Archive for Monday, June 4, 2012

Douglas County judge to hear disciplinary case against former Attorney General Phill Kline

June 4, 2012


— Two Kansas Court of Appeals judges and three district court judges have been appointed to hear a disciplinary case against former Attorney General Phill Kline.

The judges appointed Monday will sit with two state Supreme Court justices to review the case. The high court’s five other justices removed themselves last month, citing their previous knowledge of the allegations.

A complaint accuses Kline and former subordinates of misleading other officials to further investigations of abortion providers. Kline strongly disputes the allegations

Supreme Court Justice Dan Biles, one of the two remaining to hear the case, named the replacements.

They are Court of Appeals Judges Karen Arnold-Burger and Henry W. Green Jr. and District Judges Edward Bouker of Ellis County, Bruce Gatterman, of Pawnee County, and Michael Malone, of Douglas County.


James Nelson 5 years ago

And how many of these jurors will Kline ask to step aside? He gets to pick his jury, you know.

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

You need to understand something. These judges did not recuse themselves because Kline forced them to. They recused themselves because it's Kline's testimony before the state Supreme Court that landed him there for this hearing. They heard that testimony and as a consequence they are witnesses against him and will be required to testify. By law, no judge can testify in his or her own court. They can't just trot off the bench and into the witness box. The very fact that all five of the judges on the current Supreme Court that were on the Supreme Court bench when he initially testified there have recused themselves to give their own testimony in the case is actually a very clear single that Kline is likely to go down like the Titanic.

rtwngr 5 years ago

Sorry, I have to disagree. I don't think Kline will suffer any more than a slap on the wrist if that. He has already cited precedent for the actions that he took which kept him from losing his license to practice in the first place. Every one of these judges were obstructionist in their attitudes and Byers stepped waaaaaaaay over the line in her remarks.

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

I guess we'll see. Stan Hazlett's recommendation to the court was permanent suspension of his license, which is actually worse than disbarment. A disbarment would mean the license could be "rehabilitated" and eventually reissued. (Unlikely and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times it's occurred but it still exists and has been done.) Permanent suspension would mean he would never be permitted to practice law in the state again. Period. Although I suppose the Supreme Court could fly in the face of Mr. Hazlett's recommendation, I've never known it to be done.

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

"He has already cited precedent for the actions that he took which kept him from losing his license to practice in the first place." By the way, this is what kept him from going to jail. It doesn't (and won't) keep him from losing his license.

mdfraz 5 years ago

Disciplinary actions in front of the Supreme Court (in fact, any actions in front of the Supreme Court) do not involve jurors.

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

Not sure about topekaj but I knew that. I was kind and assumed he/she meant "jurists".

pace 5 years ago

kline should go to jail. I don't believe that is even in the cards for him. Pity.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.