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

6th Circuit Appeals Court Upholds Child Pornographer’s Life Sentence

by Lee Davis

• UNITED STATES v. STEPHEN LYNN HAMMONDS

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the life sentence of a Jackson, Tennessee man who pleaded guilty to the sexual exploitation of minors and in trafficking child pornography. Stephen Lynn Hammonds, 45, argued on appeal that his 2010 sentence by U.S. District Court Judge Bernice Donald of Memphis was unreasonable and excessive.

Hammonds argued that mandatory guidelines imposed a sentence that was too harsh for the crime that was committed. Hammonds was originally arrested as part of a larger sting operation in 2009 by the Memphis office of the FBI. 

According to court records, Hammonds told FBI agents (posing as children) that he wanted to meet and have sex with them and that he had done so in the past on multiple occasions with his own teenage stepdaughter. Agents with a warrant searched his home and found dozens of files containing child pornography. He then pled guilty to federal charges six months later. 

This wasn’t Hammonds’ first time in trouble with the law. In 1998 he was arrested on charges of statutory rape and incest with a young girl between the ages of 13 and 15. This previous convicted served to enhance the guidelines for his federal punishment and led to his life imprisonment. 

In his appeal he pointed to a psychologist’s report saying that he was only a medium-low risk of reoffending and he had accepted responsibility for his actions and even helped agents find and convict another child pornographer. 

The government argued that Hammonds had bragged about his earlier conviction for incest and used it while looking for new targets of abuse. Judge Donald declared Hammonds to be “particularly dangerous” and deemed him beyond the point of rehabilitation. She said that he needed to be permanently separated from society and the children he might place at risk.

Writing for a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Judge Julia Gibbons said Judge Donald did not abuse her discretion in doling out the tough sentence. “The district court did consider the mitigating factors in the case,” Gibbons said, “but found, appropriately and within its discretion, that concerns about the seriousness of the crime and the need to protect the public were paramount.”


Here is the full opinion of the court: United States v. Stephen Hammonds.

Read: “Federal appeals court upholds Tennessee child porn trafficker’s life sentence,” by Lawrence Buser, published at CommercialAppeal.com.

Earlier:

U.S. Supreme Court Permits Strip Searches of Any Inmate No Matter the Crime

Supreme Court decides two important cases affecting attorneys obligations to clients

New Tennessee Campus Crime Report Released

By Jay Perry 


The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (“TBI”) recently released their annual Crime on Campus Report for 2011.  This report contains an interesting look at crime on college campuses in Tennessee and merits some attention.  Overall, the number of reported crimes is up 4.2% from 2010 but is lower than those reported in 2009.  The most common crime reported was theft from a building which accounted for 21% of reported crimes.  Unfortunately, the number of assaults reported increased by 6.5% but thankfully the number of aggravated assaults was down 8.8% from a year ago.  Of most concern is that the number of “Forcible Sex Offenses” reported rose from 30 in 2010 to 44 in 2011, a one year increase of 46.7%.

Interestingly, the most likely day for the commission of a theft crime was a Thursday, with Sunday having the least number of reported offenses.  As far as drug crimes (1 in 10 crimes reported on college campuses were drug crimes), those happened (as could be expected) on Friday or Saturday nights between the hours of 9:00 P.M and 3:00 A.M.  As for alcohol crimes, the most common offenders were 19 year olds, and the number of male offenders was over double the number of females.  As an attorney who represents students charged with underage drinking I would be interested in seeing how common that specific charge is.  Unfortunately the report does not specify and just accounts for generic “liquor law offenses”.  The report also includes the crime of “drunkenness” which is not illegal in the state of Tennessee.  There is an offense for public intoxication in Tennessee but that charge means more than just being drunk in public with specific criteria that must be met.

Two colleges I was particularly interested in were the University of the South (or Sewanee, where I graduated) and the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga (our local university).  Sewanee appears to have a very high rate of burglaries and thefts but I think that the high number is partly due to the unique setting of the school.  The University’s campus is huge (over 13,000 acres) and encompasses a large amount of private residences and an entire community.  The campus police department is also the police department for that community and so I would it likely that many of the reported crimes don’t involve students or the campus directly.  The rate of “liquor law violations” is the highest by far of any college in the state (51 per 1,000) and indicates that at least part of the reputation of the school is accurate.  Again it would be interesting to know what specific violations these are especially in light of the Vice-Chancellor’s sensible stance on underage drinking laws.

The statistics from UTC are encouraging as they are fairly low especially given the campus’s urban location.  Especially low are the numbers of violent crimes reported although it is important to remember that any violent crime is devastating to the victim and to the community as a whole.  Again the number of liquor law violations is relatively high as the UTC rate is the fourth highest in the state.  However, the statistics in this report in the area of alcohol are a bit questionable as many campuses report zero incidents. 

            Overall, the report is fairly positive and many of the reported crimes are falling over a longer time frame.  For example, DUI violations have shown an overall decrease by 25.8% since 2008.  We can all hope that crime falls on college campuses (and everywhere else) and that are police resources are most utilized to combat those crimes that have the most damaging effects on our communities.

Tennessee Legislature takes on Judicial Misconduct

by Lee Davis

Tennessee Senate

According to a recent report by the Tennessean, the Tennessee Senate has unanimously approved a bill that would change how judicial misconduct is disciplined. The bill passed the Senate with a 30-0 vote and it eliminates the Court of the Judiciary and creates a panel of individuals appointed by several different members of the Tennessee legislature and bench. The bill is likely to pass the House, although there has yet to be final vote on the measure. 

The new 16-member panel will be called the Board of Judicial Conduct. Its creation comes on the heels of several complaints that the Court of the Judiciary was too lenient on misbehaving judges and also complaints, real or imagined, that the Tennessee Supreme Court had too much influence over the Court. As part of the new law, the Board would be required to report to the legislature how many complaints against judges have been received and how many have been resolved.

There are some significant differences between the Court of the Judiciary and the Board of Judicial Conduct. The Board would be composed of ten judges and 6 individuals who are not on the bench, which is the same as the Court, but the manner of appointment is different. Judges from throughout the state of Tennessee would select the ten judge members. The non-judge seats will be filled by appointments by the governor, lieutenant governor, and the Speaker of the House who would get two appointments a piece.  As noted, the Board would be required to submit frequent reports to the legislature about the volume of complaints against judges and the disposition of those complaints, allowing the legislature to monitor whether the Board is properly investigating and resolving judicial complaints.

If the bill becomes law, the Board of Judicial Conduct will be allowed to work for about two years. After that, the law that created it will come up for review and the legislature will have to determine whether the Board is worth keeping or whether it is time of reevaluate how the state disciplines the judiciary. 


Lawmakers, however, believe that this new procedure will be good for Tennessee and will increase the public’s confidence in the competency and integrity of the judiciary. The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Mae Beavers, R-Mt. Juliet said, “There’s going to be more transparency,” which everyone, including the judges, should appreciate.
  

Read: “TN Senate votes to increase judicial oversight,” by Chas Sisk, published at Tennessean.com. 

Earlier:

New Tax for Diversion Applicants is a Bad Idea

Thirty-Seven Charges of Sexual Battery by an authority figure Reversed by Court of Appeals

U.S. Supreme Court Permits Strip Searches of Any Inmate No Matter the Crime

• Florence v. County of Burlington

Imagine, if you will, that you were arrested for a "minor" crime such as failing to pay child support. Imagine you were taken to jail, and before you were placed in the general population, you were strip searched. Not only have you never touched drugs in your life, but you aren't a violent person. So, what are they searching for? Sounds like an unreasonable search under the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, right? Wrong. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, corrections officers are now permitted to perform a strip search on any inmate, at any time, regardless of the type of criminal charges that inmate is facing.

In a sharply divided decision, the Court decided the case of Florence v. County of Burlington centering around the arrest and subsequent strip search of Mr. Albert Florence. Mr. Florence was riding in the car with his wife when she was pulled over for speeding. The officer realized that there was a warrant out for Mr. Florence's arrest based on an unpaid fine. Mr. Florence spent a week in jail and was strip searched at least twice. Mr. Florence argued that since his alleged crime involved neither drugs nor violence, the corrections officers did not have reasonable suspicion to search and, thus, the search was unreasonable under the 4th Amendment. The Court disagreed. Focusing on safety, Justice Kennedy (author of the opinion), stated that "people detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals." He used two examples of this: Timothy McVeigh, the man who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing, who was arrested for driving without a license; also, one of the September 11th high jackers was pulled over for speeding two days before he allegedly high jacked flight 93. He also cited to prior case law and reasoned that the corrections officers' interest in maintaing safety in jails outweighs the potential for unreasonable and unnecessary searches of certain inmates. Further, he stated that by establishing strict regulations regarding strip searches, more inmates would be deterred from trying to smuggle contraband into the jail in the first place.

The 5-4 opinion was issued with the majority of the Court leaning on the conservative side. The dissenters argued in favor of the standard that requires corrections officers to have reasonable suspicion of contraband in order to execute a strip search. To execute a strip search on a person accused of committing a minor crime that deals neither with drugs nor violence, seems, to some, to be equivalent to an unreasonable search of a person without a warrant. The question now seems to be: Why warrantless searches or searches without probable cause are violations of the 4th Amendment and a strip search of a person who is highly unlikely to ever attempt to smuggle contraband into a jail is not a violation of the 4th Amendment? The answer may never be revealed.

New Tax for Diversion Applicants is a Bad Idea

Rep. Eric Watson, Photo by Associated Press

by Lee Davis


The Tennessee House passed a new tax this week that will require people to pay to have their name cleared upon the completion of diversion. HB 2774 (here), sponsored by Rep. Eric Watson, Cleveland, introduces the new tax. The new part is a $100.00 tax that must be paid to the court when requesting diversion. Also added is an increase in taxes that will escalate the amount required to clear one's name to $350.00. Thus, the total cost to have a record expunged after diversion will be $550.00 when the local fee for Hamilton County is added. The house bill has been sent to the TN Senate for passage. If signed by Gov. Haslam, the law will go into effect July 1st. This is a bad idea.Who will this bill affect, and what is diversion? Let's start with diversion; there are two types: judicial diversion and pretrial diversion.

Judicial diversion is a way many minor cases are settled for first time offenders.  Let's say you have a daughter who is home from college and gets arrested for using her sister's ID to get into a club or who actually drinks in the club.  The offending person is potentially guilty of underage drinking and using a false ID, both crimes.  If the person accepts responsibility and has no criminal record, the court may defer court proceedings without entering a judgment of guilty--with the consent of the prosecutor.  Under this example, the student will now pay $100 to be considered for diversion and $350 more (plus $100 local fee) to have their record expunged after completing diversion.  Previously, the person paid $150.

Pretrial diversion is for those with the least culpability who find themselves ensnared in the legal system. Let's say a person writes a check for a service and then disputes the service, placing a stop-payment order on the check.  The merchant then swears out a criminal warrant for theft of services.  Under this scenario each person believes the other is the culprit. The check writer may find herself in court, charged with a crime.  If the district attorney believes the explanation, he may offer the person pretrial diversion with an understanding that the case will be dismissed and expunged.  Most people, completely innocent people, will accept this disposition rather than endure additional trips to the courthouse to prove their innocence. Under the new law, this person will also be forced to pay $550 to have her good name cleared for actions that she believed were completely honest and ethical.

There is good reason to have records expunged.  Background checks are routine for employers, higher education and many other reasons.  A minor charge--even when explained--often will result in a job or school denial when found on a background check. Diversion is granted one time and only for good cause. The result is that many ordinary people may have their records expunged and reputation restored upon successful completion of diversion.  A modest fee for the service has always been the rule.  This week's action by Rep. Watson and the house will place a new heavy financial burden on many. This new tax will effect every citizen who seeks diversion. Without paying the new application tax, there will be no consideration of an application for diversion.  Without payment of the increased tax, no record will be expunged.  Many across the state who cannot afford these new and increased taxes will be harmed.

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.

Hemy Neuman Found Guilty but Mentally Ill

Last week, the jury reached a verdict in the highly-publicized daycare shooting trial of Hemy Neuman. If you have been following the blog posts, you know that Neuman was accused of shooting Rusty Sneiderman on the lawn of a daycare in Dunwoody back in November 2010. He plead not guilty by reason of insanity, arguing that an angel who looked like Olivia Newton John told him he needed to kill Rusty Sneiderman. Neuman was intimately involved with Rusty Sneiderman's wife, Andrea although she expressly denied having an affair several times while under oath.

The jury deliberated over two days. They were presented with three options: not guilty by reason of insanity, guilty but mentally ill, or guilty. The jury found him guilty but mentally ill for the murder charge, and guilty for the possession of a weapon during the commission of a felony charge. The judge sentenced him to life without parole. The Judge was faced with the option of a life sentence with the possibility of parole after 30 years, however the Judge said he believed the killing was a "planned execution with no justification." With the guilty but mentally ill verdict, Neuman will receive treatment for his illness while in prison. The distinction between a not guilty by reason of insanity and a guilty but mentally ill verdict is that in the case of the former, the jury believes that the defendant did not know the difference between right and wrong during the commission of a crime. A guilty but mentally ill verdict indicates that the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the difference between right and wrong and knew the consequences of his actions, yet remains a mentally ill individual. Obviously, it is possible to be considered mentally ill, but still possess the intent to commit a crime. Apparently, that is what the jury believed here.

Once he was sentenced, DeKalb County District Attorney Robert James said, "He was a cold-blooded killer. An adulterer. And a liar. And he ultimately got what he deserved."

What will be interesting to see is what prosecutors decide to do about Andrea Sneiderman. She quickly became an interesting topic because of her adamant denial of the alleged affair with Neuman. In an earlier post, I described some key discrepancies in her testimony, the most important being her testimony of when she first learned of the shooting. Andrea testified that she first learned of the shooting when she arrived at the hospital and the doctors informed her of her husband's condition. However, two separate witnesses testified that Andrea called them while in route to the hospital and told both of the witnesses that her husband had been shot. Also, it wasn't until after she began to receive payments off of her husband's life insurance policy that she saw fit to express to the police a suspicion that Neuman could have been the shooter.

The question now is: will prosecutors bring charges against Andrea? She would likely be charged with conspiracy. With the evidence that has arisen against her, it is highly likely that charges will be brought soon. I'll keep you updated. But for now, the dramatic trial of Hemy Neuman has ended, and he will be spending the rest of his life in prison.

Supreme Court Examines the Possibility of Limitations on Sentences for Juveniles

The Supreme Court yesterday heard arguments surrounding two new cases up for their review. Both involved the question of just how severe a penalty imposed on a juvenile has to be in order to be considered unconstitutional. The first case involved a 14-year-old in Alabama who beat an older man to death and subsequently burned his house down. The second case involved another 14-year-old boy in Arkansas who, along with two older boys, tried to rob a video store in 1999. One of the older boys shot and killed the store clerk.

Proponents for harsh penalties point to the "sanctity of life" as the reason a juvenile should be sentenced harshly for crimes involving killings. Justice Ginsburg, however, noted that this argument could fail because if the sanctity of life is an important interest for the State, by imposing a life without parole sentence on a 14-year-old, the State is essentially throwing that life away. Dissenters of harsh sentences believe that teenagers are immature, and should be given a more lenient sentence because of that. Their main point seems to be that many juveniles deserve a life sentence for their crimes; however, what they don't deserve is the lack of hope that they will ever get out on parole. Many worry, however, just how many teenagers will continue to commit extreme crimes such as the ones involved and claim they are too immature to know better.

Here are some of the possible solutions the Court could reach:

• It could prohibit life without parole sentences for any minor under the age of 15.
• It could prohibit life without parole sentences for anyone under the age of 18.
• It could bar life without parole sentences for defendants who were accomplices to a crime.
• It could bar mandatory sentences, relying on the discretion of the particular Court to consider all the facts and circumstances of the case.

Thirty-Seven Charges of Sexual Battery by an authority figure Reversed by Court of Appeals

• STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JIMMY DALE QUALLS

Judge Norma McGee Ogle of the Court of Criminal Appeals released an opinion today that reverses Hardeman County convictions of Jimmy Qualls for 37 counts of sexual battery by an authority figure. The problem with the trial and the reason for the reversal was because of the failure of the state to make an election of offenses.  Added to the state's failure was the failure of the trial court to cure the problem.  In its simplest terms, where the state alleges criminal sexual acts over a span of time, the state must specify (elect) what acts it is asking the jury to convict upon.  A general or vague accusation insufficient. 

This requirement of election is for five stated purposes: (1) it enables the defendant to prepare for the specific charge; (2) it protects a defendant against double jeopardy; (3) it ensures the jurors’ deliberation over and their return of a verdict based upon the same offense; (4) it enables the trial judge to review the weight of the evidence in its role as the thirteenth juror; and (5) it enables an appellate court to review the legal sufficiency of the evidence.

Here the state approached the case with a grab bag theory of justice. It alleged many bad acts over several months and it left it up to the jury to figure out what acts went with what dates. The Court recognized the problem with this approach. 

To illustrate the operation of this theory, in any given case the State could present proof on as many offenses within the alleged period as it chose. Because all such offenses will have been “proven,” the jury may, in effect, reach into the brimming bag of offenses and pull out one for each count. Even when done by this method, the argument goes, each offense will have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We acknowledge that the illustration is an extreme one, but we think it makes the point: such an approach is contrary to our law.

Based on the state's failure to elect appropriate offenses, the Court reversed the convictions and has ordered a new trial.