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

TN Supreme Court upholds four year suspension of Knox County attorney

by Lee Davis

The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled to uphold a four year suspension of former Knox County Law Director and attorney Bill Lockett. Mr. Lockett is pictured (left) with his attorney Tom Dillard.
While working for Kennerly, Montgomery & Finley in which he was a shareholder, Bill Lockett performed legal services for clients and failed to remit fees owed to the law firm. Members of the law firm confronted the attorney about the misappropriated legal fees shortly after the attorney resigned his position at the law firm to assume elected public office as Law Director for Knox County. As a result of his conduct, Lockett pleaded guilty to theft and to willful failure to file income tax returns. Here is the plea agreement. During a subsequent investigation, the Board of Professional Responsibility discovered that the attorney had accepted loans from the law firm’s clients while he was employed at the law firm. A hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility found that Lockett should be suspended for four years. Here is his letter of resignation as Knox County Law Director.

Lockett appealed, and Knox County chancery court applied additional mitigating factors to reduce the suspension to two years. The Tennessee Supreme Court holds that the chancery court erred in modifying the judgment without finding that any of the circumstances in Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 1.3 applied.
The Tennesse Supreme Court also holds that the hearing panel erred in imputing a conflict of interest to Lockett with respect to the loan from the law firm’s client and in misapplying aggravating and mitigating factors. Despite these errors, the Supreme Court concludes that the length of suspension imposed by the hearing panel is consistent with the sanctions imposed on attorneys for similar conduct.
The Supreme Court therefore reverses the chancery court’s reduction of the suspension to two years and affirm the hearing panel’s imposition of a four-year suspension.

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

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Case on Potential Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony

• Perry v. New Hampshire

The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided the case of Perry v. New Hampshire. We originally wrote about the Perry case back in September. The defendant in the case was identified by a witness while also standing next to a police officer. When the witness was first asked for a description of the person suspected of committing a burglary, the witness said he was a "tall black man." When asked by an officer if she could provide a more detailed description, she pointed to the defendant standing with another officer and identified him as the suspect of the burglary. The question for the court was whether there must be police misconduct to successfully exclude unduly suggestive eyewitness identification evidence as a violation of due process. In a more broad sense, the Court was asked to determine if the standards for introducing eyewitness identifications should be strengthened due to the inherent unreliability of them.

In and 8 to 1 decision authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court held that some sort of police misconduct is required for a judge to throw out and eyewitness identification. Specifically, the eyewitness testimony will not be thrown out unless it can be shown that the police have manipulated circumstances to produce a certain outcome. Justice Ginsburg cited to the purpose behind this rule as the reasoning for neglecting to strengthen the standards for admitting an eyewitness identification. The purpose behind it, she stated, is to deter police misconduct. Specifically, she said "when there is no misconduct, there is nothing to deter." By declining to hold otherwise, the Court left the job to the jury to determine the reliability of an eyewitness identification. By allowing the identification to be admitted, the jury will still have the opportunity to hear any rebuttal by the defense. The Court felt this was enough to surpass the inherent unreliable nature of an eyewitness identification.

Justice Sonya Sotomayor was the only dissenting Justice. She disagreed with the purpose of the rule of requiring police misconduct. According to her the purpose of the rule is to ensure a fair trial, not to deter police misconduct. Anything that weakens the opportunity for the defendant to have a fair trial should not be admitted. She stated in her dissent,

"Whether the police have created the suggestive circumstances intentionally or inadvertently... it is no more or less likely to misidentify the perpetrator. It is no more or less powerful to the jury."

This decision is quite controversial given the multitude of scientific studies that have proven that eyewitness identification is unreliable. It is no secret many convictions have been based off of eyewitness identification. Many of those convicted based on eyewitness identifications were later exonerated when technology progressed into the the use of DNA testing. It may be surprising to some that the Court has ignored the evidence of the this blatant unreliability, especially when there is a chance that many convictions are tainted with unreliable identifications. It will be interesting to see when the Court will be presented with this issue next. It is almost certain to rise again.

U.S. Supreme Court to Examine Potential Prosecutorial Misconduct

The United States Supreme Court heard a case recently dealing with the appeal of a death-row inmate from Louisiana. The Defendant, Juan Smith, argued that the Prosecutors wrongfully withheld favorable evidence from Smith's lawyers during the course of his trial. The well-known precedent set by the Supreme Court nearly 50 years ago of Brady v. Maryland requires the prosecution to disclose any evidence that is material to a defendant's guilt or innocence.

Smith argued for a new trial due to the withholding of evidence. What is interesting about his case is that it involves prosecutors from New Orleans. According to Smith's lawyers, courts have overturned 4 death sentences due to violations of Brady. In fact, this case involves prosecutors who worked for Harry Connick, Sr., a prosecutor who has already gone before the Supreme Court with allegations of misconduct. An opinion issued by the Supreme Court in March involved the question of whether prosecutors can be held civilly liable for their misconduct. That case involved Harry Connick Sr. and whether he adequately trained his staff to turn over evidence to defense attorneys. The defendant in the criminal case, John Thompson, spent 14 years on death row before being exonerated. He successfully sued the prosecutor's officer and received a $14 Million award.

The Supreme Court stripped Mr. Thompson of his award, holding that he failed to prove a pattern of deliberate indifference by the prosecutor's office. One instance of misconduct was not enough to hold the prosecutors liable.

While Juan Smith is only arguing for a new trial, if the court grants it, will that provide enough examples of deliberate indifference? Will Harry Connick, Sr. and his office survive another civil liability suit? It should be interesting, but the Supreme Court will first decide whether Smith deserves a new trial.

We reported on this case in March, Thompson case link here, and the Washington Post reported on Juan Smith's case a few weeks ago, and WP reported on the Thompson case earlier this year.