A former Waupaca County sheriff’s deputy who is running for Waupaca County Sheriff continues to dispute credibility-related allegations that have affected his law-enforcement career, even as prosecutors in different Wisconsin counties have reached substantially different conclusions about whether information concerning him requires disclosure under Brady and Giglio.
Justin Malueg, formerly a deputy with the Waupaca County Sheriff’s Office and later an officer with the Poynette Police Department, has publicly challenged determinations made by Waupaca County District Attorney Kat Turner concerning his credibility.
Turner has maintained that information involving Malueg warrants disclosure to criminal defendants whose cases depend on his testimony. Malueg denies that he engaged in intentional dishonesty and has released records and pursued litigation challenging actions taken by prosecutors.
Significantly, an independent review completed by the Outagamie County District Attorney’s Office reached a different conclusion. In a July 1, 2025 memorandum filed in Outagamie County Circuit Court, Assistant District Attorney Joshua A. Dryak concluded that, based on the information available to that office, Brady notification was not necessary for Malueg. The memorandum expressly reserved the right to reconsider that conclusion if additional relevant information became available.
The dispute now intersects with Malueg’s campaign for Waupaca County Sheriff. His campaign website identifies him as an independent candidate for the November 3, 2026 election.
What a Brady/Giglio Notice Actually Means
The terminology surrounding the dispute requires an important distinction.
A “Brady violation,” in the traditional constitutional sense, occurs when prosecutors improperly fail to disclose material evidence favorable to a criminal defendant. The term originates from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1963 decision in Brady v. Maryland.
Giglio v. United States, decided in 1972, extended disclosure requirements to evidence capable of impeaching the credibility of a government witness.
For police officers, prosecutors may determine that information concerning an officer’s credibility must be disclosed to defense attorneys when that officer becomes a witness. Those officers are sometimes informally described as being on a “Brady list” or as “Brady officers.”
There is no single nationwide government “Brady list,” and being subject to a Brady/Giglio disclosure does not, by itself, constitute a judicial finding that an officer committed perjury, falsified evidence or violated the Constitution.
The Outagamie County memorandum itself noted that a Brady violation requires favorable evidence, suppression by the State and materiality to the criminal proceeding.
Subscribe on YouTube and join thousands of officers, attorneys, and citizens who follow Cop Talk LIVE for fact-based analysis—not headlines.
▶ Subscribe Here: https://www.youtube.com/@CopTalkLIVE
Waupaca County Credibility Determination
Turner publicly stated in 2025 that her office’s concerns initially arose from an internal matter involving Malueg while he worked for the Waupaca County Sheriff’s Office.
According to Turner, information supplied by the Sheriff’s Office led her to conclude that a report contained a false statement. She subsequently reviewed additional material and maintained that credibility-related disclosures concerning Malueg were required.
Turner has publicly stood by that determination. In reporting by WBAY, she said her office had identified what it considered instances of dishonesty that defense attorneys needed to know about when Malueg was involved as a witness.
Malueg disputes Turner’s characterization of the underlying events and denies intentionally providing false information.
The July 2023 OWI Traffic Stop
One of the most significant disputed incidents involves a July 3, 2023 traffic stop conducted while Malueg was a Waupaca County deputy.
Questions were later raised about whether Malueg possessed sufficient legal justification to stop the vehicle when the seizure occurred.
According to the Outagamie County memorandum, an earlier review questioned whether Malueg could have obtained the vehicle-registration information before initiating the stop.
Outagamie County prosecutors conducted their own review, including available squad-camera footage and a full National Crime Information Center, or NCIC, extraction.
That review concluded that records appeared to show Malueg received information concerning the registered owner’s license status before conducting the stop.
The memorandum also identified a defective light as a second stated justification appearing in citation documentation, although that reason was not included in the narrative portion of Malueg’s report.
After reviewing the available evidence, the Outagamie County District Attorney’s Office concluded:
“Based on the information reviewed and available at this time, we conclude that there is no material indication that Justin Malueg misrepresented or falsified information in this instance.”
The office further determined that there were two articulated bases supporting reasonable suspicion for the stop.
That conclusion directly conflicts with concerns previously raised in Waupaca County concerning the same stop.
Independent Review Examined Additional Allegations
The Outagamie County review extended beyond the 2023 traffic stop.
Investigators examined allegations concerning Malueg’s involvement in the December 2023 fatal wrong-way OWI crash that killed four siblings, internal-affairs matters and prior disciplinary actions from his employment with the Waupaca County Sheriff’s Office.
The memorandum was primarily authored by ADA Dryak, with investigative contributions from Investigator Jackie Gleiss, and its substantive content was reviewed by Outagamie County District Attorney Melinda Tempelis.
Fatal OWI Investigation
Questions had been raised regarding how Malueg described his role in the December 16, 2023 crash investigation.
After reviewing police reports and CAD information, Outagamie County concluded that Malueg was not technically the first law-enforcement officer present because an off-duty deputy had arrived before him. The review nevertheless found that Malueg appeared to have been the first on-duty officer to arrive.
The review also concluded that available records supported a significant investigative role for Malueg, including issuing citations and participating in the referral of the matter for prosecution.
Regarding allegations that some public statements Malueg later made concerning the case contained false information, the Outagamie review found disputes over certain facts but concluded that the information provided was insufficient to establish that Malueg made false statements requiring Brady notification.
Drug Recognition Expert Award Dispute
Malueg was also recognized for his work involving impaired-driving enforcement.
A separate dispute developed over whether he had nominated himself for a Drug Recognition Expert performance award.
Documents reviewed by Outagamie County included correspondence from Wisconsin DRE State Coordinator Steven Krejci. According to the memorandum, Krejci confirmed that Malueg had not nominated himself.
The Outagamie review therefore found the allegation that Malueg had nominated himself for the award to be contradicted by the available email evidence.
Internal Affairs and Disciplinary History
The Outagamie review also examined several internal-affairs and disciplinary matters.
Those included questions involving completion of a hit-and-run report, statements concerning whether photographs had been uploaded, the length of a work shift, a report from an incident at a Manawa bar and a telephone-call log.
The review additionally examined disciplinary matters involving restrictions on where Malueg was supposed to spend time while on duty, prohibited contact with an individual while working and a squad-car crash.
The memorandum did not conclude that Malueg had an unblemished disciplinary history.
Instead, it distinguished disciplinary conduct from evidence of intentional falsification.
Regarding three earlier disciplinary incidents, Outagamie County concluded that the conduct supported discipline but that none demonstrated misrepresentation or falsification requiring Brady notification.
Regarding other internal-affairs allegations, the memorandum repeatedly found either insufficient documentation to establish intentional dishonesty or circumstances capable of supporting an innocent explanation.
Outagamie County Reaches Different Brady Conclusion
After reviewing the materials, the Outagamie County District Attorney’s Office stated:
“Based on the information known to us at this time, our office does not believe that Brady notification is necessary for Justin Malueg.”
The office emphasized that the determination could be amended if additional relevant information became available.
The finding is significant but does not automatically invalidate the Waupaca County determination.
District attorneys have independent disclosure obligations, and one prosecutor’s decision concerning impeachment evidence does not necessarily compel another prosecutor to reach the same conclusion.
As a result, the public record currently contains conflicting prosecutorial assessments of information concerning Malueg’s credibility.
Cases Involving Malueg Were Dismissed
The credibility dispute has affected criminal prosecutions.
Defense attorneys have raised Malueg’s credibility in cases where his testimony was material.
In one Waupaca County felony OWI matter, a defense attorney sought dismissal and argued that prosecutors no longer considered Malueg a credible or trustworthy material witness.
Other cases involving Malueg were also dismissed or resolved without his testimony, according to court filings and published reporting.
The dismissal of a criminal prosecution, however, does not independently establish that Malueg committed misconduct. Prosecutors may dismiss cases for numerous evidentiary, legal or discretionary reasons.
Former District Attorney Defended Malueg
Former Waupaca County District Attorney Veronica Isherwood has publicly taken a different position from Turner.
In a May 2024 email concerning Malueg, Isherwood stated that she had reviewed his personnel file and found nothing in those documents indicating behavior she considered dishonest.
The same correspondence acknowledged disciplinary actions in Malueg’s employment history but distinguished those incidents from dishonesty.
Her assessment, like the Outagamie County review, does not bind the current Waupaca County District Attorney.
Poynette Employment and Columbia County Dispute
Malueg joined the Poynette Police Department after leaving the Waupaca County Sheriff’s Office.
Published reporting initially described him as working both for Poynette and the Shiocton Police Department.
By late 2025, however, another prosecutorial dispute had developed in Columbia County.
According to WBAY reporting, Columbia County District Attorney Brenda Yaskal ultimately decided that her office would not prosecute cases involving Malueg. Malueg disputed that decision and argued that it effectively prevented him from performing normal police duties.
WBAY reported in February 2026 that Malueg had resigned from his full-time position with the Poynette Police Department in early January.
That is a more recent development than earlier reporting describing him as being on administrative leave.
Malueg has challenged Yaskal’s actions through a petition for a writ of mandamus in Columbia County Circuit Court. As of the latest publicly located reporting, Yaskal had declined substantive media comment regarding the dispute while litigation was pending.
Malueg Continues to Deny Intentional Dishonesty
Malueg has consistently denied intentionally falsifying information.
He has published documents through his campaign website and social-media accounts and has characterized the allegations against him as unsupported and politically motivated.
Those are Malueg’s allegations and have not been established as judicial findings.
Malueg has also publicly acknowledged that an internal investigation included a situation in which he initially denied making a telephone call but later learned from phone records that he had made a call. He has maintained that the discrepancy resulted from an incorrect recollection rather than an intentional attempt to deceive investigators.
CLICK HERE to get your copy of
Campaign for Waupaca County Sheriff
The dispute is now part of the public record surrounding the 2026 Waupaca County sheriff election.
Malueg’s campaign website states that he is running as an independent and identifies November 3, 2026 as Election Day.
Current Sheriff Timothy Wilz has also publicly stated his intention to seek reelection.
CopTalkLIVE is not making a comparison or recommendation between candidates. The information reported here concerns publicly documented legal, employment and prosecutorial matters involving a declared candidate for public office.
Current Status
The available record establishes several distinct facts that should not be conflated:
- Waupaca County District Attorney Kat Turner has maintained that credibility-related information concerning Malueg warrants Brady/Giglio disclosure.
- Malueg denies intentionally providing false information and continues to challenge the allegations.
- An independent Outagamie County District Attorney’s Office review concluded on July 1, 2025 that, based on the information available to that office, Brady notification was not necessary.
- The Outagamie review specifically found no material indication that Malueg falsified information concerning the disputed July 2023 traffic stop.
- The Outagamie determination expressly remains subject to reconsideration if additional relevant information becomes available.
- Columbia County District Attorney Brenda Yaskal later declined to prosecute cases involving Malueg, according to WBAY reporting.
- Malueg resigned from his full-time Poynette Police Department position in early January 2026, according to that reporting.
- Malueg has pursued litigation challenging actions taken by prosecutors.
- Malueg remains a declared candidate for Waupaca County Sheriff in the November 2026 election.
No publicly located court ruling reviewed for this article establishes that Malueg committed perjury, fabricated evidence or intentionally falsified the July 2023 traffic-stop justification.
At the same time, the Outagamie County determination does not erase or judicially overturn the separate disclosure determination maintained by the Waupaca County District Attorney.
The result is an unresolved dispute in which different prosecutors have evaluated overlapping evidence and reached different conclusions concerning disclosure obligations.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Justin Malueg officially on a “Brady list”?
The Waupaca County District Attorney has treated Malueg as an officer whose credibility-related information requires disclosure. However, the term “Brady list” is informal, and there is no single statewide or nationwide list carrying one universally binding determination.
Did Outagamie County clear Malueg?
The Outagamie County District Attorney’s Office concluded in its July 1, 2025 memorandum that, based on the information known to that office, Brady notification was not necessary. It also specifically found no material indication that he falsified information concerning the disputed July 2023 traffic stop. The office reserved the right to reconsider if new information emerged.
Calling that determination a complete statewide “exoneration” would therefore go beyond what the memorandum states.
Did a court find that Malueg lied?
No judicial finding establishing intentional dishonesty by Malueg was identified in the materials reviewed for this article.
Prosecutorial credibility determinations and Brady/Giglio disclosures are not the same as a court finding that an officer committed perjury or falsified evidence.
Did Malueg have legal justification for the July 2023 traffic stop?
That issue has been disputed.
The Outagamie County District Attorney’s Office independently reviewed the available material and found two articulated bases supporting reasonable suspicion. It also concluded that available NCIC information appeared to corroborate Malueg’s claim that he obtained information regarding the registered owner before conducting the stop.
Is Malueg still a Poynette police officer?
More recent reporting indicates that he resigned from his full-time Poynette Police Department position in early January 2026 after Columbia County prosecutors declined to prosecute cases involving him.
Earlier reports describing him as being on administrative leave therefore no longer reflect the most recently verified public information located for this article.
Is Malueg running for sheriff?
Yes. His campaign website currently identifies him as an independent candidate for Waupaca County Sheriff in the November 3, 2026 election.
🚔 JOIN US FOR ROLL CALL
On the first Sunday of every month, Cop Talk LIVE Patreon members meet for an exclusive members-only Roll Call — real conversation, direct access, and discussion you won’t get anywhere else.
👉 CLICK Cop Talk LIVE Patreon today and be part of the next Roll Call.
About The Author
Discover more from Cop Talk LIVE
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
