Followed by Assistant Chief Steve Evans, Chief Tuck approached the Council carrying boxes, stacks and armloads of hundreds of unsigned warrants from the City's courtroom. Chief Tuck explained that he had discovered more than a thousand unsigned warrants dating back to 1998. Disturbed by the lack of proper procedure and concerned that convictions based on the unsigned warrants could be overturned, Chief Tuck explained that he informed RBS Mayor Kenneth Hollis and contacted for advice District Attorney General Tom Thompson, Jr.
In response, Mayor Hollis suspended Judge Newberry for neglect of duty. District Attorney General Thompson responded to Chief Tuck's request for advice in letter dated May 16, 2005, to Mayor Hollis, stating that unsigned warrants and warrants which are not filled out properly and in a timely manner can cause problems for higher courts.
In the letter, Thompson said that he was concerned, "with some of the administrative duties of the court being overlooked. When I use convictions from municipal courts, the official record is reflected by the judge's writing and signature on the warrant. In fact, the only record I can use is a certified copy of the warrant containing the judge's disposition and signature."
"It also causes problems," Thompson said, "in that your clerks are mandated by Tennessee law to send abstracts to the state so that the convictions are reflected on state records. This is a very serious and important responsibility. If the judge rules orally and does not write on the warrant, the city is being put in an untenable position by sending in the abstracts."
Chief Tuck explained to the City Council that filling out warrants is part of the basic responsibility of the City Judge. He said he found by accident that the paperwork was not caught up and characterized it as "just laziness and neglect of duty." Chief Tuck defended the Mayor's suspension of Judge Newberry, saying that the City Council has the right to impeach the City Judge for negligence of duty. In response, Judge Newberry questioned the Council's right to impeach. He admitted to not signing every warrant, but said most don't need signing, particularly if they are put aside when fines are paid. "We've had peace and harmony until now," Judge Newberry said. "In the last thirty days, I've been harassed, suspended and the Mayor didn't sign my paycheck."
"The City Judge is an officer of the court," Tuck said in response. He's "responsible to the City Council." He reminded the Council of District Attorney General Thompson's remarks in his May 16 letter to Mayor Hollis, which stated "There is also a problem in that people are paying fines and costs, the abstracts are being sent, yet without the judge doing his job, these convictions are not official. This sounds like it might be a good deal for the speeders or reckless drivers, however, if these defendants' convictions are not valid, they might very well have a basis for the return of their fines and costs by the city. This is a serious responsibility of any municipal judge and whoever the new judge might be, he or she should be required to fulfill that basic responsibility."
The Mayor broke into the discussion at this point, in the middle of Judge Newberry's response, to announce to the Council that he had received two applications for City Judge. His interruption was followed by another interruption from Council member Ray Bilbrey, who asked Chief Tuck why he hadn't known until recently that the paperwork was not being completed. Tuck said he'd had no idea and that when he discovered the unsigned warrants and bought them to Judge Newberry's attention, Newberry responded with the statement, "It's an oversight." Bilbrey then said, "What's past is past. We need to look to the future."
This statement was followed by a motion from Bilbrey to re-hire Judge Newberry with a qualification that the Mayor set up a committee of council members to monitor the city judge's paperwork to assure it's timely completion. The motion was seconded and approved by the Council.
Post a Comment
