Judicial Misconduct Archives

C-2003-31

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 7, 2003
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2003-31, Nemol Joe Fox appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, Second or Subsequent Offense, and misdemeanor Driving Under Revocation. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari. One judge dissented. Mr. Fox entered a plea of nolo contendere, which means he did not admit guilt but accepted the punishment. He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment, with five years suspended, plus fines for both charges. He later asked to withdraw his plea, saying he didn’t fully understand what he was agreeing to. The court found that Mr. Fox was not properly advised about the option of treatment for his drinking problem, which is allowed under the law for such cases. Because of this, the court decided that his plea should be allowed to be withdrawn. The original sentence was reversed, and Mr. Fox was granted another chance to address these issues. One judge disagreed, stating that the trial court likely considered all options, including treatment, when deciding on the sentence. The dissenting judge felt that Mr. Fox should not get to change his plea because he and his lawyer had not raised this issue earlier in court. Overall, the main decision was that Mr. Fox did not get the fair chance he should have had to understand his options, specifically regarding treatment for his alcohol issues.

F-2000-948

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 14, 2000
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. PR-99-1326, the Petitioners appealed their conviction for murder and shooting with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the mistrial declared by the judge was not justified and therefore double jeopardy bars the State from retrying the Petitioners. One judge dissented. The case began when the Petitioners were charged with serious offenses. The first trial ended in a mistrial, which the judge declared after issues arose during a witness's cross-examination. The attorneys raised concerns about whether the prosecution had failed to provide evidence that could help the defense. This evidence related to the witness's background and credibility. The judge felt that the defense attorney’s questions may have harmed the trial, which led him to call for a mistrial. However, after reviewing the trial's events, the court found that there was no manifest necessity for a mistrial. In other words, the situation did not require such an extreme remedy. The court felt that a warning could have been sufficient to address any perceived problems before resorting to declaring a mistrial. Ultimately, the review concluded that the judge made errors in declaring the mistrial and, as a result, the defendants could not be tried again for these charges. The opinion emphasized that once a jury is discharged without sufficient reason, it can lead to violating the defendants' rights under the double jeopardy clause, which prevents someone from being tried for the same crime twice.