In July 2016, a 5-year-old girl in Plover, Wisconsin, said that she had been sexually assaulted a month earlier by her mother's boyfriend, Shane Stroik.
At the time, the girl’s parents, known in records as Bud and Laura, were in the midst of what a court filing would later call “a heated separation.” The child, referred to as Amy, and her brother lived with their father and his girlfriend most days but stayed with Laura and Stroik, who was 29 years old, every other weekend.
Amy’s disclosure of the alleged abuse occurred when she was with her Aunt Heather. Amy had a bathroom accident and peed on the floor. When Heather asked Amy what happened, the girl said that Stroik had touched her vagina, which she called her “mimi.” Heather told Bud and his girlfriend, Mary, about the incident, and Bud then reported it to the family’s social worker. Bud would later note that Amy had become more defiant within the previous month.
Detective Michael Tracy of the Plover Police Department investigated the case, and Jacqueline Gremler at the local Child Advocacy Center interviewed Amy on July 13, 2016.
During the interview, Amy said that Stroik had pulled down her pants and touched her vagina when she, Laura, and Stroik were all in the bathroom together. She later said that another incident occurred when Stroik came into her bedroom and again pulled down her pants and “touched” her “mimi.” She said she told him to stop, but he said he wouldn’t and told her not to tell her mother. She said that Stroik touched her “mimi” either on the side or the inside or both, and it made her “mimi” feel “not good.”
During the interview, Gremler asked Amy to describe Stroik. She said he was bald. Stroik had a full head of red hair.
Later, Amy told Gremler, “It’s not just Shane.” She said that her paternal grandfather, who had died in March 2016 and was bald, had touched her vagina on multiple occasions when they slept in the same bed. She said he had also put his tongue on her mimi and said, “Don’t tell Daddy.”
The police interviewed Stroik and Laura. Stroik denied any abuse and said he was never alone with Amy.
He and Laura also told officials that Child Protective Services (CPS) had investigated a claim in February 2016 that Amy said she had been sexually assaulted by J.D., her 9-year-old paternal cousin. During her interview with a CPS social worker, Amy denied the abuse. According to the agency’s report, Amy told the social worker that she did “tell her mother” [that her cousin had touched her], but then indicated she “didn’t know why she told her mother that.” CPS closed its investigation after determining that the allegation was “unsubstantiated.”
Police arrested Stroik on August 11, 2016, charging him with first-degree child sex assault. During Stroik’s second interview with Tracy, he asked, “What if I did do it?” Stroik also said during that second interview that “sometimes he flips” Amy over his head and during one of those times “his hand cupped her butt and her vagina over her clothes.” The charging document said that Stroik’s alleged abuse of Amy occurred on June 10, 2016.
Early in the investigation, police had interviewed Stroik’s daughter, S.S. She initially denied any abuse but later said her father had sexually assaulted her on July 3, 2016. Stroik was charged with a second count of child sex assault on March 16, 2017.
The two cases were joined for trial, which began in mid-April 2018, in Portage County Circuit Court, with Judge Robert Shannon presiding. Attorney Gary Kryshak represented Stroik.
In their opening statement, the prosecutor said that Stroik “has a very high sex drive. And so, the presumption of course is that [the alleged assault] was for a sexual purpose.”
During Laura’s testimony, the prosecutor returned to this theme, asking her questions about her sexual activity with Stroik.
“Do you remember saying that Shane is a very sexual person?”
Laura said yes, and she agreed that they had more sex than in her previous relationships. She later agreed with the prosecutor that Stroik wanted to have sex when her two children were there, even though she didn’t want to. The prosecutor also asked her about Stroik’s consumption of adult pornography.
The jury viewed a recording of Amy’s interview with Gremler, where she described the alleged abuse. Now 7 years old, Amy testified about the events from 2016. Her testimony was confusing and often contradictory.
She first said that she didn’t remember telling Gremler about Stroik’s alleged abuse. The prosecutor said, “Do you know if Shane ever did anything to you that you didn’t like?”
Amy said, “No.”
The prosecutor repeated the question. Amy answered, “I don’t know.”
Later, Amy testified that she remembered telling “the lady” that Stroik “touched my private.”
During cross-examination, Amy said she did not know where the alleged abuse happened and whether Stroik had “touched” her.
Kryshak asked her, “And you don’t even remember if he did or didn’t do you?”
“No, I do not,” Amy said.
Heather, Bud, and Mary testified about Amy’s disclosure of the alleged abuse. After Amy’s bathroom accident, the three adults confronted the child and asked her what had happened. Mary testified that Bud had asked Amy whether someone had touched her before the girl accused Stroik. Bud testified the disclosure occurred without Amy being asked about inappropriate contact. Heather testified she could not remember whether Amy’s disclosure was in response to a specific question.
Tracy testified about the investigation and his interviews with Stroik. The jury viewed portions of these interviews, including Stroik’s statement that he might have accidentally touched Amy while flipping her over his head.
The prosecutor asked Tracy if at some point during the interviews, he believed that Stroik committed the offense. Tracy answered yes. Kryshak objected, arguing that witnesses aren’t allowed to offer opinions on another’s witness testimony. Judge Shannon sustained the objection but did not strike the testimony from the record. Tracy also testified that when Stroik asked him what would happen to him if was arrested, “I took it that potentially he knew that he did do it.” Similarly, Tracy said that Stroik’s explanation of how he came to inadvertently touch Amy was false, because Stroik “had a good two weeks to think about this alternative explanation between interviews.”
Tracy also testified about the credibility of Amy’s responses during her interview at the Children’s Advocacy Center. He said that they were “basically the purest interview you’re going to get with any child” and that “they are the most comfortable place for [the children] to talk.”
Stroik testified and denied any sexual abuse of Amy. He said that when he asked Tracy what would happen to him if he had done something to the girl, he was not admitting guilt but was simply scared after being handcuffed and wanted to know the consequences of the charge. He also testified that Amy’s paternal grandfather was bald.
During closing argument, the prosecutor returned to Stroik’s sex drive. “Shane is described by [Laura], his former girlfriend, as a very sexual person. They had a lot more sex than she’s ever had before,” the prosecutor said.
In his closing argument, Kryshak said: “The state, in the end and in its opening, said that because Shane Stroik is highly sexual or watches pornography, he somehow molested [Amy]. Ladies and gentlemen, that’s an absolute falsehood. That’s an absolute lack of understanding of the issue of sexual assault of children.”
Kryshak said to commit a sexual assault against a child you first had to have a sexual attraction to that child. “And who was attracted to the child? The person that [Amy] had sexual contact by, her papa. The person who was described by [Amy] by being bald. The person that [Amy] remembered.”
On April 18, 2018, the jury convicted Stroik of first-degree sexual assault for the charge related to Amy but acquitted him of the separate charge related to S.S. He was later sentenced to 5 years and 8 months in prison.
On August 19, 2019, Stroik moved for a new trial, arguing that Kryshak had been ineffective because he failed to object to testimony about Stroik’s sex drive and failed to object to much of Tracy’s testimony where the officer appeared to offer opinions on the credibility of other witnesses. The motion also said that Kryshak failed to impeach Heather by introducing a prior conviction during his cross-examination. Stroik also sought a new trial in the interest of justice and asked the court to review the CPS report that detailed Amy’s unsubstantiated accusation against her cousin.
At a hearing on January 3, 2020, Kryshak testified about his trial actions and strategy. He said that he didn’t object to the state’s comments and evidence on Stroik’s libido because they were irrelevant, but that he nonetheless addressed them in his closing argument. He said he didn’t move to strike Tracy’s testimony, because, in his experience, “striking testimony is usually a waste of time.” He also said he didn’t object to much of Tracy’s other testimony, because he didn’t want to draw the jury’s attention to it.
Kryshak testified that he was aware of Amy’s previous allegation against her cousin. He said he “assumed it didn’t occur, and basically the judge wasn’t going to let [him] get it in.” Instead, Kryshak said his strategy was to focus on the grandfather. “Everybody took that for a fact,” he said. “So that’s who we were trying to blame it on.”
A judge denied Stroik’s motion for a new trial. The court said the witness testimony and prosecutor statements regarding Stroik’s sexual habits were “relevant and probative” and that Tracy’s testimony had not crossed the line into improper vouching. Because this evidence was properly admitted, Kryshak could not be ineffective for failing to object to it. The ruling also said there would have been no point in impeaching Heather with the prior conviction because her testimony was “straightforward.”
Because the CPS report involved juveniles, on September 29, 2020, a juvenile court judge reviewed the report and then gave the document to the circuit court judge for review. The circuit court judge released the report under seal to Stroik and the state, ruling that the document was “relevant to potential claims regarding whether [Amy] made untruthful allegations of sexual abuse prior to accusing [Stroik.]”
Stroik then filed a supplemental motion, asserting that Kryshak had been ineffective for failing to obtain the report and that the state had failed to turn over this exculpatory evidence.
The circuit court judge denied the supplemental motion, ruling that Kryshak had pursued a reasonable trial strategy focused on the sexual abuse by Amy’s grandfather. The judge also said the state’s failure to disclose the CPS report hadn’t violated Stroik’s right to a fair trial, because the information in that report was no more exculpatory than information already known by Kryshak.
Stroik, now represented by Tristan Breedlove with the Office of the State Public Defender, appealed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, reasserting the claims made in earlier motions, with a focus on the CPS report that Kryshak did not obtain and the state did not release.
“With no DNA evidence or witnesses to the alleged assault, this trial came down to the jury’s credibility determination regarding the 7-year-old [Amy],” the motion said. “The fact that [Amy] previously accused her cousin of sexual assault and then later admitted the assault never actually happened was highly relevant to her credibility and whether her allegation against Shane was false.”
In its response, the state said that Kryshak’s representation had been effective and reasonable. The response also said that the state had no obligation to disclose the CPS report, because it was not exculpatory evidence. “At most, the CPS report established that a prior allegation of sexual assault against [Amy’s] minor cousin was unsubstantiated by CPS,” the response said. “An unsubstantiated designation does not make this allegation false, just that CPS had inadequate evidence to proceed. This is not the same thing as a prior untruthful allegation or a lie that could effectively be offered for impeachment purposes.”
On February 24, 2022, A three-judge panel from District IV of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals granted Stroik a new trial. It said that Kryshak had provided ineffective assistance by not pursuing the CPS report. “Had counsel conducted a reasonable investigation, the evidence would have been admissible at trial and, if pursued, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different,” the court said. It suggested that less deference is due to “strategic choices made after less than complete investigation.” It said that Kryshak might have assumed that Judge Shannon wouldn’t allow him to introduce the CPS report, “but without knowing what the CPS report contained, this assumption is unsupported by any reasonable professional judgment.”
The court also said that Judge Shannon erred in allowing the state to introduce evidence of Stroik’s libido. “The only conceivable purpose of introducing it was to ask the jury to make a strained inference that, because Stroik was allegedly a very sexual person who sought sex from his girlfriend on a daily basis, he was the type of person who would sexually assault a child,” the court said. Although Kryshak did not object to this evidence, the court said his actions during his closing argument to counter this part of the state’s case were reasonable and professional.
The appellate court did not rule on Stroik’s claim that the state had violated his right to a fair trial by not disclosing the CPS report.
Stroik was released from prison on April 27, 2022. The state dismissed the case on September 13, 2023.
– This case was researched and written by students in Social Ecology 106W, Spring 2026, at the University of California, Irvine.
Posting Date: 05-21-2026
Last Update Date: 08-21-2026
