Posted 10:12 am Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Motion Made To Recuse Judge Skeen In Kelly Trial
By DAYNA WORCHEL
Staff Writer
A bond hearing, originally scheduled Tuesday morning for one of the defendants in the Mineola child sex ring case, was canceled because the defense attorney filed another motion to have Judge Jack Skeen Jr. recused from the bench.
Staff Writer
A bond hearing, originally scheduled Tuesday morning for one of the defendants in the Mineola child sex ring case, was canceled because the defense attorney filed another motion to have Judge Jack Skeen Jr. recused from the bench.
The family of the accused, Patrick Stephen Kelly, 43, said he is innocent and also that Skeen should be recused from the case.
Defense attorney Thad Da-vidson filed a second motion Tuesday morning with the office of Regional Administra-tive Judge John Ovard for him to reconsider his ruling last week.
Ovard refused on Friday to recuse Skeen from a hearing to release Kelly on a personal recognizance bond.
"He (Patrick Kelly) is a victim here -- he didn't do this," Michael Kelly, the defendant's brother said after the hearing was canceled. Michael Kelly said he had visited his brother while he was in jail in Amarillo and that he seemed to be doing well.
"An innocent man shouldn't be in jail," he said. The family said they are happy with the representation Davidson has provided.
Kelly has been in the Smith County jail since Aug. 24 without bond on charges of engaging in organized criminal activity, tampering with physical evidence, and aggravated sexual assault of a child.
Ovard will be out of town the rest of this week and is not expected to make a ruling in the case until Monday at the earliest, according to information from Skeen's office.
Kelly's conviction and life sentence were overturned in June by the 14th Court of Appeals in Houston, along with that of Jamie Pittman, another defendant in the cases. New trial dates for the two have not been set.
In his motion to Ovard to reconsider the motion to recuse Skeen, Davidson asserts that "Texas law is clear that, when faced with a motion to recuse, a judge has only two options: Grant the motion to recuse or refer the motion to another judge for a ruling."
Davidson took issue with Ovard's refusal to grant a hearing on his original motion to recuse Skeen from the Kelly case, which was filed on Aug. 26.
"By denying a hearing when presented with questions of fact and a list of evidence to be presented, the regional presiding judge has committed reversible error," Davidson stated in his motion.
Davidson also attached an affidavit from Bobby Mims, who is on the board of directors of the Texas Criminal Defense Law-yer's Association, and is the second vice president of the organization.
"In his affidavit, Mims, who respects and likes Judge Skeen, confirms that Skeen had ex parte or private meetings with the lead prosecutor, Joe Murphy, and Matt Bingham, the Smith County District Attorney, to decide pivotal evidentiary issues using Judge Skeen's 'ad hoc' rules of evidence," Davidson wrote in his motion for Ovard to reconsider Kelly's motion to recuse.
The phrase "Ad hoc" rules means "for the particular case at hand."
The issue boils down to two issues, Davidson said. "Should Judge Skeen be permitted to conduct the first-degree felony trial over a man who has a grievance currently pending before the state commission on judicial conduct … or would it be more prudent to appoint one of the two readily available Smith County judges to hear the case?" the motion stated.
Skeen cannot comment on any aspect of the case, his office said.
