CAUSE NOS. 997
&
1061
~
~
THE
STATE
OF
TEXAS
§
IN
THE 51"
DISTRI\
:
v.
§
COURT
OF
SCHLEI~R
"0
~
.r.
WARREN STEED
JEFFS
§
COUNTY, TEXAS
~
~
AMENDED MOTION
FOR
RE-HEARINGIRE-CONSIDERATION
OF
DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION
TO
RECUSE
TRIAL JUDGE
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:NOW COMES WARREN STEED JEFFS, Defendant
by
and through hisattorney, EMILY MUNOZ DETOTO, and respectfully files this Amended Motion forRe-HearinglRe-Consideration
of
Defendant's First Amended Motion
to
Recuse TrialJudge,
in
the above referenced and styled cases.I. PROCEDURAL
mSTORY
On Monday, June
13,
2011, the parties appeared for a hearing on Defendant'sFirst Amended Motion to Recuse Trial Judge. Defendant's First Amended Motion toRecuse Trial Judge, alleged, among other things, that the Court's non-verbal conductduring previous trials
of
FLDS Church members indicated that the Court
had
a severepersonal bias against the FLDS Church and its members and because
of
such severepersonal bias, any member of.the FLDS will never receive a fair trial
in
front
of
JudgeBarbara Walther. The Honorable John Hyde presided over said hearing. After testimonyfrom 8 witnesses and arguments from Counsel, the Honorable John Hyde deniedDefendant's Amended Motion to Recuse Trial Judge, on June
14,
20011. (See attachedwritten opinion from The Honorable Judge Hyde, heretofore marked as Exhibit
1).
II.
This motion is based
on
the following:During the recusal hearing held
on
June
13,2011,
Defendant,
Mr.
Warren SteedJeffs sought to have the trial Judge, Barbara Walther recused from presiding over theabove referenced
cases
because said Judge had a personal bias
or
prejudice against theDefendant and the FLDS, however, there exists crucial facts andlor pertinent questions
that
are left un-answered as to Judge Walther's ability to sit
as
a neutral and detachedjurist
in
the above referenced cases. Defendant asks this Court to re-consider
her
decision to not recuse herself,
or
alternatively asks the Honorable Judge Hyde toreconsider and re-hear Defendant's Amended Motion to Recuse Trial Judge. Defendantsubmits that there remains strong grounds for recusal that were not thoroughly developedduring the
first
recusal hearing
that,
had
they been developed, would have exposed JudgeWalther's bias against
Mr.
Jeffs and the FLDS. Said issues
of
concerns andlor actionstaken by Judge Walther,
and
or grounds for recusal
that
yet need
to
be
developed include.but
are
not limited to the following:
1.
In
June
of
2008, after Judge Walther authorized the raid
of
the YFZ Ranch,her home was
under
guard after Utah and Arizona authorities warned
of
"enforcers" from the alleged sect.
See
USA
Today,
June 11, 2008.
It
goeswithout saying that
if
the Judge felt
it
was necessary to
be
guarded by
law
enforcement
from
members
of
the FLDS, there must remain a question as towhether Judge Walther harbors any bias, prejudice, or even fear
of
Mr.
Jeffs,
and
members
of
the FLDS that will affect her ability to
be
a neutral anddetached jurist,
or
if
said experience was
of
such a nature as
to
engender biasandlor prejudice against Mr. Jeffs and the FLDS although the FLDS and Mr.Jeffs have
no
history,
at
all,
of
violence, but
to
the contrary have been thevictims
of
persecuting zeal
of
both religious
and
political ;bias since therestoratioJ}
of
the Gospel
of
Jesus Christ
as
revealed through Joseph Smith,Jr.· 2.
In
June
of
2008, Judge Walther herself authorized,
by
signing the warrantthat was used
as
the basis for raiding the YFZ Ranch. Hence, Judge Walther
possessed knowledge
of
the alleged facts and circumstances surrounding theabove cases
and
the other cases that came before her.
By
authorizing thewarrant, Judge Walther, in essence, made a judgment
asto
the truthfulnessand veracity
of
the person who called in to report the alleged offense. andmade a judgment as
to
whether
or
not probable cause existed. The fact thatJudge Walther
was
the judge who authorized the issuance
of
the warrant thatcaused the YFZ Ranch to
be
searched, coupled with the fact that theDefendant has filed a motion seeking to suppress
the
proceeds
of
the raid
on
the YFZ Ranch, creates
an
almost impossible situation for Defendant andmakes
it
more likely than not, that the Defendant does not have anymeaningful chances in prevailing on said Motion to Suppress Evidence andDefendant submits that this certainly gives
an
appearance
of
partiality andbias
on
the part
of
Judge Walther. Litekey v. United States, 510 U.S. 540(1994).3. Judge Walther, in granting the Motion
to
Change Venue, moved
Mr.
Jeffs'case from to
Tom
Green County, Texas.
It
is interesting
to
note that there areseveral counties that surround Schleicher County, yet Judge Walthers choseto move
Mr.
Jeffs' case to
Tom
Green, a county where she currently resides,and a county where a
jury
recently convicted
and
sentenced a member
of
theFLDS
to
75 years
in
prison. Based upon change
of
venue to Tom GreenCounty. it cannot be said that Judge Walthers does
not
appear to harbor biasor prejudice against
Mr.
Jeffs
and
the FLDS.4. Judge Walther issued the order authorizing the removal
of
over 400 childrenfrom
tl1e
YFZ Ranch, but said decision was overturned
by
the Third Court
of
Appeals
and
the Texas Supreme Court, and
it
was determined
that
JudgeWalther
abused
her
discretion
in issuing said order.The Memorandum Opinion dated May 22, 2008. stated, in pertinent part:
The
evidence adduced
at the
hearing held April
17·18,
2008,
was
legally and factually insufficient
to
support
the
findings requiredby section
262.201
to
maintain custody
of
Relators' children with
the Department.Consequently,
the district court abused
its
discretion in/ailing
to
return
the
Relators children]3
10
theRelators.
(See
attached opinions from the Third Court
of
Appealsand the Texas Supreme Court, heretofore attached
as
Exhibits
2&3).
However, despite this fact, Judge Walther continued to interject herselfand her wishes into retum.agreements between CPS and the parents
of
thechildren
who
were forcibly removed from the YFZ Ranch, which delayed thereunion between the children and their parents un-necessarily. The Judge's un
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Amended Motion for Rehearing on Recusal
AMENDED MOTION FOR RE-HEARING and RE-CONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO RECUSE TRIAL JUDGE in the trial of Warren Jeffs
884
Reads
5
Readcasts
0
Embed Views
Get Scribd Mobile
To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we'll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.
We'll never share your phone number.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
