Opinion ID: 1899541
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Count IIIThe Temple Matter

Text: In January 1996, respondent filed suit on behalf of the plaintiffs in the matter entitled Charlene Davis, as natural tutrix and administratrix of the estate of her minor child, Ramona Davis v. City of New Iberia, et al., No. 83,385 on the docket of the 16th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Iberia. The suit alleged that the City of New Iberia was liable to the plaintiffs for the injuries Ramona Davis sustained when she was shot by James Boo Boo Chargois, a convicted felon who was then on probation in connection with an unrelated crime. The suit further alleged that the City of New Iberia was negligent in failing to arrest Mr. Chargois prior to the shooting in response to Ms. Davis' repeated complaints of harassment by Mr. Chargois. In respondent's pre-trial memorandum, he asserted that the New Iberia Police Department (NIPD) investigated several of these incidents, but never arrested Mr. Chargois because Sergeant Colleen Temple of the NIPD had a special relationship with James `Boo Boo' Chargois, which may have included sexual intimacy. [emphasis in original] On February 23, 1999 and February 24, 1999, the local newspaper, The Daily Iberian, printed these allegations, quoting the pre-trial memorandum and an interview with respondent. When the Davis case proceeded to a jury trial on February 26, 1999, both Mr. Chargois and Sergeant Temple testified that there had never been any sexual relationship between them. Respondent subsequently admitted to defense counsel and a reporter for The Daily Iberian that there was no proof such a relationship had ever existed. In July 1999, Sergeant Temple filed a defamation suit against respondent. Temple v. Calahan, No. 91,569 on the docket of the 16th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Iberia. The suit claimed that respondent's allegation of a special relationship between Sergeant Temple and a convicted felon, which may have included sexual intimacy, was defamatory. Following a trial in May 2001, the trial court determined that respondent's statements about Sergeant Temple were false and defamatory and made with actual malice. The judge specifically observed in his written reasons for judgment that respondent's testimony at trial was not credible and was, in many respects, unbelievable. The court awarded judgment in Sergeant Temple's favor in the amount of $10,000. [9] In November 2001, Sergeant Temple's attorney, John F. Wilkes, III, filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC and attached the reasons for judgment in the Temple case. Respondent answered the complaint but did not address the substantive issues it raised. In its formal charges, the ODC alleged that respondent's conduct violated Rules 3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions), 3.3, 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent answered the formal charges and denied any misconduct. At the hearing on the formal charges, Mr. Wilkes testified that during a break in the Davis case, he told respondent, I can't believe you said that about Colleen. Respondent laughed in response and said there was never any evidence that Sergeant Temple was sleeping with Mr. Chargois. Mr. Wilkes discussed the matter with Sergeant Temple and subsequently agreed to represent her in a defamation suit against respondent. According to respondent, there was evidence of a relationship between Mr. Chargois and Sergeant Temple; however, the evidence ultimately did not mature into proof. Respondent explained that a friend of the Davis family, Hasan Omar Shariff, testified in a deposition that Mr. Chargois had bragged of having a sexual relationship with a white female police officer. While Mr. Shariff repeatedly declined to identify Sergeant Temple as the officer in question, respondent testified that Mr. Shariff had given him additional information off the record and outside the deposition which led him to believe that one of the reasons that Mr. Chargois was not arrested was because of a relationship with Colleen Temple, the police officer. Mr. Shariff then disappeared and was unavailable to testify at the trial in the Davis case, so respondent was unable to prove the allegation he made in the pre-trial memorandum. Respondent also pointed out that he said in the memorandum that a sexual relationship may have existed between Sergeant Temple and Mr. Chargois, which he contended is an expression of opinion for a jury to evaluate in light of the evidence, not a statement that the relationship actually existed. In any event, respondent denied making any knowingly false statements about Sergeant Temple, and he contended that the trial judge's finding to that effect is wrong. Respondent also contended that some of the credibility findings in the written reasons for judgment are just plain false. After the reasons for judgment were rendered, respondent filed a complaint against the trial judge with the Judiciary Commission. [10] He also filed a defamation suit against the judge. Respondent testified that he decided not to pursue the defamation suit after the court of appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling in the Temple case.