Title: Board of Professional Responsibility, Wyoming State Bar v. David E. Singleton, WSB #7-5372

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING
2021 WY 70
April Term, A.D. 2021

May 19, 2021

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY, WYOMING
STATE BAR,

Petitioner,

D-21-0002
DAVID E. SINGLETON, WSB
#75372,

Respondent.

ORDER OF PUBLIC CENSURE

[41] This matter came before the Court upon a “Report and Recommendation for Public
Censure,” filed herein April 29, 2021, by the Board of Professional Responsibility for the
‘Wyoming State Bar, pursuant to Rule 12 of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary Procedure
(Stipulated Discipline). ‘The Cour, after a careful review of the Board of Professional
Responsibility’s Report and Recommendation and the file, finds that the Report and
Recommendation should be approved, confirmed and adopted by the Court, and that
Respondent David E. Singleton should be publicly censured for his conduct. It is,
therefore,

 

[12] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that the Board of Professional Responsibility’s
“Report and Recommendation for Public Censure,” which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein, shall be, and the same hereby is, approved, confirmed, and adopted by
this Court; and itis further

[3] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that David E. Singleton is hereby publicly
censured for his conduct, which is deseribed in the Report and Recommendation for Public
Censure. The Wyoming State Bar may issue a press release consistent with the one set out
in the Report and Recommendation for Public Censure; and itis further,
(14] ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 25 of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary
Procedure, Mr. Singleton shall reimburse the Wyoming State Bar the amount of $50.00,
representing the costs incurred in handling this matter, as well as pay the administrative
fee of $750.00. Mr. Singleton shall pay the total amount of $800.00 to the Wyoming State
Bar on or before July 15, 2021. If Mr. Singleton fails to make payment in the time alloted,
execution may issue on the award; and itis further

[5] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall docket this Order of Public Censure,
along with the incorporated Report and Recommendation for Public Censure, as a matter
coming regularly before this Court as a public record; and itis further

{16} ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 9(b) of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary
Procedure, this Order of Public Censure, along with the incorporated Report and
‘Recommendation for Public Censure, shall be published in the Wyoming Reporter and the
Pacific Reporter; and itis further

[17] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court cause a copy of this Order of Public Censure
to be served upon Respondent David E. Singleton

(18) DATED this 198 day of May, 2021,
BY THE COURT:

Ws

MICHAEL K. DAVIS
Chief Justice
 

D-21-0002
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT ~ eal

STATE OF WYOMING 29 2021
In the matter. phate
Davin SINGLETON, ance

WSB 75372, SB No. 2020-065
Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR PUBLIC CENSURE
‘THIS MATTER came before a Review Panel ofthe Board of Profesional Responsibility

via Zoom videoconference onthe 6M day of Api, 2021, for consideration ofthe paris” Skipule

tion for Public Censure pursuant to Rules 9 and 12 ofthe Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary Proce-

‘dre. Preseat forthe videoconftrence were Review Panel menbers Christopher Hawks (Chair),

‘Katherine Stike and Tandy Dockery. Mark W. Gifford, Br Counsel, eppearedon behalf of the

‘Wyoming Stato Bar, Respondent David E. Singleton appeared wit his counsel, Jeremy D.

Michaels. The Review Panel having reviewed the Stipulation, the supporting Affidavit and being

fully advised inthe premises, finds, conchides and recommends:

Bindings
1. Respondent has ben licensed to practice in Wyoming since 2014 and is engaged

{nthe active pctce ofaw in Cheyenne, Wyoming. At all times relevant o this mater, be was

‘employed as Senior Assistant District Attomey for Laramie County, Wyoming.

2. The complaint aguinst Respondent inthe above-captioned matter was submited

{in August 2020 by Cheyenne lawyer Thomas B, Jubin (Jubin”), who represented two defend

‘ots, Deborah Palm-Egle and Joshua Egle ina criminal mater Respondent prosecuted in his role

‘#8 Senior Assistant Distt Attorey,

3. Inearly November 2019, Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation (“DCT”)
‘Special Agent Jon Briggs contacted Respondent by phone regarding a tip agents received about a
VY

‘am in case Laramie County. Specifically, Agent Briggs informed Respondent he and other
‘gents had located a bam with nemerous marijuanetype plants hanging and suspended by wire
cross the bar,

4. DCT agents obtained a search warrant and, on November 4, 2019, seized the plant
‘material (from a farm owned by Deborah Palm-Egle and Joshua Egle) forthe purpose of testing
to determine whether tetrabydrocannsbinol (“THC”) was present.

5. THC isthe psychoactive compound in marjuane, which comes from the buds and
Jeaves of a hemp plant. By status, hemp whose buds end leaves have a THC content of more
(han 3% are categorized es marijuana. Buds and leaves having a THC content of 3% or less, on
‘he other hand, may be used in the manufacture of cannabidiol ("CBD"), a cannabinoid com-
‘Pound that s considered by some to be of therapeutic value for various maladies, including epi-
Jepsy, pain and anxiety and is commercially marketable.

6. Presentat the Egle frm when the search warrant was executed were Brock
‘Dykes, a construction contractor hited by Egles to perform some work on the property, and
‘Shannon Dykes, Brock Dykes’ wife, Agent Briggs and Agect Jason Moon interviewed Brock
‘Dykes and conducted a separate interview of Shannon Dykes. During his interview, Brock
Dykes showed the agents test results from Botanscor, an independent laboratory hired by Egles
to test samples ofthe hemp crop. The test results, which were stored on Dykes’ smart phone and
‘were later texted to Agent Moon by Dykes, showed THC level for each of the two tested sam
ples to be less than 3%,

7, OnNovember 6, 2019, Cheyenne attorney Robert Moxley contaced Respondent
‘nd informed Respondent that he was likely going to represent the farm owners, Joshua Egle and
Deborah Palm-Eele. Mr. Mosley conveyed to Respondent this was a hemp farm and DCI agents
Should not have seized the plant material despite the warrant agents had obiained and served,

2
 

‘Mr. Manley further asked Respondent to relay what charges were forthcoming and any other in-
‘formation about the case Respondent could share. Respondent informed Mr. Moxley be had not
filed charges and a this point was unable to tell him whether Respondent would be filing charges
‘saainst any potential defendant because Respondent did not have sufficient information,

8 Subsequent o seizure ofthe plant material fom the Egles” farm, Agent Briges
‘submited certain portions ofthe material for quantification testing, Le, to determine the amount
‘of THC present in a representative sample of the plans. From roughly the beginning of Decem-
‘ber 2019 to ate February 2020, there was litle or no activity regarding the matter.

9. On February 20,2020, Agent Briggs emailed to Respondent a summary ofthe re-
‘ort he received regarding testing ofa representative sample ofthe plant material. The surmmary
‘of the report revealed that ll but one of the samples was above 3% THC. Briggs suggested fl-
‘ng various felony charges against Deborah Palm-Egle, Josh Egle, Brock Dykes and Shannon
Dykes.

10. On April 6, 2020, Respondent fled charges aguinst the Egles and the Dykes. Re-
‘pondent charged Josh Egle and Deborah Palm-Egle, Mr. ubin's cleat, with conspiracy to
‘manufacture, deliver, or possess marijuans; possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, felony
‘possession of marijunna; and cultivation of marijuana.

11, The preliminary hearing was held July 8, 2020, before First Judicial Distt Cire
cult Court Judge Antoinette Williams. At the hearing Respondent called Agent Briggs asthe on-
|y witness on bebalf ofthe Site. During Agent Briggs’ direct testimony, Respondent elicited the
following testimony regarding the November 3, 2019, interview Agents Briggs and Moon con-
éucted with Brock Dykes:

Q Were you ever provided or other agents provided with testing from any of
‘the defendants of those plants?
 

>

‘There was a document that was shown to Special Agent Moon and myself,
‘Thelieve there may have been others that saw it as well.

‘Do you know where that test came from?
‘Ma. Dykes showed it to me on his cell phone, I believe it was.
And what was ita test of? Or purporting to be a tet of?

(Of quantification of the amount of THC from — I believe it to be fom =
plant material.

‘Do you know what plant material?

‘A. Mr. Dykes indicated it was provide to him by Mr. Egle to be representa-
tive ofthe plants that were grown and hanging in the barn?

But you can’t be certain that those tests that you were shown were related.
‘tothe plans that you seized and subsequently had tested?

A. No, Teould not.

rPeoPre

2

12. Oncross-xaminstion by Mr. Jubia, Agent Briggs testified thatthe tex results
shown to the two DCT agents by Brock Dykes during his November 4,219, interview “may
‘have actually been over3 percent as well.” Mr. Jubin then handed Agent Briggs Exhibits A-1
‘0d A-2, the Botanacor tet results Mt. Dykes had shown Agents Briggs and Moon oa Mr,
Dykes cellphone, Briggs testified, “I don’t recall if these were the exact one that were present-
‘eto me at hat ime,” The test results Mr Dykes had shown the two agents (which Dykes then
‘texted to Agent Moon) indicated a THC of less than 3% foreach ofthe tested samples,

13. The preliminary bearing didnot conchae on July 9, 2620, and was Iter sched
‘ed to resume on August 6, 2020.

14, OnJuly 23, 2020, Respondent received a leer from Me. bin in which he point-
‘4 out what he perceived tobe ewors inthe State's theory ofthe case, primarily regarding Agent
‘Briggs’ testimony of specifically where THC is conned within the plants.
15, At4:45 pam. on Friday, July 24, 2020, Mr. Jubin sent an email to Ageot Briggs in
‘ich he pointed out inaccuracies in Agent Briggs’ testimony. Quoting ftom Mr. Jubin's email:
“You also testified that as you recall one ofthe tests provided by Brock Dykes to agents — tests
‘Me, Dykes told agents were provided to him by Josh Egle —was over 3% THC. That snot accu
‘ate, subpoenaed Agent Moon, and be has compared th fst two pages ofthe preliminary heer-
{ng Exhibit A ~the pages Dykes provided the agents. Neither test exceeded 3%. They were not
‘even close. Again, hope Iam correc in presuming that you would want io ensure that the Court
{is provided with accurate information.” Mr. Jubin asked Agent Briggs to “comect [his] swom

16, At6:50 pam. on July 24,2020, Respondent received the following text message
‘rom Agent Briggs: “Dude, Juin is going hard inthe paint. He is sending me emails, trying to
‘ell me my testimony is wrong” Respondeat responded, “He sent me an email yesterday and ssid
the same thing, No trying to be antagonistic just trying o‘educate" me. That sbout sum it up?"
Ageat Briggs responded, “Oh ya ‘I'm giving you the chance to correct your testimony”. Is there
‘any recourse aguinst im for such activity. sie] He i actualy insane.”

17, At 146 pm. on Monday, July 27, 2020, Agent Briggs forwarded Mr. Jubin's July
24 email to Respondent with a forwarding note, “Here is what ubin set me. 1 forwarded it to
Jenny (Craig) atthe AG's office as well”

18. Ontbe afternoon of Wednesday, August 5, 2020, the day before the preliminary
‘hearing was scheduled to resume, Mr. Jubin sent an email to Respondent which included th fol-
lowing: “I am wondecing about your plans to comet the information that Agent Briggs presented
to the Court. I sent tat to him and then to his counsel at the AG's office as well”

19, ‘The preliminary bearing resumed and conchuded on Thursday, August 6, 2020,
“The first several minutes of the hearing were not transcribed, though an audio recording was
‘maintained, During the unreported portion ofthe hearing, Respondent brought to Judge Wil-
liams?attecton that Mr. Juin had contacted Agent Briggs directly after the July 6, 2020, bear-
ing and asked him to correct certain testimony. Respondent stated, “The State believes itis whol-
| improper forthe defense to have asked a witness ofthe State to comect testimony or change
testimony.” Respondent now recognizss tat in encouraging both Ageat Briggs and Respondent
to correct Agent Briggs’ inaccurate testimony, Me. Jubin was merely fufling his Rale 3.303)
bligation of professional responsibly. Rul 3.3(8)(3), W.R-Prof Cond, provides, “Ifa lawyer,
‘he lawyer's cies, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered materia evidence andthe law-
_yer comes to know ofits falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if
necessary, disclosure tothe tribunal.” Respondest now recognizes and acknowledge that Mr, Jo-
‘bin and Respondent both had this responsibility as officers of the Court

20. ‘The hearing resumed with Me. Jubin recalling Agent Briggs back to the stand,
‘When esked about the July 24,2020, email Mr. Jubin had set to Agent Briggs in which be
Pointed out inaccuracies in his July 9 testimony (andthe follow-up letter sent Sly 27,2020,
‘hich contained the same information), Agent Briggs testified, “To be hones, sr, I idn’t read
‘your email. [forwarded it to counsel.” Mr. Juba, ofcourse, ad no way of knowing whether
Agent Briggs was being honest or not, but Respondent was aware ofthe fulsty of Agent Briggs”
testimony and filed to coretit on the record. In this regard, Respondent conditionally admits
‘be committed a violation of Rule 3.3(0)(3).

21. Onsedirect of Agent Briggs, Respondent attempted to shore up Agent Briggs’
‘rofessed lack of recollection ast the contents ofthe Botanacor test resus, aking, “So you
 prior disciplinary offenses;

() dishonest or selfish motive;

(© bd fits baron often proceeding by intently fing to

(0 mb of fe ec mena aor deep ptos
or

‘during the disciplinary process,

(© refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct;

() vulnerability ofthe victim;

(© substantial experience inthe practice of lew;

{@)inffereoce in making restitution; nd

legal conduc, including that involving the use of controlled substances.

Definition. Mitigation or mitigating circumstances are any considerations or fac-

‘tors that may justify a reduction in the degree of discipline to be imposed.

Factors which may be considered in mitigation. Mitigating factors include:

(a) absence of a prior disciplinary record;

(@) absence ofa dishonest or selfish motive;

(©) personal or emotional problems;

(@) timely good fsth efor to make restitution orto rectify consequences of mis

(© fll and fe disclosure of dsciplinry board or cooperative atitude toward
proceedings;

(f inexperience in the practice of law;

tee ate

(Qh) physical disability;

@ meatal disability or chemical dependency including alcoholism or drug abuse
(1) there is medical evidence thatthe respondent is affected by chemical de-
oe,

Say ate
(G) the responteat's recovery frm th chemical dependency or mental dis
Bis enone bya meaning nd ssn psd of use

(9 Sere te tt en mee of et ion

n
delay in disciplinary proceedings;
OP apes fe pales or sneons
(D) remorse; and

(x) remoteness of prior offenses.
94 _ Factors Which Are Neither Aggravating nor Mitigating.
Th fing oe end tbe come ace epavting nor mito

(9 forced of comple restos
(©) api oe clits ena fi eran improper eave

en aie et dangicryprocedags
(© complainant's recommendation as to sanction; and
{© fate injured cent complain.
Recommendation
‘In consideration of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Review
Panel recommends as fll:

1, That an Order of Public Censure be issued to Respondent for violations of Rule
33, WRProf.Cond.

2, That, upon issuance of the Order of Public Censure, the foregoing press release
smay be issued.

3. That Respondent be required to pay an administrative fe of $750.00 and costs of
$50.00 to the Wyoming State Ba.

Dated his 47aey ot api 202.

tL
‘Christopher Hawks, Chair
Review Panel of the Board of Professional

Responsibility
‘Wyoming State Bar

2