Bates, Matter of
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. |
Court | Texas Supreme 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 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.
Report are, in our opinion, fully supported by the record.
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:
Ed Riklin and Judge Bates, and that the only way Fontenot could be helped with respect to the criminal charges pending against him was for him, Fontenot, to assist the police and District Attorney in the investigation and prosecution of Judge Bates. Fontenot agreed to assist the authorities, and accordingly all conversations between Fontenot and Riklin, and two (2) conversations between Fontenot and Judge Bates, were recorded on tape, and some of them were played into evidence at this hearing.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thoma, In re
...and there are no fundamental problems, the trial court can, in its discretion, admit tape recordings into evidence. 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 The record in the instant case shows that, at the h......
-
Bates v. State
...of office on December 28, 1972, and was commissioned on January 5, 1973. He was removed from office on January 11, 1977. See In re Bates, 555 S.W.2d 420 (Tex.1977). Nukie "Frenchy" Fontenot was the principal witness for the State. He testified that he was indicted on September 21, 1975, in ......
-
Turner v. PV Intern. Corp., 05-87-01123-CV
...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 illegal conduct, but also to prot......
-
In Re James Barr
...105 (Tex. 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. CONST. art. V......