. Barton’s tenure as village clerk and who left their ‘employment’ with the village shortly after this task.”
Besides Stavlo, those who compiled the financial records were then-board president Missy Coldren, who later assumed a board spot; Nalani Bever of Elroy, a former Wilton Village Board president; Mindy Haase, who replaced Barton as clerk/treasurer in August 2023; and Terri Taylor, clerk/treasurer for the Village of Ontario.
• Hammer continued, “Testimony taken at the November 17, 2025, hearing answered questions for the defense were not apparent in discovery. Much of Stavlo’s testimony was hearsay that would not be admissible at trial. The hearsay declarants’ potential testimony very likely fails the basis test under Wis. Stat. 906.02. A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.”
• The motion added, “Various Wisconsin cases discuss the standard for withdrawing a guilty or no-contest plea prior to sentencing. The most commonly cited case is State v. Jenkins, 2007 WI 96, 303 Wis. 2d 157, 736 N.W. 2d 894, which notes that a circuit court should ‘freely allow a defendant to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing for any fair and just reason, unless that prosecution would be substantially prejudiced.’”
• Hammer added, “The defense asserts that new information was learned during the combined sentencing and restitution hearing that present trial defenses. The state, on the other hand, cannot claim to be substantially prejudiced because it relies on putative financial records rather than the memory of victims or witnesses.”
• Hammer’s motion also contended that Barton had been the victim of threats and harassment.
“Additional evidence at the upcoming hearing will reveal that Ms. Barton was perpetually harassed and threatened during her tenure as clerk. That pattern of harassment, including death threats, and then the filing of these charges, caused her to fall into a depression. The fog lifted significantly during the recent evidentiary hearing when it was learned that her primary assailants were the ones responsible for the doctored and error-filled financial records testified to by Mr. Stavlo. Mr. Stavlo, incidentally, witnessed much of the harassment levied at Ms. Barton. He was also issued a credit card in his name, attached to the village finances.”
Former Wilton Village Board president Tim Welch had been scheduled to serve as a witness for the defense at the hearing Nov. 17, but Hammer announced Barton’s intention to withdraw her plea before Welch could give his testimony.
• Hammer added, “Finally, through members of the defense team, the court will learn that the testimony of Stavlo, at the recent hearing, revealed information that was not in discovery and unknown to the defense: Specifically, various public defender staff, spent many hours attempting to decipher the financial materials provided. The methodology was never disclosed even though much of it was obviously wrong.”
