PASSAGE OF THE DAY: (Other reasons for retrial): "A detective’s credibility: (Judge) Craig faulted the defense for failing to pursue testimony or impeachment evidence regarding Detective Gilbert Hernandez. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported in 2015 that a federal jury found Hernandez and another Milwaukee detective liable in William Avery’s wrongful conviction case, which centered on a confession Avery said he never gave. Witnesses and constitutional rights: Craig also pointed to failures involving incarcerated witnesses and testimony that referenced Cruz’s request for an attorney."
---------------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Why one word mattered: At Cruz’s 2021 trial, prosecutors did not present DNA, fingerprint, ballistic or eyewitness evidence placing him at the Highway K scene. The case rested on cooperating witnesses and a theory tying the killing to a Milwaukee double homicide the same day. One disputed piece of evidence involved Y-STR testing from fingernail clippings taken from Zdroik’s right hand. Jurors were told the comparison was “inconclusive.” Defense expert Greg Hampikian testified in January 2025 that exclusions are rule-based. “Those exclusions are absolute,” Hampikian said. Crime Lab analyst Sharon Polakowski also acknowledged the original conclusion was wrong. “I used incorrect protocol in the interpretation for the report that was written in 2018,” Polakowski testified. The lab later issued an amended report excluding Cruz. That distinction matters. “Inconclusive” can leave a juror thinking the evidence might still point to a defendant. “Excluded” means it does not."
🧭 The short version
What is not clear: Whether the case will go to trial. Plea discussions have happened, but Hanson said there is no agreement and prosecutors decide whether to enter one.
Where Cruz stands now: The court reinstated his previous $500,000 cash bond when the conviction was vacated, according to CCAP docket entries.
What is next: A final pretrial conference is scheduled for Sept. 8. Trial is scheduled for the week of Sept. 21 in Room MC304 at the Law Enforcement Center–North Courtroom.
A detective’s credibility: Craig faulted the defense for failing to pursue testimony or impeachment evidence regarding Detective Gilbert Hernandez.
Witnesses and constitutional rights: Craig also pointed to failures involving incarcerated witnesses and testimony that referenced Cruz’s request for an attorney.
Hanson, in a statement forwarded to Racine County Eye, described the ruling as turning on two issues.
Why one word mattered
At Cruz’s 2021 trial, prosecutors did not present DNA, fingerprint, ballistic or eyewitness evidence placing him at the Highway K scene.
What could happen before the Miguel Cruz retrial?
At an April 20, 2026, hearing, Assistant District Attorney Dirk Jensen had tried the week before to meet with the defense “to try to negotiate this matter,” according to the court record, but the parties were unable to connect.
Juanita Zdroik homicide case: court timeline
------------------------------------
The entire case can be read at:
-----------------------------------------------
STORY: Miguel Cruz faces September retrial in Juanita Zdroik killing as plea talks continue, by Reporter Denise Lockwood, published by The Racine County Eye, on August 24, 2026.
GIST: "The Miguel Cruz retrial in the killing of Juanita Zdroik is set for September after a Racine County judge threw out Cruz’s 2021 conviction, reopening a 26-year-old homicide case that could play differently before a second jury.
District Attorney Tricia Hanson said no plea agreement has been reached. Prosecutors and the defense have discussed whether the case could be resolved before trial, and Hanson said prosecutors met with Zdroik’s family because the court’s evidence rulings could change the shape of a second trial.
“The case remains in a trial posture,” Hanson said.
Hanson said a plea agreement could secure a conviction rather than risk an acquittal.
GIST: "The Miguel Cruz retrial in the killing of Juanita Zdroik is set for September after a Racine County judge threw out Cruz’s 2021 conviction, reopening a 26-year-old homicide case that could play differently before a second jury.
District Attorney Tricia Hanson said no plea agreement has been reached. Prosecutors and the defense have discussed whether the case could be resolved before trial, and Hanson said prosecutors met with Zdroik’s family because the court’s evidence rulings could change the shape of a second trial.
“The case remains in a trial posture,” Hanson said.
Hanson said a plea agreement could secure a conviction rather than risk an acquittal.
She also said the ultimate decision on whether to enter a plea agreement remains with the prosecutor’s office, even after victim-family consultation.
Miguel A. Cruz is not cleared.
Miguel A. Cruz is not cleared.
The charge has not been dismissed.
But Judge Scott Craig ruled last year that Cruz’s trial lawyers failed him in several ways.
The result is that the next jury, if the case goes to trial, may hear a different case than the first jury heard.
The case has forced Zdroik’s family back into a courtroom fight they thought was over.
“The legal system is causing us constant trauma at this point,” said Zachrey Zdroik, who was 13 when deputies told the family his mother, Juanita, 39, had been found shot to death along Highway K in February 2000. “Now we’re forced to relive it all over again.”
The case has forced Zdroik’s family back into a courtroom fight they thought was over.
“The legal system is causing us constant trauma at this point,” said Zachrey Zdroik, who was 13 when deputies told the family his mother, Juanita, 39, had been found shot to death along Highway K in February 2000. “Now we’re forced to relive it all over again.”
🧭 The short version
What is clear: Cruz’s 2021 conviction has been vacated, but the homicide charge remains active.
What is not clear: Whether the case will go to trial. Plea discussions have happened, but Hanson said there is no agreement and prosecutors decide whether to enter one.
Where Cruz stands now: The court reinstated his previous $500,000 cash bond when the conviction was vacated, according to CCAP docket entries.
What is next: A final pretrial conference is scheduled for Sept. 8. Trial is scheduled for the week of Sept. 21 in Room MC304 at the Law Enforcement Center–North Courtroom.
Dates can change; check case 2017CF001138 before going to court.
The ruling that reopened the case
Craig vacated the conviction from the bench Aug. 21, 2025, after finding Cruz received ineffective assistance from his trial lawyers.
In the transcript reviewed by Racine County Eye, Craig said the decision “did not come easily.” He cited several failures that, taken together, required a new trial.
Among them:DNA evidence: Jurors were told a key fingernail-DNA comparison was “inconclusive.”
The ruling that reopened the case
Craig vacated the conviction from the bench Aug. 21, 2025, after finding Cruz received ineffective assistance from his trial lawyers.
In the transcript reviewed by Racine County Eye, Craig said the decision “did not come easily.” He cited several failures that, taken together, required a new trial.
Among them:DNA evidence: Jurors were told a key fingernail-DNA comparison was “inconclusive.”
Craig said Cruz’s lawyers did not properly challenge that point, even though there is “a distinct difference” between being excluded and saying no determination can be made.
A detective’s credibility: Craig faulted the defense for failing to pursue testimony or impeachment evidence regarding Detective Gilbert Hernandez.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported in 2015 that a federal jury found Hernandez and another Milwaukee detective liable in William Avery’s wrongful conviction case, which centered on a confession Avery said he never gave.
Witnesses and constitutional rights: Craig also pointed to failures involving incarcerated witnesses and testimony that referenced Cruz’s request for an attorney.
Hanson, in a statement forwarded to Racine County Eye, described the ruling as turning on two issues.
She said Cruz’s trial attorney failed to obtain additional information about a credibility problem involving a former Milwaukee Police Department investigator who participated in the investigation.
The investigator was not called at trial, but Hanson said the court has now ruled that the investigator’s history in other cases is admissible if the defense calls that person as a witness.
Hanson also said Cruz’s trial attorney did not hire an expert to review the DNA reports.
Hanson also said Cruz’s trial attorney did not hire an expert to review the DNA reports.
Such an expert, she said, could have pointed out that testing standards at the State Crime Lab changed between initial testing in 2012 and later testing after Cruz was located in 2017.
Other case materials reviewed by Racine County Eye refer to a 2018 Crime Lab comparison report, which may reflect a later step in the same testing history.
Hanson said the state is now bound by the 2012 testing standards and technology that excluded Cruz as a contributor.
The transcript reviewed by Racine County Eye shows Craig cited additional failures as part of his cumulative ruling, including issues involving incarcerated witnesses and testimony that referenced Cruz’s request for an attorney.
The transcript reviewed by Racine County Eye shows Craig cited additional failures as part of his cumulative ruling, including issues involving incarcerated witnesses and testimony that referenced Cruz’s request for an attorney.
Why one word mattered
At Cruz’s 2021 trial, prosecutors did not present DNA, fingerprint, ballistic or eyewitness evidence placing him at the Highway K scene.
The case rested on cooperating witnesses and a theory tying the killing to a Milwaukee double homicide the same day.
One disputed piece of evidence involved Y-STR testing from fingernail clippings taken from Zdroik’s right hand.
Jurors were told the comparison was “inconclusive.” Defense expert Greg Hampikian testified in January 2025 that exclusions are rule-based.
“Those exclusions are absolute,” Hampikian said.
Crime Lab analyst Sharon Polakowski also acknowledged the original conclusion was wrong.
“I used incorrect protocol in the interpretation for the report that was written in 2018,” Polakowski testified.
The lab later issued an amended report excluding Cruz.
That distinction matters. “Inconclusive” can leave a juror thinking the evidence might still point to a defendant. “Excluded” means it does not.
One disputed piece of evidence involved Y-STR testing from fingernail clippings taken from Zdroik’s right hand.
Jurors were told the comparison was “inconclusive.” Defense expert Greg Hampikian testified in January 2025 that exclusions are rule-based.
“Those exclusions are absolute,” Hampikian said.
Crime Lab analyst Sharon Polakowski also acknowledged the original conclusion was wrong.
“I used incorrect protocol in the interpretation for the report that was written in 2018,” Polakowski testified.
The lab later issued an amended report excluding Cruz.
That distinction matters. “Inconclusive” can leave a juror thinking the evidence might still point to a defendant. “Excluded” means it does not.
What could happen before the Miguel Cruz retrial?
At an April 20, 2026, hearing, Assistant District Attorney Dirk Jensen had tried the week before to meet with the defense “to try to negotiate this matter,” according to the court record, but the parties were unable to connect.
The defense then asked to reset the final pretrial, saying it wanted time to negotiate and to “move forward without this coming back on appeal.” The state did not object, and the court reset the trial for September.
Hanson said plea negotiations “can be ongoing,” but no agreement exists.
Hanson said plea negotiations “can be ongoing,” but no agreement exists.
She said potential plea discussions are explained and discussed with victims’ families in homicide cases under the office’s practice and Marsy’s Law obligations, but the final decision remains with prosecutors.
A second legal fight is also playing out over what a new jury may hear.
A second legal fight is also playing out over what a new jury may hear.
The defense wants to introduce more evidence of alleged misconduct by Milwaukee detectives. Prosecutors objected, arguing it would create a “trial within a trial.”
Craig ruled on that issue March 13, 2026. Racine County Eye does not yet have that decision and has not reviewed it.
Cruz is represented by attorneys Natalie Wisco, Mackenzie Renner and Mark Richards. Renner filed a notice of retainer Feb. 18, 2026, and appeared for Cruz at the April 20 final pretrial. Wisco did not respond to questions Racine County Eye emailed Saturday before publication.
The Miguel Cruz retrial is not a replay of the first case.
Craig ruled on that issue March 13, 2026. Racine County Eye does not yet have that decision and has not reviewed it.
Cruz is represented by attorneys Natalie Wisco, Mackenzie Renner and Mark Richards. Renner filed a notice of retainer Feb. 18, 2026, and appeared for Cruz at the April 20 final pretrial. Wisco did not respond to questions Racine County Eye emailed Saturday before publication.
The Miguel Cruz retrial is not a replay of the first case.
Pretrial rulings can change what jurors hear.
In this case, those changes could affect DNA testimony, investigator credibility evidence and how jurors hear testimony from incarcerated witnesses.
A vacated conviction is not a finding of innocence, and Cruz is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
Editor’s note: This story was updated Aug. 25, 2026, to note that attorneys Mackenzie Renner and Mark Richards also represent Cruz, and to add court-record detail showing the defense asked to reset the April 20 final pretrial to allow time to negotiate."
Editor’s note: This story was updated Aug. 25, 2026, to note that attorneys Mackenzie Renner and Mark Richards also represent Cruz, and to add court-record detail showing the defense asked to reset the April 20 final pretrial to allow time to negotiate."
-----------------------------------
Track this case:Beyond the 2000 Highway K homicide of Juanita Zdroik: A family’s fight to reclaim a mother’s legacy
Track this case:Beyond the 2000 Highway K homicide of Juanita Zdroik: A family’s fight to reclaim a mother’s legacy
Juanita Zdroik homicide case: court timeline
------------------------------------
The entire case can be read at:
-------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true;
