Venue change denied for Donley Judge wants more information on an attempt to suppress a confession By Sonja G. Ostrow News-Chronicle After hearing the testimony of three witnesses Wednesday, Brown County Judge Peter J. Naze denied the motion by Donley's attorney to move the trial, scheduled for May 3, to a location other than Brown County. However, Naze ruled that attorney Mark Rosen's other motion, to suppress evidence to be used in that trial, merits more deliberation, and requested that both Rosen and District Attorney John Zakowski submit briefs by April 21 so that a decision can be reached. Donley is accused of causing the death of his girlfriend's 2-year-old son by shaking the child on Sept. 3. On Oct. 29, he allegedly confessed to the crime, as well as to being alone with the child at the time, during a short meeting with detective Scott Shermetzler of Ashwaubenon while Donley was an inmate at the Brown County Jail. During the first part of the motion hearing, Rosen attempted to show the court that this confession was not voluntary and should be suppressed. The three witnesses called to testify were Sonya Watermolen, a baby-sitter of the dead child and friend of the mother, Shermetzler, and Tessa White, the mother of the victim. In earlier investigations, White had told Shermetzler, the officer initially called to handle the case, she had been present during the incident. In fact, when Shermetzler first became involved with the case, he was told the boy had suffered severe head injuries due to a fall down the stairs. Watermolen and White met with Shermetzler on Oct. 28. Both women testified at the hearing they left the meeting with the impression that if someone did not convince Donley to "tell the truth," and tell Shermetzler that White had been away at the time of the incident, White would be charged with obstructing justice, arrested, and eventually have her children taken from her. Watermolen then called Donley to relay this information to him. According to her testimony, he immediately agreed to talk to Shermetzler and said he would tell him whatever he needed to so White would not lose her children. During his testimony, Shermetzler stated that in the two times he spoke with Donley he read him his Miranda rights and asked him if he understood them. The first time he met with Shermetzler, Donley declined to give a statement and said he wasn't sure if he understood his rights. At the second meeting, however, that took place immediately following the phone call with Watermolen, he signed a card saying he wanted to make a statement. While there were infrequent objections from both sides throughout the hearing, neither attorney disputed the facts. What the attorneys did appear to dispute was the intention of Shermetzler's meeting with Watermolen and White, and whether that meeting affected the validity of Donley's statement. While Zakowski emphasized that Shermetzler wanted to know the truth, Rosen argued that Shermetzler was attempting to coerce Donley into confessing to the crime by covertly threatening White. Whether Wednesday afternoon's testimony does validate Rosen's theory, and whether that should be taken into account for the trial, is now up to Naze to decide. Rosen then argued a change of venue for the trial was necessary because a series of newspaper articles had created "a reasonable probability of prejudice throughout this county ... (because) one side of the story is being presented." Naze, however, said the language in the articles was not at all inflammatory and appeared to adhere as much as possible to the facts. He also said it was likely many members of the jury would not have read the articles, and if they had, would be able to put aside any opinions formed from them.