### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

ON MOTION F OR RECUSAL

NO. 03-0 5 -00 585 -CR NO. 03-05-00586- CR

Ex pa r te Ja m e s W . El lis

NO. 03-05-00589- CR NO. 03-05-00590- CR NO. 03-05-00591- CR NO. 03-05-00592- CR NO. 03-05-00593- CR NO. 03-05-00594- CR NO. 03-05-00595- CR NO. 03-05-00596- CR NO. 03-05-00597- CR NO. 03-05-00598- CR NO. 03-05-00599- CR NO. 03-05-00600- CR NO. 03-05-00601- CR NO. 03-05-00602- CR NO. 03-05-00603- CR

Ex parte John Dom inick Colyan dro

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 331S T JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOS. 90 4056 4, 9040 565, 90 4056 6, 9040 567, 90 4056 8, 9040 569, 90 4057 0, 9040 571, 90 4057 2, 9040 573, 9040 574, 90 4057 5, 9040 576, 90 4057 7, 9040 598, D -1-DC -2005 -9041 21, & D -1-DC -2005 -9041 22

HO NORAB LE B OB PERK INS , JUDGE PRESIDI NGI n the intere st of judicial economy , the ar g uments and author i t i es pre sented by 1 J u s t i ce P at t er s o n ’s d i s s en tn ee d n o tb e re p ea t ed h er e. Fu rt h erm o re , I s h al l re fr ai n fr o m i n cl u d i n g a blo w- fo r- blo w r e sp on se to t he ma jor ity ’s a tta c ks on

my dis se nt, c ho os ingins te a d to fo c us on tho se issues Ifind pertinent to this rec usal motion. That being said, Idisag ree with the majority ’s contention that the inher ent problems in the opi nion issued in the underly ing appea l are irrele vant to a de te rm inatio n o f t

he re c us a l mo tio n. Ra the r, it i s my bel ief th at the d ist

ur bin g his tor

y of thi s c a se c ann ot b e ig no re d w he n c on sid e ri ngwh e the r a jus tic e ’s imp art ia lity

ha s b e e n c a lle d in to question. A f

te r o n ly thr e e ju s ti c e s

— K e n L aw , D a v id Pur y e ar , an d B o b Pe mb e rto n

— voted on 2 October 8, 2008, to ove rrule the state’s rec usal motion, the court issued a notice to the parties, whic h stated, “The State’s mo t i o n to rec use Jus tice Alan Waldrop w as consider ed en banc and wa s overr uled by this Court on t he date noted above .” This not i ce wa s misleading since the State’s motion was not, in fact, c onsidered e n banc. Rather, it was c onsidered by only four of the five rem ai n i n g j ustices who could pr operly participate. See Te x. R. A pp . P. 16 .3 (b ) ( mot ion

to rec use must be dec ided by “a ma j o ri t y o f t h e remaining judge s sitti ng en banc ”). A t the time the motion wa s o v er rul ed, I had not y et voted. Rather , Ihad aske d the par ticipating justice s for additional time—no more than thre e day s—to revie w t he relevant lega l authorities. I n light of the fac t that no response to the motion had be en re quested fr om defe nse counse l by this Court, I felt that additional rese arc h was re quired in orde r to proper ly consider the mo t i o n . Ho we ver, r ather than aff ording me additi onal t ime to assess the leg al i ssues or providing me with any authority they may have c onsidered in voting to ove rrule, the three -judg e majority issued notice to the par

ties that the motion had been ove rruled, pur portedly afte r en ba

nc conside ration. Whil e the ma

jo r it y c la im s th a t I r e f

u s e d to v o te o n th e mo ti o n , s tati n g o n ly th a t I was “booked up,” the email cor responde nce quote d by

the majority is inc omplete. I n response to J ustice Pury ear ’s Octobe r 2nd ema il requesting a conf ere nce on the m o tion the next morning at 10:30, I re pli e d le ss t

ha n h a lf an h our l a te r w iththe fo llo wi nge ma il:
Iam interview ing prospec tive law cler ks tomorrow. I ’m booked up for most of the day . Tomorrow at 10:30 will not work for me. 2 D I S S E N T I N GO P I N I O N

I n light of the troubling pr ocedur al history of this case , including the dicta-la den majority op inion that was issued on Aug ust 22, 2008, Ijoin J ustice Patterson’s dissent fr om the de c isi on

to o ve rr ule the State ’s mot ion

to r e c us e and

writ e sep arate ly

to e xpre ss c e rt a in 1

a dd iti on a l c on c e rn s. 2I f someone ha s actua lly rese arc hed any

issues, it would be helpful to s h ar e the inf or matio n w iththe re st o f u s. No l ega l au t h orities on the issues raise d in the motion were f orthcoming . Ihave no r ecor d of a subsequent ema il from J ustice Pury ear sug g esting a new

confe renc e date or time. At the time the notice to the parties was issued, the Court wa s awa re of J ustice Patterson’s intent to dissent from the decision t o overr ule. The noti ce w as issued without the bene fit of J ustice Patterson’s dissent and without any indication that a dissent was f orthcoming . Whil e the votes of thr e e jus tic e s c on sti tut e d a ma jor ity of the Cou rt in t his c a se and

the re fo re we re su ff

ic ie nt t o o ve rr

ule the motion, Ifind it troubling that the voting justices ref used to de liberate or consult the full Court befor e ruling on a motion that must be considere d en banc . An appe llate cour t should encoura g e, rathe r than impede, the de liberative pr ocess, pa rticularly reg ardinga motion of this magnitude. A mot ion to r e c us e sh ou ld be c are fu lly and tho ug htf ull y c on sid e re d b y

the Court , in

or de r t o p ro mot e pu blic con fi de nc e in t

he jud ic iary . In th is c a se , h ow e ve r, the vo tin g jus tic e s, bo th i n r e fu sin g to re qu e st a re sp on se fr om de fe ns e c ouns e l and in o ve rr uli ngthe mot ion

be fo re Iha d th e op po rt

un ity to fully consider the leg al issues in v olved, have discourag ed any meaning ful discussion of the motion’s merits. 3

The majority

attempts to downplay the fac t that the civil suit i n question here is based on the same e ssential fac ts as the instant criminal prosec ution, stating that the at t ac h m ents to the State ’s mot ion

to r e c us e “ sh owtha

t ne ith e r Jus tic e Wal dr op no r h is c lie nt h a d be e n se rv e d wi th a ll of the va rious pleading s filed in the civil suit detailing the ba sis for t h e civi l suit.” Rega rdless of whether J ustice Waldrop or TL R ha d been se rved w ith all of the va rious pleading s, it would not be

u n r e a s o n a

b l e t o e xp e c tt h e b a s i s f

o r t h e c i v i l s u i tt o b e c l e ar l y d e t a i l e d i nt h e p l a i n t i f

f s ’ s e v e n th amende d petition. This petiti on can be found amongthe attac hments to the State’s motion by virtue of its inclusion as exhi b i t fi v e to TL R’s “Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel,” a document bear ing J ustice Waldrop’s signature. As a result, I disag ree with the majority ’s cha rac terization of
J ustice Waldrop and his client’s involveme nt in the civil suit , particula rly the notion that they

hadIfurther disag ree with the majority ’s absurd c ontention that J ustice Waldrop’s stateme nt 3 that hi s cli e nt ha d “n o in fo rm a tio n r e le va nt t o th e a lle g a tio ns in t

his po lit ic a lly

mot ivate d la

ws uit ” is a comment on the de cision to serve discove ry reque sts, rather tha

n a comment on the merits of the suit it self. 4 no kn o wl ed ge of the basis for the suit and we re c oncer ned only with the possible politi cal
mot ivatio ns of

dis c ov e ry

re qu e sts

. 3
Th e se v e n t h a m e n d e d

p e t i t i o n , w h i c hJu s t i c e W a l dr o p an d h i s c l i e n t , T L R , c l e a rl y ha d at th e ir

dis po sa l, d e sc ri be s th e matte r i n c on tr ov e rs y , in pa rt , a s f oll ow s:

Al l def e nd ants c on sp ir e d to vio late Se c tio n 2 54 , T e xas E le c tio n Co de . D e fe nd ants conspired to c oncea l illeg al corpor ate contributions by failing to report them to the Texas Ethics Comm ission. S pecif ical l y , for e x ample, on or a bout September 10, 2002, de fenda nt Coly andro, a t the direc tion of defe ndant Ellis and with the ag ree ment of defe ndant Ceverha , cause d a blank c heck to be sent overnig ht to defe ndant Ellis in Washington, D.C. The funds f or the c heck w ere to be supplied from unre ported c orporate contributions rec eived by TRMPAC [ Texans for a Re pu bli c an M a jor ity Pol it i c a l A c t i o n

C o mmitte e ]. With

the a g re e me nt o f d e fe nd ants C ev er h a an d Coly andro, de fenda nt Ellis completed the chec k in the amount of $190,000 as political co n t ributions to R epublican c andidates f or the Te x as L egis l at u re . . . . The unlawful a ctions of the def endants include d conce aling the exis tence of the funds by

. . . deliberately eng ag ing in the unla wful ac t of cha

nneling corpor ate c ontributions int o Texas leg islative rac es throu gh the sche me of launde ring the money

throug h the Republican N ational Commit tee.

A descr iption of the matter in c ontroversy in the instant criminal prosec ution can be found in the majority

opinion authored by J u s t i ce Waldrop and issued by this Court on Au g us t 22 , 2 00 8. Th e op ini on state s:

Col le c tiv e ly , th e ind ic tme nts a c c us e El lis and Col y and ro of pa rt ic ipatin g in a

sc he me to channe l unl aw ful corpor ate political contr ibutions t o candidates for the Texas Ho use of Repr esentatives in 2002 in viol ation of the Te x as Elec tion Code. .

. . The remaining indictments alleg ed that on or about Septembe r 13, 2002, Ellis andSe e Ex pa rteEl lis , No. 03 -0 5- 00 58 5- CR, 20 08 Te x. Ap p. L EX I S 78 31 (T e x. Ap p. —Aus tin 4 Aug . 29, 2008, no pet. h.) (H en s o n , J., dissenting), available at http:// www.3r dcoa.c ourts.state.tx .us/opinions/ HTML opinion.asp? OpinionI D=17252. This same tortured analy sis resur fac es i n the majority ’s opinion today , in the form of the 5 asser tion that “no reasonable , disinterested member of the publ ic .

. . would have a re asonable doubt a s to Justi c e Wal dr op ’s imp art ia lity ,” de sp ite the fa c t th a t tw o o f th e fi ve justic e s d e c idi ngthi s rec usal motion are c oncer ned that Just ice W al d ro p ’s i mpartiality has bee n called into question. Perhaps the ma

jority is refe rringonly to those rea sonable, disi ntere sted members of the public who also believe that chec ks are not “funds.” See id. at *10-14. 5 Coly andro know ingly

conducte d and fa cilitated a tra nsaction i nvolving the pr ocee ds of ac tivity that violated sec tion 253.094 of the elec tion code, and that the value of the funds was $100,000 or more. The indictments state that six named c orporations gave unlawful c ontributions tot aling $155,000 to TRM PAC, that Elli s and Coly andro deli v er ed these corpor ate c ontributions to t he Republica n National State Elec tions Commi ttee in the for

m of a c heck f

or $190,000 dra

wn on a TRMPAC account and signe d by Coly andro, a n d that the national committee then ma de contr ibutions totaling $190,000 to a list of Te x as house c andidates sug g ested by Ellis.
(citations omitted). The opinion g oes on to note that Ellis and Coly andro w ere later r eindicted a nd that the new indictments did not alleg e that the $190,000 tra nsfer was made by

chec k. A compar ison of the plaintiff’s se venth amende d petition in the civil case a nd the fa c ts o f t he ins tant c ri min a l pr os e c uti on re ve a l th a t th e c ivi l su it i nv ol ved the same matte r i n

c on tr ov e rs y

in t he c ri min a l pr os e c ut io n— th e al le g e d mo ne y la un de ri ngof

$1 90 ,0 00 in c or

po rate contributions to Republican ca ndidates for

the Texas leg islature, occ urringin September 2002. As discus s ed in my

dissenting opinion to the denial of en banc consideration, the 4 panel opinion in this case prese nted a number of troubling issues, including the panel’ s insist ence

on addre ssing issues not proper ly befor e the Court, an une x plained two-y ear delay in the dispositi on of what w a s s u

p p o s e d to b e an“ a c c e le r a te d ” a

p p e a l, an d

a to rtu r e d a p p li c a ti o no f

th e r e a s o n ableperson standa

rd. Such proce dural and jurisprude ntial irregularities, when c oupled with the written 5On e mig ht a lso qu e sti on wh y , if Justi c e Wal dr op ’s la c k o f b ia s o r p art ia lity is s o o bv iou s, 6 a 38 -p a g e op ini on , in c lud ingpe rs on a l atta c ks on the dis se nti ngjusti ces, was ne c e ssa ry to e xpla in why the motion to recuse w as denie d. 6 statements desc ribed in the State’s motion to rec use, are sufficie nt to give a disinterested obser

ver

cause to question whether the case was he ard by an impartial tribunal. See Rogers v. B r a d l ey , 909 S.W .2d 872, 882 (Tex. 1995) (Enoc h, J ., concur ring ) (motion to recuse should be eva luated fr om disinterested obser

ver’ s point of view). 6
Th e re c e nc y

of the state me nts a t iss ue in the State ’s mot ion is a lso a matte r o f s ome

c on c e rn . Wh ile the ma

jor ity c or re c tly ob se rv e s th a t a

c and idate fo r a

Te xas c ourt

of a pp e a ls mus t have at least ten y ear s’ experienc e in the leg al field, see Tex. Const. art. 5, §§ 2(b), 6, the r emar ks at issue in the State’s motion to recuse wer e not made te n y ear s, five y ear s, or even one y ear befor e Justi c e Wal dr op too k th e be nc h. Rath er, J us tic e Wal dr op wa s in iti a lly a pp oin te d to thi s Co ur

t in Aug ust 2005, less than a y ear afte r some of the statem en t s descr ibed in the State’s motion were made. The attachments to the motion refle ct that as late as Nove mber 29, 2004, Just ice Waldrop filed a ple ading in the civil action that re fer red to the pla in t i ff

s ’ case as a “ politically

motivated lawsuit,” and sug g ested that the pla intiffs were attempting “to hara ss political opponents using the tools designe d for leg itimate civil disput es.”

“Wise observe rs have long understood t hat t he appear ance of justice is as important as its rea lity .” J.E.B. v . Alabama , 5 1 1 U. S. 127, 161 n.3 (1994) (Sca lia, J ., dissenting) . I n the
prese nt c ase, a justice of this Court, in the context of a r ece nt civil case a rising out of

the same c ore fa c ts, ind ic a te d th at he was pre dis po se d to be lie ve that th e a lle g a tio ns we re me re ly “ po lit ic a lly
mot ivate d. ” Whe the r t

his is tru e or

no t, w e are no t to loo k so le ly to wh e the r the re wa s a c tua l bi a s,At the time the three -judg e majority voted to ove rrule the rec usal motion in October 2008, 7 J ustice Waldrop had only

provided the Court with a cursory email refer ring the recusal mot ion to the court for a vote. The document entitled “Statement on Texas Rule of Appellate Proc edure 16.3(b) Certification,” rec ently

authore d by

J ustice Waldrop, was not in existence a n d was c erta inly not c o n s i d e r e d

b y t h e m a

j o r i t y w h e nd e c i d i n g t h e r e c u s a l m o t i o n . T h u s , i ti s u n kn o w nw h y a statement—that wa s never considere d by

the Court—is being rele ased w ith the opinion. 7 but also whether

ther e wa s “a likelihood of bias or an a ppear ance of bias.” Un ga r v . S arafi te , 376 U.S. 575, 588 (1964). Gr anted, suc h a st ring ent rule may exclude “judg es who have no ac tual bias and who w ould do their very best to weig h the sca les of justice e qually betwee n contending parties. B u t to p e r f

o r m it s h ig h f

u n c ti o n in th e b e s t w ay ‘ ju s ti c e mu s t s a ti s f y th e a p p e ar an c e of justice.’” In re M

urchison , 3 4 9 U. S

. 1 3 3 , 1 3 6 (1 9 5 5 ) ( qu o t i n g Offutt v. U.S. , 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954)).
Be cause Iam not co n v inced that the a ppear ance of justice wa s satisfied in this case, I

re sp e c tf ull y dis se nt. 7

__________________________________________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice
Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son, Pury ear , Pemberton and H enson Filed: De cembe r 31, 2008 Pub lis h