Shocking Allegations Concerning Behavior of Knoxville Judge in Christian/Newsom Slaying

by Lee Davis

A Knoxville Criminal Court judge was so addicted to pain drugs during his last several years serving on the bench that he was having sex and buying prescription drugs on the street during courtroom breaks.

As we discussed here previously, Criminal Court Judge Richard Baumgartner unbelievably purchased drugs from people he had sentenced to prison.  Despite the nature of his acts while in office, most people around him did not know that Judge Baumgartner had a problem until months after he stepped down from the bench in March 2011 for a single count of official misconduct. As new allegations continue to surface about his behavior, others question whether he was sober enough to have effectively performed his job.

The high profile Christian/Newsom case was thrown out by a special judge who ordered new trials after revelations of Baumgartner’s illegal acts while on the bench. Many other defendants are lining up for a similar attempt to get their convictions overturned. The requests for new trials could overwhelm the Knox County justice system, as Baumgartner had a prolific caseload, being one of three judges in the county who heard felony criminal cases.

“We’re getting pleadings almost daily now from people in the penitentiary filing habeas corpus saying, ‘Let me out too.’ It’s raining over here,” said Knox County District Attorney General Randy Nichols.

Baumgartner got away from all of misdeeds relatively unscathed, leaving the bench to enter rehab and then having a judge give him a sentence which permitted him to erase his felony conviction if he stayed out of trouble. The sentence also allowed Baumgartner to avoid jail and keep his full pension. The judge has since said he would have meted out a tougher sentence had he known the full picture.

Nichols now says that he went to speak to Baumgartner in 2010 because he was concerned about the man’s health, never suspecting narcotics could be involved. Little did Nichols know just how bad his former friend had fallen into his addiction. The judge doctor shopped to get his hands on oxycodone, hydrocodone, Xanax and Valium. When he ran out of doctors he turned to ex-convicts, some of whom he sentenced himself.

One large supplier, AP reports, was a woman who graduated from the drug court that Baumgartner created and presided over. The woman regularly provided both pills and sex to the married judge, sometimes during breaks from court in the judge’s chambers. The woman also discusses instances where Baumgartner paid her for drugs and sex as well as provided bail money after an arrest. He went even further and falsified a drug test after she tested positive while on parole.

Another dealer was sold the judge pills during court breaks as well. He says that he gave Baumgartner extra pills when he had to travel to Nashville where the Christian/Newsom jury was being chosen. 

Prosecutors are currently appealing the decision to retry the four people convicted in the 2007 slayings of the young couple. Whether the appeal will be successful remains to be seen but it’s clear that Baumgartner’s behavior has damaged the criminal justice in Knox County and that damage will take years to repair.

Read: “Investigators: Tenn. judge high on pills in court; had sex, bought drugs on breaks,” by The Associated Press, published at JacksonSun.com.

Earlier:

New Tennessee Campus Crime Report Released

Tennessee Legislature takes on Judicial Misconduct

Supreme Court decides two important cases affecting attorneys obligations to clients

The Supreme Court published opinions in two important cases this week, LAFLER v. COOPER and  MARTINEZ v. RYAN.  The cases recognize two obligations that attorneys owe their clients:  (1)  the right to effective counsel during plea bargaining and (2) a procedural remedy, if not a recognized right, during post-conviction challenges.  Both cases set forth the minimum standards of constitutional protections to be afforded individuals during either the plea process or in some situations upon collateral post-conviction.


In Lafler an attorney's bad advice led a client to reject a prosecutor's plea offer, resulting in a harsher sentence after trial. Noteworthy about this case is the Court's expansion of the right to competent counsel to the plea bargaining process. Previously, there was no specifically recognized right to plea bargaining or to a competent lawyer at that point:


“as a general rule, defense counsel has the duty to communicate formal offers from the prosecution to accept a plea on terms and conditions that may be favorable to the accused.”  “Because ours ‘is for the most part a system of pleas, not a system of trials,’” Justice Kennedy reasoned, “the negotiation of a plea bargain, rather than the unfolding of a trial, is almost always the critical point for a defendant.”


In Martinez, the Court recognized the process--without going so far as recognizing the right--of people convicted in state court to effective assistance of counsel in collateral state post-conviction proceedings. Historically there is a well recognized right to effective counsel in direct appeals. However, there is no established right to competent counsel for collateral review of a conviction.


Justice Kennedy, without saying that a person has a right to effective counsel for these proceedings, nonetheless found that there is a procedure by which an individual can seek federal review of a constitutional claim if the person was denied that opportunity in state court because of attorney ineffectiveness:


"when a State requires a prisoner to raise an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim in a collateral proceeding, a prisoner may establish cause for a default of an ineffective-assistance claim in two circumstances. The first is where the state courts did not appoint counsel in the initial-review collateral proceeding for a claim of ineffective assistance at trial. The second is where appointed counsel in the initial-review collateral proceeding, where the claim should have been raised, was ineffective under the standards of Strickland v. Washington."

Both opinions produced critical dissents from Justice Scalia, and through those he writes that these opinions will open floodgates of litigation for both the newly recognized procedure in post-conviction proceedings and the right to effective counsel during plea negotiations.

Practically speaking where over 90% of criminal cases are resolved by pleas rather than trials, these decisions will have a significant impact in the day-to-day practice of law. While previously it was ethically required only for attorneys to relate plea offers to defendants, it is now a basic minimum requirement.  For most lawyers this is a small but important safeguard in our system of justice.