JUDICIAL ACTIONS
Judge Ralph Strother (Waco)
On February 20, 2019, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning to Ralph Strother, judge of the 19th District Court in Waco in McLennan County.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Ralph Strother was Judge of the 19th District Court, in Waco, McLennan County, Texas.
2. On May 17, 2015, rival motorcycle gang members and police became involved in a shootout at a Twin Peaks restaurant in Waco Texas. Nine men died from gunshot wounds in the melee, and 177 individuals were arrested after the shooting.
3. In November of 2015, a McLennan County grand jury handed down indictments against 106 bikers. Another grand jury indicted 48 additional individuals in March of 2016, and a third grand jury indicted a single individual in December of 2016.
4. All told, 155 individuals were indicted for their alleged roles in the shootout, and the cases were split between Judge Strother’s court and the 54th District Court.
5. Judge Strother appointed James Head, a detective employed by the Waco Police Department as foreman of the grand jury that was set to review indictments in the Twin Peaks shooting cases over the next three months. In an article published on July 9, 2015, titled “Waco cop to head grand jury likely to hear biker cases,” the Associated Press quoted Judge Strother as saying, “We have lawmen who get on jury panels all the time. Who is better qualified in criminal law than somebody who practices it all the time?”
6. Judge Strother stated he appointed Detective Head to the grand jury but did not believe it was a conflict of interest. He confirmed knowing “at the beginning of summoning the prospective grand jurors that Twin Peaks would be presented either at this particular term or the next one.”
7. During his appearance at the Commission, Judge Strother testified that Detective Head’s grand jury did not return any indictments on the Twin Peaks cases.
8. At the time Detective Head was appointed to the grand jury, McLennan County was transitioning to a new system where grand jurors were chosen through random selection like a petit jury. Previously, judges would appoint commissioners who nominated prospective grand jurors.
9. Judge Strother informed the Commission that Detective Head “would never have been on this or any other grand jury” if he had used the prior system of appointing grand jurors, and he assured the Commission that this experience “has since caused me to exercise more caution and be more aware of potential problems.”
10. Judge Strother informed the Commission that he did not realize Detective Head was a police officer until after he was sworn in. The judge also stated he appointed the detective as the presiding juror, and he knew of no prohibition against an officer serving as either a grand juror or a petit juror.
11. Judge Strother denied conducting an investigation into whether Detective Head played any role in the Twin Peaks investigation. He stated “in perfect hindsight, I wish he had not been on the grand jury.”
RELEVANT STANDARDS
Canon 3B(5) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states: “A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice.”
CONCLUSION
After considering the facts and evidence before it, the Commission concludes that Judge Strother exhibited bias in favor of law enforcement by appointing a detective whose agency investigates criminal cases in McLennan County as foreperson of a grand jury.
Mark Riley (Parker County)
On February 20, 2019, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public reprimand to Mark Riley, former county judge of Parker County.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Mark Riley was the County Judge of Parker County, Texas.
2. The Commission received a confidential complaint alleging that Judge Riley hired a woman with whom he was engaged in a sexual relationship (“Jane Doe”) 1 over more qualified applicants in a “quid pro quo arrangement.”
3. The confidential complaint alleged that Jane Doe received preferential treatment during her employment as a result of her relationship with the judge in the form of unmerited raises and promotions.
4. The Commission’s review of Jane Doe’s employment records supports Complainant’s allegations.
5. On December 19, 2017, an article appeared on the website of the Weatherford Democrat regarding Complainant’s allegations against Judge Riley. The article cites seven current and former Parker County employees who confirmed that Judge Riley was engaged in a sexual relationship with Jane Doe, and that “he treated her preferentially” from the time she was hired.
6. During its investigation, Commission Staff spoke to a number of Parker County employees who confirmed Complainant’s allegations against Judge Riley.
7. Per its usual practice, Commission staff sent Judge Riley a set of written inquiries regarding this matter. Despite numerous opportunities to do so, Judge Riley has never responded to those inquiries.
RELEVANT STANDARDS
Article V, §l-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution provides, in relevant part, that a judge shall not engage in “willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties or casts public discredit upon the judiciary or administration of justice.”
Texas Government Code Section 33.00l(b)(S) defines “wilful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of a judge’s duties” to include “failure to cooperate with the commission.”
CONCLUSION
The Commission concludes from the facts and evidence presented that by engaging in a sexual relationship with his employee, and affording her preferential treatment in the form of raises and promotions as a result of this relationship, Judge Riley engaged in willful and persistent conduct that cast public discredit on the judiciary in violation of Article V, § 1-a( 6)A of the Texas Constitution.
Judge Jack Robison (New Braunfels)
On February 20, 2019, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning to Jack Robison, judge of the 207th Judicial District Court in New Braunfels in Comal County.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At all times relevant hereto, the Honorable Jack Robison was the Judge for the 207th Judicial District Court in New Braunfels, Comal County, Texas.
2. In January of 2018, Judge Robison presided over the trial in State of Texas v. Gloria Romero Perez (Case No. CR2016-659), in which Gloria Romero Perez (the “Defendant”) was charged with continuous sex trafficking and the sale or purchase of a child.
3. According to widespread news reports, on January 12, 2018, after being informed the jury had reached a verdict, Judge Robison went into the jury room, and told the jurors he believed Defendant was not guilty and that her conviction would be a miscarriage of justice. The Judge indicated to the jury that God told him Defendant was innocent, and urged them to reconsider their verdict. The judge later apologized to the jury, and said something to the effect of, “When God tells me I gotta do something, I gotta do it.”
4. On January 18, 2018, Judge Robison filed a self-report with the Commission regarding his statements to the jury. The Commission also received 18 complaints about the Judge’s conduct during the case from numerous sources, including the Comal County Criminal District Attorney’s Office (the “CCCDA”), two jurors, and numerous citizens who learned about Judge Robison’s actions through media reports.
5. In his self-report, Judge Robison explained that as the trial progressed, he “became increasingly concerned that [he] was witnessing a miscarriage of justice.” The judge confirmed that after learning the jury had returned a guilty verdict on at least one count, he entered the jury room, told the jurors that “any guilty verdict would be a miscarriage of justice,” and asked the jurors to “deliberate 10 to 15 minutes more .. . to make certain they were not making a mistake.” Judge Robison stated he still believes that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict against Defendant, but he acknowledged that he engaged in misconduct by entering the jury room and urging the jurors to reconsider their verdict.
6. Judge Robison indicated that immediately after his interaction with the jury, he realized his conduct was improper, and informed the prosecution and defense attorneys of his actions. The prosecution asked Judge Robison to recuse himself from the sentencing portion of the case, which he did, and requested that he poll the jury to confirm that their verdict was not affected by the Judge’s interference. The jury found Defendant guilty on the single charge of sex trafficking, and imposed a sentence of 25 years in prison. Judge Gary Steele of the 274th Judicial District Court was assigned to preside over the sentencing.
7. In his self-report, Judge Robison indicated that he that he was experiencing memory lapses with respect to what transpired during the case, and was unable to provide a rational explanation for his interaction with the jury. However, the Judge explained that he was under extreme personal stressors at the time, including undergoing treatment for a severe medical condition, and the death of a close friend days before the trial began, and opined that these factors affected his behavior. Judge Robison readily acknowledged his conduct with respect to the jury was improper, and asserted his actions were entirely out of character for him and an aberration in his long judicial career. The Judge stated that he was in the process of consulting medical professionals in an attempt to determine the cause of his behavior.
8. The CCCDA’s complaint against Judge Robison included affidavits from the prosecutors who worked on the case, all of whom averred that the Judge exhibited prejudice against the State and in favor of Defendant throughout the trial both in his rulings and in his demeanor. The Commission’s review of the trial transcript supports this conclusion.
9. Two jurors filed complaints with the Commission alleging that Judge Robison entered the jury room twice to urge them to return a “not guilty” verdict on the charges. According to the jurors, Judge Robison told them he had prayed on the matter, and that he had received a message from God to take action because Defendant was innocent. The jurors stated that their interactions with the Judge did not affect their ultimate decision.
10. On October 2, 2018, Judge Gary Steele declared a mistrial in State of Texas v. Gloria Romero Perez. Among other things, Judge Steele found that many of Judge Robison’s rulings during the trial were not in accordance with law, that Judge Robison made improper comments on the credibility of witnesses and the weight of certain evidence, and that Judge Robison was not fair or impartial in his comments and rulings throughout the trial. Judge Steele held that “the manifest injustice to all parties demanded that a mistrial be declared in the interest of justice.”
11. Judge Robison provided the Commission with letters from two medical professionals who examined the judge at his request. They concluded that Judge Robison is not presently suffering from a mental illness. According to the doctors, the most plausible explanation for Judge Robison’s behavior during the Perez case was a temporary, episodic medical condition referred to as a “delirium,” brought on by a combination of personal stressors, the Judge’s medical condition, and the drugs he was taking at the time to treat his condition. The doctors opined this was likely an isolated episode that quickly resolved itself, and indicated that Judge Robison is not currently experiencing a mental impairment that requires treatment or precludes the Judge’s fitness for duty.
12. During his appearance before the Commission, Judge Robison disputed the allegation that he exhibited prejudice against the prosecutors and bias in favor of Defendant during the trial, but acknowledged that his interactions with the jurors constituted misconduct. He testified that he cannot sufficiently remember the details of his interactions with the jury to be able to deny the jury’s allegations about his conduct.
13. Judge Robison testified that he has not experienced a recurrence of delirium, and assured the Commission that he will take immediate action and seek medical attention should he ever again experience the symptoms associated with the condition. The Judge indicated that he is not currently experiencing any mental or physical impairment that would preclude him from executing his judicial duties.
RELEVANT STANDARDS
1. Canon 2A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct provides in relevant part that a judge shall comply with the law.
2. Canon 3B(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, “A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge except those in which disqualification is required or recusal is appropriate.”
3. Canon 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states in relevant part, “A judge should be faithful to the law and shall maintain professional competence in it.”
4. Canon 3B(5) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice.
5. Canon 3B(8) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states in relevant part, “A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications or other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties between the judge and a party, an attorney, a guardian or attorney ad litem, an alternative dispute resolution neutral, or any other court appointee concerning the merits of a pending or impending judicial proceeding.”
6. Article V, § 1-a( 6)A of the Texas Constitution provides that a judge shall not engage in willful or persistent conduct that casts public discredit upon the judiciary or administration of justice.
CONCLUSION
The Commission concludes from the facts and evidence presented that Judge Robison engaged in improper ex parte communications with the jury in violation of Canon 3B(8) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, and engaged in conduct that that cast public discredit upon the judiciary and the administration of justice, in violation of Article V, § 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. The Commission concludes based on the facts and evidence presented that Judge Robison exhibited prejudice against the prosecution and bias in favor of the defense during the trial, in violation of Canon 3B(5) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, and that the Judge’s failure to timely recuse himself from the matter constituted violations of Canons 2A, 3B(1 ), and 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.
RESIGNATIONS
Jeffrey C. Grass
On February 26, 2019, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of Jeffrey C. Grass [#00787581], 56, of Coppell. At the time of Grass’ resignation, there was one pending matter against him. In October 2016, Grass was hired by the complainant and paid a $10,000 retainer fee for representation in a criminal case. Grass failed to maintain the retainer fee in his trust account until the fee was earned. The complainant was not charged with a crime and no legal services were performed. Grass failed to refund the unearned fee as requested and ceased communicating with the complainant. Grass failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. Grass violated Rules 1.03(a), 1.14(b), and 1.15(d).
SUSPENSIONS
Scottie Allen (Dallas)
On January 3, 2019, Scottie Allen [#01058020], 59, of Dallas, received a 54- month partially probated suspension effective April 1, 2019, with the first six months to be actively served and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that Allen neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of his case and failed to promptly comply with the client’s reasonable requests for information. Allen failed to timely furnish to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel a response and did not timely assert a privilege or other legal ground for his failure to do so. Allen violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $3,370.50 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On December 28, 2018, Scottie Allen [#01058020], 59, of Dallas, received a 26- month partially probated suspension effective April 1, 2019, with the first two months to be actively served and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that Allen failed to timely furnish to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel a response and did not timely assert a privilege or other legal ground for his failure to do so. Allen violated Rule 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $1,159.50 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Susan Anne Allen (Dallas)
On February 15, 2019, Susan Anne Allen [#01059350], 66, of Dallas, received a 12-month fully probated suspension effective December 1, 2018. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that in 2016, the complainant discovered that Allen settled five cases but failed to pay the complainant for the services provided to the clients in those cases. Upon receiving funds in which the complainant had an interest, Allen failed to promptly notify the complainant and failed to promptly deliver to the complainant the funds that the complainant was entitled to receive in those matters.
Allen violated Rule 1.14(b). She was ordered to pay $15,000 in restitution and $1,475.50 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Richard Joseph Deaguero (Dallas)
On November 28, 2018, Richard Joseph Deaguero [#05623500], 72, of Dallas, received a 24-month partially probated suspension effective December 1, 2018, with the first three months to be actively served and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that Deaguero was retained to represent his client in a lawsuit against the client’s employer. Deaguero failed to keep the client’s fees in a separate trust account and failed to withdraw from representing the client when he was discharged. Deaguero violated Rules 1.14(a) and 1.15(a)(3). He was ordered to pay $1,500 in restitution and $1,858 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
W. Thomas Finley (Dallas)
On January 8, 2019, W. Thomas Finley [#07025500], 71, of Dallas, received a 24- month active suspension. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that in October 2017, Finley, as legal counsel in a case, communicated directly with the opposing party, who was represented by legal counsel, and discussed a legal matter in connection with the pending case. The communication occurred without the knowledge or consent of the opposing party’s legal counsel. Finley also failed to file a response to the grievance. Finley violated Rules 4.02(a) and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $918 in attorneys’ fees and $250 in direct expenses.
Yexenia Gilmet (Houston)
On February 14, 2019, Yexenia Gilmet [#24059821], 39, of Houston, accepted a two-year partially probated suspension effective April 30, 2019, with the first two months to be actively served and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that Gilmet neglected her client’s case, failed to keep her client reasonably informed about the status of his case, and failed to promptly comply with her client’s reasonable requests for information. Upon termination of her representation, Gilmet failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned. Gilmet further failed to timely respond to the grievance. Gilmet violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). She was ordered to pay $1,000 in restitution and $500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On February 9, 2019, Yexenia Gilmet [#24059821], 39, of Houston, accepted a two-year partially probated suspension effective April 30, 2019, with the first two months to be actively served and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that in representing her client, Gilmet frequently failed to carry out completely her obligations. Gilmet failed to keep her client reasonably informed about the status of his case and failed to promptly comply with his reasonable requests for information. Gilmet further failed to timely respond to the grievance. Gilmet violated Rules 1.01(b)(2), 1.03(a), and 8.04(a)(8). She was ordered to pay $2,000 in restitution and $500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Annette R. Loyd (Fort Worth)
On January 16, 2019, Annette R. Loyd [#16731100], 56, of Fort Worth, received a 12-month fully probated suspension. An evidentiary panel of the District 7 Grievance Committee found that Loyd neglected the legal matter that was entrusted to her, failed to keep her client reasonably informed about the status of the case, and failed to promptly comply with the client’s reasonable requests for information. Loyd also failed to file a response to the grievance. Loyd violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 8.04(a)(8). She was ordered to pay $750 in attorneys’ fees and $250 in direct expenses.
Jerome Neal Stein (Addison)
On February 26, 2019, Jerome Neal Stein [#19128290], 60, of Addison, agreed to an 18-month partially probated suspension effective April 1, 2019, with the first nine months to be actively served and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that in April 2016, the complainant hired Stein for representation in a child custody modification case. In representing the complainant, Stein neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by failing to appear at the complainant’s trial and by failing to timely file objections to the final order. Stein failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from the complainant about her child custody modification matter. Stein failed to explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the complainant to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Stein, when communicating with the complainant, engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Stein violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), and 8.04(a)(3). He was ordered to pay $1,300 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On February 26, 2019, Jerome Neal Stein [#19128290], 60, of Addison, agreed to an 18-month active suspension effective April 1, 2019. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that in representing the complainant, Stein neglected the legal matter entrusted to him, failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of the complainant’s matter and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. Stein failed to hold funds or property belonging in whole or in part to the complainant separate from Stein’s own property, and upon termination of representation, Stein failed to surrender papers and property to which the complainants were entitled and failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned. Stein violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.14(a), and 1.15(d). He was ordered to pay $4,500 in restitution and $1,200 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Jason Lee Van Dyke (Cross Roads)
On February 21, 2019, Jason Lee Van Dyke [#24057426], 38, of Cross Roads, agreed to a 12-month partially probated suspension effective March 1, 2019, with the first three months to be actively served and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 14 Grievance Committee found that there is legally sufficient evidence to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that on or about March 1, 2018, Van Dyke made threats of physical violence to the complainant, thereby committing criminal acts that reflect adversely on Van Dyke’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. Van Dyke violated Rule 8.04(a)(2). He was ordered to pay $7,500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
PUBLIC REPRIMANDS
David Shane Grantham (McKinney)
On January 22, 2019, David Shane Grantham [#24087614], 46, of McKinney, received a public reprimand. The 219th District Court of Collin County found that Grantham violated the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 1.01(a) [A lawyer shall not accept or continue employment in a legal matter which the lawyer knows or should know is beyond the lawyer’s competence] and 1.15(d) [Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled, and refunding any advance payments of fees that have not been earned. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law only if such retention will not prejudice the client in the subject matter of the representation]. Grantham was ordered to pay $5,000 in restitution and $1,000 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
David Nathaniel Harvey (Houston)
On February 21, 2019, David Nathaniel Harvey [#24040049], 53, of Houston, accepted an agreed judgment of public reprimand. An evidentiary panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that Harvey failed to promptly comply with his client’s reasonable requests for information about the status of his case. Harvey violated Rule 1.03(a). He was ordered to pay $250 in attorneys’ fees. On January 31, 2019, Gilda Martha McDowell [#24063561], 39, of Lubbock, agreed to a judgment of public reprimand. The 99th District Court of Lubbock County found that McDowell violated the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 5.03(b)(1) [A lawyer shall be subject to discipline for the conduct of a non-lawyer assistant that would be a violation of these rules if engaged in by a lawyer if the lawyer orders, encourages, or permits the conduct involved]. McDowell was ordered to pay $800 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Francisco R. Yeverino (Richmond)
On February 6, 2019, Francisco R. Yeverino [#00793076], 48, of Richmond, accepted a judgment of public reprimand. An evidentiary panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that Yeverino failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the case and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. Yeverino violated Rules 1.03(a) and 1.03(b). He was ordered to pay $250 in attorneys’ fees.