Court Opinion

ID: 9800393
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:14:22.540231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:37.896744
License: Public Domain

WATT, J.,
dissenting.
T1 The majority attempts to make Lay-ton's lack of candor with the court everyone's fault except that of the respondent, the one and only individual who had control over what came out of her mouth. Furthermore, it imposes upon the trial court an unwarranted measure of blame.
T2 At all times concerning the charges of misconduct respondent, an assistant district attorney, was not only an officer of the court but was the representative and the face of the Sovereign State of Oklahoma in prosecuting this case. According to Layton's profile, she served in this position for some eight (8) years. It is difficult to believe that, as an experienced prosecuting attorney, the chaos in the courthouse the day she encountered her witness was much different than any contested eriminal proceeding in which she had participated. It is common knowledge that our County Courthouses are, for the most part, completely inadequate and provide little opportunity for "quiet conversations" with anyone. Most often, attorneys are forced to conduct such interviews in hushed tones and in crowded hallways filled with other parties and their attorneys attempting to do the same.
3 When directly asked by the trial judge if she had spoken to her witness, Antral Miller, prior to trial, she lied to the court in answering his question-"NO."!
T4 In response to the charges brought against the respondent, she wants this court to believe that she was confused by the trial court's question; that she did not intend to mislead the court; and that her answer produced no harm and, therefore, no foul.
T5 The record reflects that respondent had at least two other opportunities to proffer the correct and truthful answer (that she had, in fact, talked to Mr. Miller) Once during Mr. Miller's testimony at trial, and also during a meeting in the judge's chambers with and in the presence of the judge and opposing counsel Yet, respondent continued to perpetuate her original lie to the court.
16 I agree that there was no excuse for some of the actions of the opposing counsel in this cause. Nevertheless, I cannot condone the majority's shifting any modicum of the blame for error onto the trial court bench. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has made it clear that in serious criminal cases, the "better practice" is to transcribe all proceedings, both those in chambers and at the bench Nevertheless, the failure to do so is not considered "fundamental error" by the Criminal Court especially where, as here, the criminal defendants were acquitted.1 Furthermore, in cases on review before that honorable tribunal, it is expected that defense counsel will protect the rights of their clients by objecting to off-the-record proceedings.2 The objection was not proffered in this cause, leaving the trial court without the opportunity to rule on the same.
T7 As a former prosecutor, criminal defense lawyer, and trial court judge, it has been and is my continuing opinion that the one unforgivable sin of any attorney/officer of the court is-"TO LIE TO THE COURT.".
T8 The majority acknowledges that '[the record is clear that Layton was not clearly candid to the trial court that she spoke with Miller before his testimony, or what was discussed.' Nevertheless, it adopts the respondent's sugarcoated version of this trans*1261gression and the majority opinion signs off by dismissing the charges against her. Accordingly, I would impose costs against this respondent and further impose a lengthy period of suspension based upon the facts before us and for that reason I respectfully dissent.

. See, Childress v. State of Oklahoma, 2000 OK CR 10, 133, 1 P.3d 1006.

. See, Wackerly v. State of Oklahoma, 2000 OK CR 15, ¶8, 12 P.3d 1.