Lyon County judge faced assorted allegations in 1980 ouster campaign

Say what you will about Douglas County District Judge Paula Martin’s sentencing record, she’s never been accused of threatening to burn down the home of the district attorney.

Or of showing off a handgun in her chambers, trying to fix a traffic ticket for a friend, or making a mess of the court’s finances.

Those allegations and more were raised in the only successful effort in Kansas to vote a district judge out of office: the 1980 campaign against Lyon County District Judge R.E. “Dick” Miller.

Nearly 75 percent of voters voted to oust Miller after a widespread community effort against him, according to news articles from the era and interviews with those who remember.

“I would say that a lack of judicial demeanor would be the most charitable thing I would want to say — and probably ought to say — about him,” said Marc Hurt, 71, Olathe. Hurt is an attorney who managed the campaign against Miller.

“I ended up getting a committee of about 100 people. They included the publisher of the Emporia Gazette, the owner of the radio station, the mayor of Emporia, the president of the Chamber of Commerce. We had this fantastic organization.”

Attorneys’ voices

Martin has been criticized for breaking from state sentencing guidelines and granting probation, 60 days in jail and community service to three defendants charged in the statutory rape of an intoxicated 13-year-old girl. Sentencing guidelines say all varieties of rape, including statutory rape, are punishable by at least 13 years in prison unless a judge finds “substantial and compelling reasons” to give a lesser sentence.

The Justice for Children Committee, a group made up largely of concerned parents, also has criticized Martin for being reversed eight times on appeal, more than any other local judge, and questioned her decisions to give probation or low bond in other criminal cases.

Marc Hurt, Olathe, displays an old newspaper photo of himself speaking out against former Lyon County District Judge R.E. Miller, whom Hurt helped vote off the bench in 1980. It was the state's only successful campaign to vote a district judge out of office.

Martin’s supporters say she’s a fair judge who made a tough decision in the rape case, and they accuse the anti-Martin group of distorting facts from her record.

Many of Martin’s defenders are local attorneys. By contrast, a majority of the attorneys in Lyon County were opposed to Judge Miller, said Don Krueger, an Emporia attorney who was involved in the 1980 campaign.

“I knew that if we didn’t get him, I was going to have to leave Emporia,” Krueger said. “How could you practice in front of someone like that after you put your career on the line?”

The movement against Miller was called “Concerned Citizens for Better Courts.” The judge’s supporters alleged the effort was “directed by a couple of disgruntled attorneys and by a few special interest groups,” according to a story in the Kansas City Times.

Miller was elected judge in 1972, but in the mid-1970s, Lyon County, like many other parts of the state, moved to a system of appointed judges who are up for retention every four years.

Miller’s missteps

The events leading up to Miller’s removal brewed during roughly a three-year period, Hurt and others said:

  • Miller was publicly censured in 1977 by the Kansas Supreme Court based on findings by a state judicial commission that found that in July 1976, Miller approached the county and probate judge, and in the presence of court personnel, asked the judge if he would dismiss a traffic ticket for a friend. The report alleged Miller walked out of the office and said, “Well, I guess that that is one favor I don’t owe you.”
  • In the months before the election, Krueger challenged Miller over a policy that forbade parents in child-custody disputes access to home-study reports used to determine custody. The Kansas Court of Appeals later reversed Miller’s decision.
  • In 1978, auditors found there were deficiencies in Miller’s court finances and found the system for handling payments was “almost totally void of the normally required internal controls.”
  • In the campaign for district attorney that year, an opponent of incumbent Jay Vander Velde alleged that Vander Velde failed to act when Miller made a threat to burn down Vander Velde’s home. Vander Velde refused to confirm whether there were such threats and said he knew of “no prosecutable criminal violation committed by any judge” since he began practicing law.

“I think the prosecutors concurred with us” about Miller, Krueger said. “They didn’t do so publicly.”

  • Miller was criticized for handing down 90-year sentences to two robbers. According to media reports, the Kansas Supreme Court reduced the sentences in 1977.

Miller supporters responded to that claim by saying the Supreme Court wasn’t necessarily right.

“(M)any of us question the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding prayer in schools and other matters. Our state court certainly is no more infallible than the Federal Courts,” one supporter wrote.

  • Several observers, including former Emporia Gazette reporters, told the newspaper at the time that Miller was proud of displaying a gun he kept in his chambers.

Miller, who since has died, was replaced by Gary Rulon, who went on to become chief judge of the Kansas Court of Appeals.

‘Damn difficult’

For the past month, Martin’s opponents have been distributing fliers and sending mailings critical of her record.

In recent days, a group headed by attorney Dan Watkins has responded with fliers of its own and a radio ad by Martin’s father-in-law, broadcaster Max Falkenstien.

Ron Keefover, a spokesman for the state’s judicial branch, said that if a majority voted “no” on the question of Martin’s retention, she would serve until her term expired in January. In the meantime, Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice Kay McFarland would declare a vacancy, and a judicial nominating commission would begin taking applications and set a date for conducting interviews.

The commission would send two or three names to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who would make an appointment.

Robert Fairchild, administrative judge in Douglas County District Court, said Wednesday he wasn’t sure how Martin’s cases would be divided should the judge not be retained.

“We haven’t thought about it,” he said. “We haven’t talked about it to this point, obviously hoping that it wasn’t going to be something we had to deal with.”

Attorneys Hurt and Krueger both said they didn’t know Paula Martin personally but were sympathetic to her.

“I’ve practiced criminal law now for 30 years,” Krueger said. “You’re going to find disgruntled people time and time again. But it’s damn difficult, in my opinion, to remove a judge. You really have to have a very intense campaign.”

1. State v. Edwards, 1997¢ What the anti-Martin group says:”Tryone Edwards given only 5 years for raping a 13-year-old girl. He was later paroled and is now on the Kansas Most Wanted List.”¢ What the pro-Martin group says:The victim lied to Edwards about her age, was in a relationship with him, and didn’t want him prosecuted.¢ A closer look: The Kansas Court of Appeals upheld Martin’s decision to break from sentencing guidelines, saying that evidence suggested the victim told Edwards she was 19 and “supports a finding that (the victim) … was an aggressor.” Edwards is living in Lawrence and is registered as a sex offender.2. State v. Patterson, 1997¢ What the anti-Martin group says:Rape defendant Gabriel Patterson is given only $7,500 bond by Martin and then flees the state.¢ What the pro-Martin group says: Patterson did not flee. Instead, he was allowed to return to his home state and bought airline tickets to return for the trial date. But when the case was postponed, he couldn’t buy new tickets and couldn’t afford to come back.¢ A closer look: Court records don’t indicate why Patterson’s bond was set so low. He was ultimately ordered to probation after being convicted of a lesser offense. His probation was revoked in 2003, and he is on post-supervision release in Shawnee County.3. State v. Miller, 1997¢ What the anti-Martin group says:”Martin drops attempted second-degree murder charges on Jerome Miller because he shot at victim only after he moved to the middle of the street and not when he was within several feet of the suspect.”¢ What the pro-Martin group says: Prosecutors could have filed a lesser charge after Martin made her decision, but instead they appealed and the decision was reversed by a higher court. After the appeal, prosecutors filed lesser charges.¢ A closer look: After prosecutors refiled the case, Miller pleaded no contest to aggravated assault. Martin ordered Miller to 24 months’ probation and suspended a 12-month sentence.4. State v. Wells, 2004¢ What the anti-Martin group says: “Martin gives 12 months probation to Luke Wells for the 2002 assault on a homosexual man in downtown Lawrence.”¢ What the pro-Martin group says: “Prosecutor was not opposed to probation and Mr. Medis approved the recommendation.”¢ A closer look: It’s true prosecutors didn’t oppose probation. Wells was convicted of battery, a misdemeanor. Martin could have ordered a jail sentence, but it’s common for local judges to grant probation on misdemeanors.5. State v. Locke, 1997¢ What the anti-Martin group says: “Martin gives David Locke 2 years probation for taking obscene pictures of a mentally disabled 16-year-old girl. He was sentenced to one year in jail which Martin suspended.”¢ What the pro-Martin group says: Prosecutors initially charged Locke with a felony but let him plead to a misdemeanor. The prosecutor “stood mute at sentencing, made no recommendation and introduced no evidence.”¢ A closer look: Locke entered a plea to “promoting obscenity,” a misdemeanor, and Martin placed him on 24 months’ probation with a suspended one-year jail sentence.6. State v. Harris, 1998¢ What the anti-Martin group says: “After abusing a 16-month-old baby, Eric Harris was given 36 months of probation instead of 32 months in prison.”¢ What the pro-Martin group says: “Because of a lack of prior record, probation was not a departure from the guidelines. Harris met the factors prescribed for a non-prison sentence.”¢ A closer look: Because Harris didn’t have a criminal history, he fell into a “border box” on the sentencing grid in which a judge can choose either probation or prison.7. State v. Wells, 1999¢ What the anti-Martin group says: “Martin gives Helushka Wells a 30 day sentence after he pleaded no contest to one count of aiding a felon and one count of conspiracy to commit robbery after helping to rob and kill a man” he met in a bar.¢ What the pro-Martin group says: Because Wells was convicted of low-level felonies, his sentence was in accordance with sentencing guidelines.¢ A closer look: Prosecutors had made Wells a deal that allowed him to plead to a lesser charge in exchange for testifying against another man who was convicted of the killing. There would have been little evidence against him without Wells’ testimony, a prosecutor said.8. State v. McPherson, 1999¢ What the anti-Martin group says: “Martin dismisses attempted murder charges on Ronnie McPherson because the district attorney did not show up for a meeting,” a move that led to a manhunt for McPherson.¢ What the pro-Martin group says: It was prosecutors’ fault.¢ A closer look: Martin’s docket notes say the case was dismissed for “lack of prosecution.” “D.A. personally reminded this a.m.,” the notes say.9. State v. Springer, 2001¢ What the anti-Martin group says: “Martin suspends a 10 month prison sentence for Darryl Springer who was convicted of the solicitation of an 8 year old girl.”¢ What the pro-Martin group says: Springer entered a plea to a low-level felony, and there was no deviation from state sentencing guidelines.¢ A closer look: Sentencing guidelines required Martin to give Springer a probation sentence, based on the severity level of his crime and his criminal-history score. He completed probation successfully in July 2003.10. State v. Van Dyke, 2000¢ What the anti-Martin group says: “Martin releases the man accused of raping his granddaughter with cerebral palsy on his own recognizance.”¢ What the pro-Martin group says: Prosecutors decided not to arrest the defendant, William Van Dyke, on a warrant; instead, they issued him a summons to come to court on his own accord. “If the Prosecutor felt a cash or surety bond was needed, then the Prosecutor could have requested a warrant at the time the case was opened, instead of a summons.”¢A closer look: It’s true that Van Dyke was arrested on a summons, not a warrant, and allowed to be out on his own recognizance. Judge Michael Malone ultimately sentenced him to 55 months in prison.11. State v. Mattocks, 2001¢ What the anti-Martin group says: “Joshua Mattocks, who ran over and killed a homeless man, was given 36 months probation instead of 32 months prison time.¢ What the pro-Martin group says: Prosecutors and the victim’s family recommended that Mattocks not go to prison.¢ A closer look: Martin said at his sentencing that she came in ready to send him to prison. But she changed her mind after hearing that the victim’s five siblings didn’t want Mattocks to go to prison.12. State v. Ussery, Haney and Rayton¢ What the anti-Martin group says: “Martin gives 60 days in jail to Brian Ussery and William Haney and 60 months’ probation to Michael Rayton who gang raped a 13 year old girl deviating from the sentence guidelines of at least 13 years in prison.”¢ What the pro-Martin group says: The judge properly considered whether there were “substantial and compelling reasons” under state law to give a lesser sentence. Martin gave a sentence that’s tough in some respects, such as ordering 500 hours of community service.¢ A closer look: Martin found the girl was an “active participant,” in part because there were indications she made encouraging comments to the men. Her critics say that’s because the girl was intoxicated — a fact they say makes the crime more egregious. Prosecutors are appealing the sentences.