Georgia
High court undecided on fate of appeals judge
ATLANTA (AP) — The Georgia Supreme Court on Wednesday said it cannot decide yet whether to remove a state Court of Appeals judge accused of ethical misconduct and asked a judicial discipline panel to review the case further.
The three-member panel of the Judicial Qualifications Commission in January recommended that the state high court permanently remove suspended Court of Appeals Judge Christian Coomer. The panel’s report said he violated ethics rules on how a lawyer should treat a client and improperly used campaign funds for personal expenses.
The Supreme Court found that the panel made “at least two critical legal errors that prevent us from resolving the matter on this record.” For that reason, it decided to send the case back to the panel “to make new findings in the light of the law as it actually exists, and to do so quickly.”
The Supreme Court said the panel made “two critical legal errors.”
First, it was wrong in its determination that the Judicial Qualifications Commission could pursue discipline for conduct occurring before a person becomes a judge or a judicial candidate, the opinion says.
Second, the high court justices wrote, the panel “failed to understand the circumstances in which the Constitution and our case law permits judicial discipline.” The opinion says that actions taken outside of a judicial capacity “warrant discipline only when taken in bad faith.” None of the counts against Coomer have to do with actions taken in a judicial capacity, and the panel’s report “was ambiguous as to whether it found the Judge Coomer acted with bad faith,” the opinion says.
“Intent was a matter of enormous dispute in this matter, and this Court is not well positioned to resolve the factual questions of intent that are crucial to determining whether discipline is constitutionally permitted,” the opinion says.
For that reason, the high court wrote, it is sending the case back to the panel to resolve several questions. The justices instructed the panel to file a new report with the Supreme Court within 60 days.
Texas
Lawyers seek removal of judge in high school shooting case
HOUSTON (AP) — Attorneys for a man accused of fatally shooting 10 people at a Texas high school in 2018 are seeking to have the judge handling the case removed, accusing him of bias for pushing to have experts deem the former student competent to stand trial.
Dimitrios Pagourtzis, 22, has been at the North Texas State Hospital in Vernon since early December 2019 after he was determined to be incompetent to stand trial.
Pagourtzis, then a 17-year-old student, has been charged with capital murder for the attack at Santa Fe High School on May 18, 2018, when he was a student there. Eight students and two teachers were killed at the school, located about 35 miles (55 kilometers) southeast of Houston.
In February, state District Judge Jeth Jones ordered Pagourtzis be held at the hospital for up to another year.
But last week, Jones held a last-minute hearing in which he ordered Pagourtzis to be evaluated by an outside expert to determine his competency.
In their motion Tuesday to recuse Jones, Pagourtzis’ lawyers said they believe Jones is determined to find experts who will conclude their client is competent to stand trial and that the judge indicated he could appoint a new expert on a weekly basis.
In the recusal motion, attorney Nicholas Poehl wrote that Jones expressed during a Jan. 26 meeting that doctors and staff at the state hospital “might not care to see” Pagourtzis restored to competency so that he can be tried.
In a statement, Galveston County District Attorney Jack Roady, whose office is prosecuting Pagourtzis, said he opposes the motion to remove the judge.
Jones’ office did not return a call or email seeking comment Wednesday. The judge told the Houston Chronicle he could not comment on the motion and had referred it to Susan Brown, the presiding judge over the six-county region that includes Galveston County. Brown could handle the motion herself or appoint another judge to hear it. No court hearings have been scheduled on the motion.
Jones took over the case after being elected in November.
The motion alleges that after ordering Pagourtzis be hospitalized for another year, the judge secretly asked the state hospital to perform another competency evaluation, which found that Pagourtzis remained incompetent.
Jones then held a hearing last week in which he ordered an evaluation from an outside expert.
The judge’s recent actions come as family members of those killed or wounded have expressed frustration the case has not gone to trial. They also say they have not been given access to evidence in the case, including autopsy reports and surveillance footage, that could provide more information on their loved ones’ final moments. A bill has been filed in the current session of the state Legislature that would give crime victims’ families access to such evidence without making it public.
“Judge Jones’ proposed scheme appears to be designed to either create the appearance to the public as if the Court is doing something or to eventually arrive at the specific result of ... (Pagourtzis) being found competent,” Poehl wrote.
Pennsylvania
Mistrial declared in slaying of off-duty Pittsburgh officer
PITTSBURGH (AP) — A mistrial has been declared in the western Pennsylvania trial of a man charged in the death of an off-duty Pittsburgh police officer shot and killed in a street confrontation more than 3 1/2 years ago.
Attorneys for 34-year-old defendant Christian Bey sought and were granted a mistrial ruling by an Allegheny County judge Wednesday after a prosecution witness mentioned that she had known the defendant since he moved into the neighborhood after having been “released from prison.”
Bey is charged with homicide in the July 2019 shooting that killed 36-year-old Officer Calvin Hall after an apparent dispute at a Homewood block party. No date has yet been set for a retrial, which must take place within 120 days.
A prosecutor told jurors in her opening statement Tuesday that DNA on the murder weapon matched that of the defendant, the Tribune-Review reported. Defense attorney Carmen Robinson, however, said the case was about “a rush to judgment and a biased investigation.” Prosecutors last month notified the court that they no longer intended to seek the death penalty if the defendant is convicted of first-degree murder.
