How'd you like to have to deal with this?

Jurors say panel 'out of control, politicized'

It would really suck.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shane Phelps:
It would really suck.

---

Shane, we've never met in person but you are too funny! On the bright side, at least your local media seems to be getting it correct who the bad guys are in that situation.

Hang in there Shane.

Shane,

Have you ever thought of running for district judge?

Whatever may be going on between the judge and prosecutor's office in Brazos County, I'm pretty sure that most of the long-time users and lurkers on this board well know that both Bill Turner and Shane Phelps are widely considered hard-working, ethical prosecutors and that both are highly regarded state-wide both among prosecutors and defense counsel.

Figured I'd say that out loud for any newbies wondering who these guys are.

Bill Turner lead my group at the Adv. Trial Advocacy Seminar. I not only consider him 'highly ethical and well regarded', but even further a well principled teacher. If I can learn a fourth of what the leaders at that seminar were trying to teach me, I'll be a good attorney someday.

I'll always be a work in progress; prosecutors like Bill and Shane are deeply appreciated for adding a few drawings to my trestle board.

Just to further echo other posts, both Shane and Bill are highly regarded within our profession, and within their communities. I've never met Shane or Bill, but have mutual acquaintences with both, and sometime ago Shane and I both wrote letters to the editor of the Austin Chronicle when they did a slam job on John B. and the Williamson County DA's office. Both Shane and I were resoundly criticized by the editor's response to our letters attesting to John's fine character, but in my opinion, we need to come to the aid of each other when an untruthful portrait is painted of our fellow prosecutors and our fight for justice.

I just feel bad because I bet Shane clicked on this thread looking for solace and he didn't get any!

Sorry, buddy.

I see that Judge Kent from Tyler has been assigned to preside over the court of inquiry. I think her no-nonsense style will bode very well for the good guys in this latest round of shenanigans.

And I do hope the Judicial Conduct Commission is paying attention....

Many years ago, when I was young and stupid (or maybe just more stupid than I am now), I successfully prosecuted the high sheriff who just happened to be a nephew of one of my district judges. That wasn't a lot of fun... The consequences were a little tough for a while but they were nothing to compare with the situation being experienced by Bill and Shane. However, I'd handle things a little differently now. Way back then, I strongly felt that the securing of a special prosecutor for such situations was not quite macho enough for my taste. It's amazing what the passage of a decade or two and substantially grayer (and less) hair will do for one's perspective... Bill, Shane, et al, you just hang in there. You're in the right and you'll come out on top. While in the midst of the aforementioned prosecution, one of my friends who is a descendant of Sam Houston reminded me of Houston's motto - Do right and risk the consequences. Frankly, I appreciated the motto but I relied more heavily on the Biblical passage which says, "This too shall pass."

I haven't had the pleasure of being formally introduced to Shane, but I've become better acquainted with Bill on the TDCAA board, and I have friends in that office (though I doubt they would confirm their relationship with me as anything other than that of the neighbor of a serial killer who says during an interview, "he was always an odd sort"). They are among the finest folks I've had the honor of getting to know in the profession. All I've heard about Shane confirms his place in that honorable cadre. And, though it may be of cold comfort, it is useful to remember that if doing the right thing was easy, more people would do it.

By the way, Ann, in honor of your post's title throwback to the great work of '80s pop culture, the words of wisdom from Jeff Spicoli are poignant here: "So what this Jefferson dude was saying was, 'we left this England place because it was bogus. And if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus, too."

SW Missouri prosecutor says workers ran sex ring from courthouse

MARCUS KABEL
Associated Press
Thursday, June 8, 2006

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. - The prosecutor in a rural Ozarks county alleges that a former employee and a county court worker ran a "swinger-style" sex ring from the courthouse as part of an effort to tarnish his name and run him out of office.

The allegations against the two female employees were made in a lawsuit filed last week by Texas County Prosecuting Attorney Mike Anderson and reported Thursday in the local Houston (Mo.) Herald newspaper.

The allegations of a sex ring and a smear campaign raised eyebrows in the county, Presiding Commissioner Donald Shelhammer said.

"That's the first time I've ever heard of anything like that. It's not just rare, it's unheard of," Shelhammer said in a telephone interview Thursday.

Anderson, a Republican elected to the post in 2002, is unopposed for re-election this year. Texas County, with a population of about 23,000, is about 90 miles east of Springfield.

Anderson's lawsuit in Texas County Circuit Court claims he is the victim of a smear campaign by a former employee of his office, Monica Daniel, and a current employee of the associate court, Mildred Williams.

Daniel could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday. Williams told The Associated Press she did not want to comment because she had not yet talked with an attorney.

Daniel earlier filed a sexual discrimination complaint against Anderson with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the prosecutor said in a news release this week. Anderson denied the charge and said he has asked the EEOC to send an investigator to Texas County.

Anderson alleged in his suit that the two women had "conspired with each other to use their public offices to coordinate and orchestrate a 'swinger' style sex ring out of the Texas County prosecutor's office and the Texas County associate court office."

The prosecutor also alleged that the two spread false information about him, including claiming he had made threatening and sexual phone calls to Daniel at her home in December.

The lawsuit also alleges the two women removed criminal investigative documents from the prosecutor's office.

Anderson could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday.

In a statement released to the Houston Herald, the prosecutor said he had filed the suit to clear the air after what he called continued harassment, slander and libel against him.

Anderson said he hoped "that bringing the truth to light is always better than rumor and innuendo".

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.

Check out theeagle.com for a link to the judicial conduct commission's charges against Judge Rick Davis in the next chapter of Brazos County's fun and games.

Bravo, State Commission on Judicial Conduct! Too bad top trash digger litigator Patrick Meese and his wife are witnesses and can't represent the accused in this hearing.

Hopefully they will remove him from the bench for such a vindictive abuse of his judicial power. Unfortunately, the best retired district judge in the world who could hear this matter is now officially retired and lives out of state.

I have spoken to several friends who live in Brazos County, and they are highly upset that their tax dollars were used to pursue such frivolous allegations against Shane. They say it is still quite talked about in the party there.



Judicial Conduct Files on Davis
By CRAIG KAPITAN
Eagle Staff Writer


Ending months of speculation, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct filed documents Wednesday officially accusing 272nd District Court Judge Rick Davis of being derelict in his duties.

Davis was served with a "notice of formal proceedings," meaning he now will be the subject of a public hearing overseen by an out-of-town trial court judge appointed by the Texas Supreme Court.

If the agency's accusations are found to have merit, Davis' punishment could eventually range from public censure to removal from office.

Davis was accused in the documents of violating the Texas Constitution, the Texas Government Code and canons of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Specifically, the allegations focused on a Web site he launched in 2005 and a grand jury he impaneled around the same time.

Both endeavors sought to launch attacks against his enemies in the District Attorney's Office, the documents state.

"[Judge Davis] intended to lend the prestige of his office to promote his own personal interests as well as those of his friends and political supporters," prosecutors wrote in the documents.

Davis, who did not return calls seeking comment Wednesday, will now have 15 days to file a response on his own or through an attorney, according to Seana Willing, who serves as executive director of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. In the response, he will have an opportunity to deny the allegations and could begin outlining his defense, she said.

'Personal attacks'

Wednesday's filing marks the second time Davis has faced a reprimand from the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. In 2002, he became the only judge in Brazos County history to receive a public reprimand from the agency after it was determined that, among other things, he compared an assistant district attorney to a Nazi concentration camp guard.

In a letter to the attorney's boss - District Attorney Bill Turner - Davis also asserted that criticizing a judge's decision was "as if you defecated on Mount Sinai, holy ground." He told Turner that "mocking" his decision was "just as bad in God's sight as if you were to duck into one of your assistants' offices and fornicate with one of your assistants."

After his reprimand, Davis issued a public apology and was ordered to take anger management classes. According to the prosecutors, he was made aware through the process that it was inappropriate to:

� use "extreme retaliatory actions" or "disturbing tactics and inappropriate language to respond to those who might question his decisions."

� "use the power of his office to retaliate against someone with whom he had a personal grudge."

� pursue retaliatory actions under the guise of free speech.

But in March 2005, Davis launched The Texas Inquisition - a Web site that ignored all of those previous lessons, according to the court filings.

The judge essentially "republished to a global audience the same offensive criticism against Turner and [former assistant district attorney Laura] Cass for which he received the 2002 public reprimand," the documents state.

On the site, Davis also launched new allegations, including racism, against Cass and the special court of review that upheld his original reprimand. Other targets included Turner, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct and other judges who were not named.

"Rather than using his Web site for the legitimate public purpose of promoting change in the Texas judicial disciplinary system, as [he] purported to do on the opening page of the Web site, [Davis] instead used the Web site to launch personal attacks against those he considered to be his enemies," the document states.

The Web site was significantly scaled back in June 2005, after Turner and Cass filed complaints with the state commission.

The second charge against Davis involves a grand jury impaneled by Davis in the spring of 2005 that met secretly late last year to discuss indicting the district attorney.

Davis has previously said he had personal knowledge that his friend and fellow Turner critic, attorney Patrick Meece, was intending to approach the grand jury with evidence against Turner.

"Despite this knowledge, or because of it, [Davis] privately communicated with the grand jury foreperson on two occasions about extending the grand jury term," the documents state. "These communications were kept secret from the grand jury's legal counsel ... and from the Brazos County District Clerk's office for more than two months, preventing both of those offices from being able to perform their official duties."

Davis also appointed a former client of Meece's as jury foreperson and met with Meece on the evening before the grand jury was to hold its secret meeting, the agency pointed out.

The judge "took no action to distance himself from the activities of Meece or protect the grand jury, and declined to voluntarily recuse or disqualify himself from any matters involving the grand jury," the documents state. "Such a failure to act demonstrated a willingness to allow Meece to use [Davis'] judicial office to promote the personal and political agendas of both Meece and [himself]."

Rumors of Davis' possible expulsion from office have been rampant since last spring. Speculation was bolstered in July, when it was revealed during Davis' failed court of inquiry that he had met with the commission in April and that at least two complaints had been filed against him by the District Attorney's Office.

It was not made clear at that time what course of action the commission was planning.

"I suppose our position is the rule of law applies to everybody - including judges," Turner said Wednesday, adding that he was recently made aware of the formal charges after being told he might be called as a witness during the hearing.

"[My complaint] was filed 18 months ago, and I hadn't really heard anything," he said. "They just said it was pending. That's the only official word I've had for the past 18 months."

What's to come

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct is charged with policing everyone from justices of the peace up to judges at the appellate court level. The 13-person panel consists of six judges appointed by the Texas Supreme Court, five members of the public appointed by the governor and two lawyers appointed by the State Bar of Texas.

A staff of five prosecutors supervised by Willing conducts investigations and reports to the group. They deal with complaints about a judge's ethical behavior, issues of integrity and alleged impropriety.

Now that the notice of hearing has been filed, there is no exact timeline for when it will take place, Willing said Wednesday. However, it generally takes about three to six months, she has said in the past.

The formal hearing is essentially a "fact-finding trial" in which a special master - a trial court judge from another part of the state - is brought in to oversee the case. Staff members of the commission can serve as the prosecution, but in this case the agency has sought help from the Attorney General's Office.

"What this is doing is setting up an opportunity for all sides to present in a public trial all the evidence - something we're not able to do in the informal stage," Willing said. "At this point, the commission just wants to have a full-blown trial to get all the facts on the record."

At the conclusion of the hearing, the special master will issue a report to the commission. Based on that report, the commission will decide during a public meeting whether to dismiss the case, issue a public censure or ask the Texas Supreme Court to remove the judge.

Public censure can't be appealed, but the removal process could take years.

Formal hearings aren't at all common, Willing said, explaining that during her eight years with the agency she has witnessed maybe a dozen. Although some hearings have been cut short by resignations or the judge agreeing to a public censure, Willing said she has never seen one end with a judge being exonerated of the charges against him or her.

Quite a few, she said, have led to "the final step" where the judge was removed from office.

"Ironically, this [formal hearing] is the process that Judge Davis was advocating for before the Legislature," Willing said, referring to Davis' Texas Inquisition Web site.

During his reprimand in 2002, Davis did not have a formal hearing. The state commission instead handed him the highest sanction possible without one. Because of that, however, he also was not at risk of losing his job.

"I guess he really can't complain that he's going through this process because this is what he was advocating that every judge [facing allegations] goes through," Willing added.