An End to the Baumgartner Saga as Jury Convicts Disgraced Judge

A federal jury in Knoxville, Tennessee voted to convict former Knox County criminal court judge Richard Baumgartner, who was charged with lying to cover up a scheme that provided him with painkillers and sex.

The verdict meant that the former judge was found guilty on five counts of misprision of a felony and acquitted of one charge. Prosecutors were successfully able to convince the jury that Baumgartner had lied to cover up a conspiracy involving a defendant from his court supplying him with pills and sex. Baumgartner’s defense conceded he was an addict and adulterer, but unsuccessfully argued that his actions were not a federal crime.

The jury foreperson later spoke about the deliberations and said that jurors were never deadlocked on any of the counts as they debated their verdict, despite a few questions that led some observers to believe they were.
Deliberations lasted nearly 20 hours and many observers wondered what was taking the jury so long. The jury led some to believe they were going to end up deadlocked given a few of the questions they had for the judge. One question asked what they should write on the verdict form if they did not agree. The foreperson said that the question was not asked because of any actual deadlock, but instead asked preemptively, so that she could plan ahead in the event that unanimity was not possible.

The foreperson said that the reason for the delay was the complexity of each count that they had to decide on. For each charge, the jury of 12 people had to come to an agreement on four distinct elements: First there was a drug conspiracy. Second, Baumgartner had full knowledge of it. Third, he failed to report it. Fourth, he then worked to conceal the felony.

Some of the counts were easier for the jury to agree on than others and they ultimately acquitted Baumgartner on Count Two. The foreperson said the reason for that decision was because the crime of misprision deals with lying to federal officials and Count Two involved an incident at St. Mary’s hospital. The jury decided that there were not any federal officials present at the hospital and thus cleared Baumgartner on Count Two.

Read: “Richard Baumgartner Guilty: Jury Convicts Ex-judge In Drug Conspiracy Cover-up,” by The Associated Press, published at HuffingtonPost.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Baumgartner’s Attorneys Get Three Months to Prepare
The Baumgartner Debacle Continues

The defense says DA knew of Judge Baumgartner's misconduct

by Lee Davis


The Christian/Newsom case saw another development today as defense attorneys Tom Dillard and Stephen Ross Johnson responded to the prosecution’s motion to have Judge Blackwood removed due to supposed unethical conduct. The defense fired back with a motion of their own accusing district attorney Randy Nichols and his staff of hiding information about Judge Baumgartner’s misconduct while he was still presiding over the case.

The defense counsel’s motion said that they agree that a motion to recuse was appropriate and should have been granted, however, the motion should not be against the current judge. “A motion to recuse should have been filed years ago in this case concerning Judge Baumgartner.”

The current controversy involves the decision by Judge Blackwood to order new trials of the defendants in the Christian/Newsom murder case following news that Judge Baumgartner was addicted to narcotic pills and abused his position to win sexual favors from some of those that he presided over. An investigation by the TBI showed that many of the crimes were committed while Baumgartner was presiding over the Christian/Newsom murder trials.

Previous releases of information have made clear that others were aware of Baumgartner’s misdeed. For instance, two prosecutors who were working on the Christian/Newsom case reported seeing Baumgartner swearing his way down I-40 following jury selection in Nashville for Vanessa Coleman’s trial. It was also revealed that District Attorney Nichols confronted Baumgartner about such behavior and that the judge admitted to drinking a bottle of wine every night to help him sleep.

The defense attorneys brought forward not only these known instances of prosecutorial awareness of Baumgartner’s problems but another not previously made public: “During this visit, former Judge Baumgartner told Mr. Nichols that he was drinking a bottle of wine a night while at the same time going to the Bradford Rehabilitation Clinic (an outpatient center in Knoxville) and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.”

Not only did Nichols allegedly know this information, but he also kept it secret from the defense attorneys in the Christian/Newsom case. The defense said that there were many other cases before Judge Baumgartner at the time and that attorneys across the region with clients before the judge would have wanted to know about his conduct. The motion said that despite this “extraordinary step of an ex parte direct inquiry of Judge Baumgartner about his problems…” nothing was ever disclosed by Nichols or his office.
For his part, Nichols’ special counsel, John Gill, responded to the allegations saying that the District Attorney’s meeting with Baumgartner had nothing to do with any particular case and therefore was not ex parte contact.

Ex parte communication refers to any contact between a judge and one party of the case without the presence of the other party. Such communication is frowned upon. The prosecution has hinted that the current judge, Blackwood, has engaged in such contact with unidentified people and has complained that it is objectionable. The defense denies any such one-sided communication with the judge, as has Blackwood.

Read: “DA Randy Nichols hid signs of ex-judge Richard Baumgartner's misdeeds, attorneys contend,” by Jamie Satterfield, published at KnoxNews.com.

Location:Tatarrax Dr,Manhattan,United States

Baumgartner’s Attorneys Get Three Months to Prepare

The Knoxville case involving disgraced former judge Richard Baumgartner moved forward last week with news that his defense attorneys, Don Bosch and Ann Short, filed a motion before U.S. Magistrate Judge Clifford Shirley asking that he declare the case “complex.” 

Though the name may seem odd and beside the point, it’s important to a case’s timeline. If a case is declared “complex” it will give the defense more time to review discovery submitted by the prosecution, postponing the currently scheduled July 18 trial. 

Bosch and Short told Judge Shirley that they had only begun to scratch the surface of the voluminous discovery turned over by the government. Moreover, for them to do their jobs properly they’ll need additional time to review everything and properly brief their client. They state that the July 18 date currently set for trial is inappropriate given the amount of work still left to do.

Federal prosecutors disagreed, saying that the defense was only seeking a delay for delay’s sake. They raised that Bosch and Short represented Baumgartner back in 2011 when he pled guilty to one count of official misconduct. The TBI had initiated an investigation of him in 2010 and after news came to light of his misdeeds the government offered a deal to avoid further damage to the Knox County criminal justice system. Given that both Bosch and Short reviewed all the evidence at the time, the prosecution now says their claims of unpreparedness are ridiculous. The prosecutors wrote, “It is unlikely that defense counsel would have advised defendant to plead guilty to a felony in state court without first evaluating the evidence against defendant.”

The defense counters saying that the investigation against their client was continued by the TBI after the plea deal was accepted and that, as a result, mountains of new information remains to be reviewed. Interviews were conducted and filed were gathered, none of which were available the first time around. 

It was announced later last week that Judge Shirley approved a deal struck between the two sides granting a three-month continuance, so that trial is not set to begin until October 23^rd. This amounts to a victory for both sides. The defense received a delay and longer time to review and prepare their case. The prosecution avoided having the trial labeled “complex” and kept the case subject to the federal speedy trial act. 

Though Baumgartner pled guilty to avoid further prosecution just like the one currently proceeding, further allegations of misconduct that he was not initially charged with have since been unearthed. These include his doctor shopping, using his mistress (one of his own Drug Court graduates, Denna Castleman) to get pills, using his influence to help her avoid trouble with prosecutors and judges, lying about being her lawyer and helping her hide a failed drug test. His actions with Castleman are at the heart of the current federal case filed in May. Baumgartner is currently charged with and scheduled for trial on July 18^th for seven counts of misprision of a felony. Each count accuses him of either covering up Castleman’s crimes or failing to report them to the proper authorities. Misprision of a felony carries a maximum prison term of three years. 

Yet another interesting twist occurred earlier last week when, on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Thomas Phillips, who was scheduled to preside over Baumgartner’s trial, recused himself. Phillips has not released any word as to why he asked to have the case reassigned and the decision now rests in the hands of Chief U.S. District Judge Curtis Collier to assign Phillips’ replacement.

Source: “Baumgartner seeks delay in his federal trial,” by Jamie Satterfield, published at KnoxNews.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

The Baumgartner Debacle Continues

Judge Baumgartner Saga Continues 

The Baumgartner Debacle Continues

former judge Ricard Baumgartner
photo knoxnews.com

Special Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood affirmed his earlier decision, recently reviewed by the Tennessee Supreme Court, and ordered new trials for a second time for the defendants in the Christian/Newsom murder case.

The state Attorney General’s Office earlier appealed Blackwood’s first retrial order, and on May 24 the Supreme Court issued an opinion saying that former judge Baumgartner’s misconduct off the bench was not reason enough to justify new trials. The high court said that the defense would have to show that actual error or bias had occurred. The justices further questioned Judge Blackwood’s ruling that Baumgartner’s inability to serve as the 13^th juror was justification for new trials. The Court did leave open the possibility that if witness credibility were essential, Baumgartner’s behavior could be used as support. 

Blackwood took the opportunity to revisit his ruling and quickly decided he had been right the first time. The Supreme Court never overruled him and did not bar him from again granting new trials. The justices simply asked that he review his initial order using their opinion as a guide.

Blackwood did base his second retrial order on language contained the Supreme Court’s opinion, specifically mentioning the importance of witness credibility to the ultimate outcome of the trials. Blackwood said because witness credibility was such an “overriding and important issue" at trial he did not feel he was able to step into the role of the 13^th juror left open thanks to Baumgartner’s resignation. 

The order came just a few days after Knox County District Attorney General Randy Nichols filed a motion asking that Blackwood recuse himself from the case. Prosecutors argued that Blackwood was biased against them, having planned to grant new trials before allowing the state to make its case. It is hard to understand their position, given that they are arguably the only ones who could have had knowledge or power to do anything about Baumgartner's misbehavior.

Current law in the state is vague about what is to happen when a motion to recuse is before a judge. The current Rule 10 of the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct states only that: 

“A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where: (a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; [or] (b) the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge has been a material witness concerning it.”

The Supreme Court recently adopted a new Rule 10 that is set to go into effect on July 1 of this year. The new rule would prevent a judge whose recusal is being sought from issuing any orders or rules until the motion to recuse has been dealt with. The new rule also gives the petitioning party a right to automatic emergency appeal should the judge deny the motion. Because the rule is not yet in effect Blackwood is permitted to issue his second order despite the current motion for him to recuse himself. 

Read: “Blackwood reasserts order: New trials in Christian-Newsom killings,” by Jamie Satterfield, published at KnoxNews.com.

Earlier:

Judge Baumgartner Saga Continues

Prosecutor’s Note Questioning Witnesses’ Credibility Leads to a Murderer’s Appeal

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

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

TN Supreme Court adopts new ethics rules for Judges

• TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT ADOPTS NEW ETHICS RULES FOR JUDGES; OUTLINES PROCEDURE FOR RECUSALS

The Tennessee Supreme Court has adopted a comprehensive revision to the Code of Judicial Conduct, which sets forth the ethics rules for Tennessee judges. The new Code of Judicial Conduct, which is Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10, will take effect on July 1, 2012.

Among the principal changes to the Code of Judicial Conduct is the addition of a new procedure for pursuing the recusal of a judge, along with a new process for seeking an expedited appeal if a motion for recusal is denied.

Under the new recusal procedure, judges will be required to provide, in writing, grounds for denying any motion for recusal. And, in cases where the recusal is granted, the rule outlines the process for designating a new judge in the case.

In the new rule, the Court also establishes the process for seeking an expedited appeal should a motion for recusal be denied. Should a judge deny a motion for recusal, an accelerated appeal may be filed with the appropriate appellate court within 15 days of the judge’s ruling. The appellate court will then make a decision on an expedited basis.

The Supreme Court also eliminated the ability for judges to make contributions to political campaigns or political organizations. However, the rule allows judges to purchase tickets to attend campaign events.

In following the American Bar Association’s model rules of judicial conduct, the Court adopted a new provision regarding the disability and impairment of a judge or attorney. The new rule instructs judges to take “appropriate action”, such as referral to a lawyer or judicial assistance program, should a judge have reasonable belief that another judge or attorney is impaired by drugs, alcohol or other physical, mental or emotional condition.

“Maintaining a high standard of judicial ethics is paramount to the public’s trust and confidence in the courts and the judges who preside over them,” said Chief Justice Cornelia A. Clark. “We believe these changes to the Code of Judicial Conduct will provide Tennessee judges with greater guidance for conducting the business of the courts in a fair, impartial and ethical manner.”

The new Code of Judicial Conduct was adopted as a result of a petition filed by the Tennessee Bar Association (TBA) to make changes to the current ethics rules. The TBA’s proposed rule changes were developed by a 13-member task force of attorneys and judges.

The Supreme Court filed the TBA’s proposed rules for public comment in March. Following the public comment period, the Supreme Court held oral arguments in December to discuss some of the issues in the TBA’s proposed rule.