HERBERT WALKER III ORAL ARGUMENT ON CONTEMPT

If the video doesn't load, you can see it here. Enter "Walker" in the search for a case space.  

We are admittedly no fans of one of the parties in this case. 

Here is the OA in the contempt case wherein Judge Miranda held Mr. Walker in contempt. 

Things go bad at 1:20 when Judge Suarez inquires  "What did the trial judge do wrong here?" 
"This is just part of the record [Suarez holds up a fist-full of the record] when the trial court  over and over and over and over being patient and ...over and over and over being interrupted, being talked over... and the trial court holding their demeanor. So tell me where the trial court was wrong?"  

Things go from bad to worse when Judge Rothenberg starts at 4:10 to recount Walker's conduct and her soliloquy continues through 6:50. The Judge's recitation of the conduct doesn't bode well for the appeal for Mr. Walker. 

Rothenberg at 7:15: "Frankly she should have done it much earlier (Hold Walker in contempt) but she just kept hoping against all signs  the conduct would stop..." 

Not pretty. And counsel for the Appellant's citation to the Alex Michaels case just doesn't help him or his client that much.  
Rothenberg at 8:03: "That's what direct criminal contempt is..." In response to the Appellant's argument the court should have taken a break. 

Judge Suarez 11:30: "Everything I've read was a judge being restrained, being nice..explaining..saying 'please don't do that again, I've asked you before'... and what she got back were snide comments." 

Judge Suarez at 12:21 [Judge Miranda  says] "I need you to turn the board around... and Mr. Walker says 'I will when I finish.' That's not a proper comment to a judge. And this has been going on everywhere I look...This is a judge that held restraint to the Nth degree... very fortunate it was a small monetary order..." 
(Rumpole notes...so far there is no 'gofundme' campaign to pay Walker's fine.)

On rebuttal at 14:50 counsel for Walker points out that the order says Walker said "This is ridiculous" while the transcript says "This is insane." Seems like a picayune distinction. 

And Judge Rothenberg, a former top prosecutor/trial lawyer, was not ready to let that go unchallenged at 14:40:  "Were either of those comments respectful?" 
(That sound on the transcript you heard was either the trap snapping shut, or the PCA being etched into the record.) 

Final rules of thumb for practicing before Judge Miranda:
Don't mutter curses  in Romanian: Michaels v. State
Don't say "This is insane" when the judge rules. Walker v. State. 

Judge Suarez gets the last word at 18:58 when he recounts a war story when he was a young trial lawyer: "As judge Levy told me, when I was in the middle of trial: 'if you don't like my ruling, preserve it. That's what the 3rd DCA is for."

Well said Judge Suarez, but on our blog, we get the last (respectful) word: "So what's with all the PCA's?"
To be clear, we wouldn't have said that to you at OA...but we admit we would have thought it. 

From Occupied America...Fight the power. 

DESPICABLE YOU

Last week Judge Miranda held attorney Herb Walker III in contempt during a closing argument. Here is the order, typos and all ("and is sentences to....) . And FYI, the defendant was found guilty, making it all in all, not a great week for Mr. Walker.





And while we're being critical, should the caption read "State v Walker"? The State isn't bringing charges against Walker, the judge, presumably after a hearing, found Walker in contempt of court. The prosecution is not a party to the proceedings. Correct? 

Not the best way to start the week, but court is closed today so enjoy the holiday. Perhaps we should do a poll on what charity the check should be made out to? 

See You In Court. 

OUR THOUGHTS ON THE WALKER SCANDAL

UPDATED WITH NEW INFO ON WHEN WALKER DECIDED TO RESIGN: SEE BELOW.

The Herbert Walker III scandal at the SAO is disturbing for several reasons. First, as we all learned from President Nixon, it is the cover up that will get you.

What did the State Attorney know, and when did she know it?

Are we to believe that Walker’s sexual harassment and battery on employees and people he supervised, including unpaid law school interns was suddenly revealed to the State Attorneys Office on Friday December 28, 2007 at coincidentally the very same day the office decided to fire two other attorneys for unrelated conduct?

Some readers who posted in the comments section have said that Walkers lewd conduct was an open secret at the SAO for years, to the point where interns and attorneys and support staff went out of their way to avoid working with him.

As we asked the other day, is anyone reviewing Walker’s cases to see if his personal demons affected the fairness of how he treated female defendants or female defense attorneys?

And just how did someone who exhibited this type of behavior get at job, and manage to keep his job and get promoted to a supervisory position at the SAO? Is the State Attorney and her staff reviewing hiring and promotion policies. What about the clear indication that employees were frightened to come forward? What is being done to promote a safer and secure working environment at the SAO?

And finally and most importantly, why was Walker allowed to resign when arguably his conduct was criminal, when an intern who was promoting a charity at Safe Space- which is a shelter where women can find safety from people like Herbert Walker III- was fired. Doesn’t anybody at the SAO see the problem with that?

The Herald’s article with Walker’s comments is HERE

Beyond Walker’s ridiculous statement that he resigned solely to find a better paying job (he quit with no apparent job offers) is the statement from the State Attorney’s office’s employee relations lawyer that Walker was allowed to resign or face being fired over the allegations. (with employees like Walker, it is now obvious why the office needs an “employee relations lawyer”. Just wondering if the PDs office has an ”employee relations lawyer”?)

UPDATE: We received this anonymous comment which makes a world of sense to us:

Hey, Herald lady:You really missed the issues. Poor job.If Walker decided on a random Friday afternoon to quit -- where is he going? Did he have his new business cards? Did he give the required notice? Did he complete the transfer memos on his cases?I know the answers. You do not get to answer those questions when they are not asked. He was given only moments to decide to resign or be fired.

Or are to we conclude that the SAO has a policy where its one thing to touch a woman’s breast against her will, but it is quite a more serious matter to donate toys to a woman’s shelter? Is that really the message they want to send? Because as it sits now, the objective facts speak to the conclusion that the State Attorneys Office either doesn’t view sexual harassment and battery within their work place as all that serious, or they went to extreme measures to cover up Walker’s conduct.

Either way you look at it, something still smells over there on 12th Street and 12th Avenue. If Walker touched a prosecutor against her will in an offensive manner while she was at work, does that not constitute probable cause to begin an investigation into battery? The State Attorneys Office has a policy against letting any victim "drop charges". Doesn't the prosecutors office have a responsibility to initiate a criminal investigation when they learn of facts sufficient to constitute probable cause for a crime?

When the State Attorney can manage to squeeze in a few days work from her vacations in South America, we’d like some answers to these questions.