Bates, Matter of
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | GREENHILL; The Judicial Qualifications Commission of Texas instituted this proceeding and has recommended the removal of Garth C. Bates; Bates; Bates; Bates; Bates; Bates; Bates; Bates; Bates; Bates; Bates; In his final contest regarding the legality |
| Citation | Bates, Matter of, 555 S.W.2d 420 (Tex. 1977) |
| Decision Date | 11 July 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. B-6451,B-6451 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Garth C. BATES, Judge, 174th Judicial District Court. |
John L. Hill, Atty. Gen., Max Flusche, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, for Judicial Qualifications Commission.
Wade, Rasmus & Washington, Craig Washington, Houston, for Garth C. Bates.
The Judicial Qualifications Commission of Texas instituted this proceeding and has recommended the removal of Garth C. Bates, Judge of the 174th District Court of Harris County. The proceedings were instituted following the arrest of Judge Bates and his subsequent indictment on criminal charges of bribery.
Section 1-a(6) of Art. V of the Texas Constitution provides for the censure or removal of any judge for these reasons:
" . . . willful or persistent conduct, which is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his said duties or casts public discredit upon the judiciary or administration of justice; . . .."
We agree with the recommendation of the Judicial Qualifications Commission that Judge Bates should be removed under the foregoing provision of our constitution; and he is hereby removed.
The testimony in this case is lengthy. It is contained in ten (10) volumes of testimony, in depositions, and upon tapes which were admitted by the Master appointed by this Court to receive the evidence. Only the essence of the testimony may be set out herein. The Master, the Honorable Walter E. Jordan, Judge of the 48th District (Ft. Worth, Tarrant County), made a summary in his Master's Report. The entire record has been fully considered by this Court. One of Judge Bates' points here is that there is no evidence, or insufficient evidence, to support the findings and conclusions of the Commission. We disagree. The matters set out below from the Master's Report are, in our opinion, fully supported by the record.
It should be noted at the outset that Judge Bates did not file an answer to the Commission's charges, and he never appeared in person while the Master was receiving evidence during a 10-day period in his home city of Houston. His counsel made several preliminary motions, but Judge Bates made no denial; and he did not testify. He appeared through very able counsel, 1 and his grounds for rejection of the Commission's findings and recommendations include points alleging that he was not given due process and that certain portions of the evidence should not have been admitted. These points will be discussed below.
Judge Bates was entitled to receive, and did receive, notice as to these particular charges; but the grounds for his removal are set out in the Constitution, "willful or persistent conduct . . . which is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his said duties, or (conduct which) casts public discredit upon the Judiciary or (the) administration of justice. . . . " The criminal charges against Judge Bates are the subject of a separate criminal proceeding, now upon appeal.
The Master's Report, which we adopt for these purposes, sets out the pertinent facts:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Thoma, In re
... ... Id., Rule 4. A response from the judge is requested. Id., Rule 4(c). Subsequent to a full investigation, a decision is made to place the matter on the Commission's regular agenda. Materials are prepared for the Commission and the matter presented for its consideration at an informal hearing ... See In re Bates, 555 S.W.2d 420, 423 (Tex.1977); Drake v. State, 488 S.W.2d 534, 538 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ... The ... ...
-
Bates v. State
... ... Riklin has told me for somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000 that this case that's pending against me in your courtroom can be taken care of," to which the appellant replied, "Myself and Mr. Riklin are looking into the matter and Mr. Riklin ... Page 127 ... will be handling it with you from this point on. Don't worry about it." ... On defense rebuttal, appellant denied he spoke to Howard, and Howard's attorney testified that Howard never mentioned talking to appellant. Further, it was ... ...
-
Turner v. PV Intern. Corp.
... ... There is no basis for a holding that the trial court impliedly set it aside. Therefore, the release, as a matter of law, is a complete bar to PV International's suit against Turner for breach of the initial agreement made in May 1977. However, it is not a bar ... 505, 528 n. 17, 94 S.Ct. 1820, 1832-33 n. 17, 40 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974). Texas courts are bound by the provisions of the Act. Matter of Bates, 555 S.W.2d 420, 431 (Tex.1977) ... The purpose of the section 2515 is not only to ensure that courts do not become partners to ... ...
-
In Re James Barr
... ... See In the Matter of Seaman, 133 N.J. 67, 627 A.2d 106, 110 (N.J. 1993). It is insulting, belittling, and inappropriate in an exchange between a judge and attorney and ... 1976); In re Brown, 512 S.W.2d at 317; and In re Laughlin, 153 Tex. 183, 265 S.W.2d 805 (Tex. 1954); but see, In re Bates, 555 S.W.2d 420 (Tex. 1977)(reserving for future consideration the applicability of the forgiveness statute to removal actions brought under TEX ... ...