Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1.
2.
PARTIES
4.
Plaintiff Olu Stevens is the elected Circuit judge in the 30th Judicial Circuit
well as Commission members, in their official capacity. The Commission is the only
entity authorized under the Kentucky Constitution to take disciplinary action
against a sitting Kentucky Judge. Defendants are residents of the Commonwealth of
Kentucky for jurisdictional purposes. On March 21, 2016, Plaintiff received notice
that Defendants intend to take action to sanction, suspend or remove Plaintiff from
his position as the elected Circuit Judge for the 30th Judicial District, 6th Division in
violation of his rights under the First Amendment and likely, the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
FIRST CLAIM OF RELIEF
Commonwealth of Kentucky.
7.
Judge Stevens is one of only three (3%) black General Jurisdiction Circuit
Louisville, Kentucky.
9.
criminal justice system and jury selection system. That the case of Batson v.
That the matter of the treatment of defense motions to dismiss jury panels
for lack of racial diversity remained unaddressed in the Commonwealth until the
recent decision of the Kentucky Court of Appeals in the matter of the
Commonwealth v. Charles Evans.
12.
Attorney's action was not out of any personal animus, but is was limited to the issue
That to the extent such private commentary regarding the Jefferson County
That to the extent Judge Stevens commentary regarding the Jefferson County
That the case having been tried to a verdict of not guilty on all counts, barred
18.
law will dramatically, disproportionately (in practice, solely) and disparately impact
black Defendants with cases pending adjudication in the Commonwealth of
Kentucky. In that sense, the matter is inappropriately captioned as the
issue of public concern and Judge Stevens has a constitutionally protected, First
Amendment right to address it. Stevens right cannot be censored or sanctioned in
any way. In fact, Judge Stevens commentary on issues of public concern are
supported and encouraged by the Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct and its canons.
20.
Commonwealths Attorney had nothing to do with any action taken by his assistants
during the course of the Doss matter, or any other matter.
21.
22.
That in Louisville, Kentucky, a city that is composed of 21% black people and
where black people represent 55% of the jail population and a disproportionate
number of criminal Defendants, Judge Stevens commentary related to the
discriminatory intent versus discriminatory impact of the Jefferson County
Commonwealths Attorneys pursuit of an unprecedented appeal.
23.
That it is well documented that all white juries and high-majority white
juries tend to convict black Defendants at higher rates than racially diverse juries.
see, S. Hartsoe, "Study: All-White Jury Pools Convict Black Defendants 16 Percent
More Often Than Whites," Duke Today, April 17, 2012; posted May 7, 2012; "The
Impact of Jury Race in Criminal Trials," senior author Patrick Bayer, Duke
University; David Baldus et al., Racial Discrimination and t he Death Penalty in the
Post-Furman Era: An Empirical and Legal Overview, with Recent Findings from
Philadelphia ,83 CORNELL L. REV. 1638 (1998). In that regard, the Jefferson County
Commonwealths Attorneys motivations for pursuing an appeal challenging the
racial composition of the jurygiven the acquittal of Doss, is readily apparent.
That Judge Stevens commentary regarding the Jefferson County Commonwealths
Attorney addressed the Commonwealths Attorneys pursuit only after a not guilty
finding, to establish new law as it relates to black defendants rights when faced
with all-white juries. In that sense, the Jefferson County Commonwealths
Attorneys motivation was discriminatory in nature and purpose. Judge Stevens
commentary was related to that nature and purpose. The facts of the Doss matter or
the outcome of the Commonwealths certification of law is not material to Plaintiffs
commentary.
24.
The ruling of the Kentucky Supreme Court will not bring any resolution to
Attorney also relates to the Commonwealth Attorneys claim that white people are
being discriminated against in the selection of petit juries in Louisville, Kentucky
because they are not permitted to occupy the seats theyve been historically allowed
to occupy; every seat. The Plaintiff has granted defense motions to disturb the
status quo when the defendant is black.
26.
Attorney related to his challenge following a not guilty verdict. The dismissal of a
racially diverse jury panel in favor of a jury panel in which all but one juror is white
and the single black juror was randomly excluded is an injustice. Stevens
commentary has nothing to do with the merits of any case or its outcome.
27.
That the history of American jurisprudence finds few, if any prosecutors who
have appealed a case claiming entitlement to an all-white jury panel. Judge Stevens
commentary advanced the notion that decisions like the Jefferson Commonwealths
Attorneys decision to pursue a certification of law, following a not guilty finding,
contributes to the disproportionately high incarceration and conviction rates for
black men in the city of Louisville and across this country.
28.
Judge Stevens has a First Amendment right to speak on such matters fraught
with public concern. Candidates for President of the United States have spoken on
the need to address the institutional racism that exists in our criminal justice
system. As a trial judge and veteran of presiding over more than 130 complex civil
and felony criminal jury trials, Judge Stevens is rarely positioned to address these
concerns.
29.
Stevens and given him awards for his statements on the issue of race and jury
selection is another indication of the high degree of public concern about this issue.
30.
That Judge Stevens ought to be able to publicly express his opinions and
That as a public official, Judge Stevens has a First Amendment right and
obligation to speak to matters of public concern and his views may not be subject to
sanction or result in his dismissal. Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563
(1968).
32.
positive that the matters on which Judge Stevens commented regarding the
Jefferson County Commonwealths Attorney are indeed issues of public concern.
They are issues of national concern.
33.
That the reasons stated by the NBA and joined by the NAACP for filing the
amicus brief mirror some of Judge Stevens commentary regarding the Jefferson
County Commonwealths Attorney.
34.
Commonwealths Attorney is not based on the merits of the Doss case or any other
criminal case, but on the Commonwealth Attorneys motivation in pursuing a
certification of law under the circumstances and the implications for black
Defendants and black jurors in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and possibly,
beyond. In that sense and many others, Judge Stevens speech is protected by the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution and may not be the subject of
sanction for violation of the Judicial Canons.
35.
10
statements. The truth may not be punished, either criminally or civilly. Garrison v.
Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964). But even if Judge Stevens opinions were incorrect,
his statements were not made with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity and
thus remain cloaked in the protection of the First Amendment. See, Pickering v.
Board of Education, supra; New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964) and St.
Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (1968).
37.
Judge Stevens statements during a CLE are consistent with the judicial
canons. The statements were part of a speech regarding current events and legal
developments in the area of jury selection. This is constitutionally protected speech
concerning a topic in an area where Judge Stevens is viewed as a nationally
recognized expert. The Defendants attempt to sanction Plaintiff for his speech
during that CLE are in violation of his first amendment rights and in controversy
with the very Canons that support Judges deemed specially learned in law
contributing to the improvement of the legal system and assisting with the
understanding of the legal system as well.
38.
employment via removal from office for exercising his constitutional right to speak
out on matters of vital public concern. Pickering v. Board of Education, supra.
40.
That the Defendants pursuit of charges against Judge Stevens and threatened
Jefferson County Commonwealths Attorney and the need to address the problems
11
of institutional racism within the Kentucky criminal justice system, the entire
criminal justice system will suffer as other judges will be reluctant to assert their
constitutional right to speak to issues of public concern or improvement of the legal
system as supported by Canon 4 of the Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct. The right
to disagree with others on issues such as the manner in which we select our juries is
a fundamental right that all American citizens enjoy. A judge does not check his first
amendment rights at the courthouse door, to be reclaimed at the expiration of his
judicial tenure. See, Leonard E. Gross, Judicial speech: Discipline and the First
Amendment, 36 Syracuse L. Re 1181 (1986).
42.
Office of the Courts has instituted major changes with respect to the manner in
which it sends out jury summons. These changes affect the process statewide.
Furthermore, on a local level, changes have been instituted to follow-up with
individuals who fail to appear in compliance with juror summonses.
43.
The courts operate to serve the people of the Commonwealth. If they are
12
speech on these topics of vital public importance does not violate the Judicial
Canons, said speech, is supported by the Canons.
45.
That Plaintiff has a substantial chance of success on the merits of his claims
and the Defendants violation of Judge Stevens First Amendment right to free
speech constitutes irreparable harm. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976).
SECOND CLAIM OF RELIEF
immunity. Stevens public statements are protected speech under the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
48.
protections.
49.
with racially divisive and stereotypical language. Instead, the Canons require a
Judge to require attorneys that appear before him to refrain from manifesting by
words or prejudice based upon race. see, Commentary following Canon 3 of the
Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct
13
50.
points about the stealthy nature of racism And how easy it is to pass on our
prejudices when we don't take the time to pull them out and examine them."
51.
Kentucky attorney Aubrey Williams said Judge Stevens is "a breath of fresh
air for the bench, for us as a people, and for the community in general." Mr. Williams
continued, "Racism is a repugnant disease that will not be cured until we have more
people like Olu Stevens."
52.
committee Darryl Owens, stated, "I have known [Judge] Olu Stevens for many years
and consider him capable temperate and judicious; steadfast in his commitment to
quality and racial justice as a judge and in every aspect of his life."
53.
Mr. Owens further stated, "In a city that strives to break through stereotypes
that fuel discrimination and intolerance, outspoken advocates for racial equality and
acceptance like Judge Olu Stevens are imperative if we are ever to achieve real
progress."
54.
14
56.
old child. Judge Stevens is a father whose children were once three. Judge Stevens
holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology with honors and has extensive
practical litigation experience representing children affected by abuse and neglect
as well as prosecuting cases on their behalf.
57.
Judge Stevens' public statements do not implicate the judicial Canons as they
Conduct of Schenck, 870 P.2d 185 (Or. 1994) applying the traditional public
employee free speech analysis in a judicial disciplinary proceeding. The role that
elected officials play in our society makes it all the more imperative that they be
allowed freely to express themselves on matters of public importance. quoting En
v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989) and Wood v.
Georgia, 370 U.S. 375 (1962).
59.
Judge Stevens' statements enhance the integrity and the independence of the
judiciary. He took issue with statements that generalized criminal activity and
attributed the same to all black men. Judge Stevens would be without integrity to
condone such language with silence. Moreover, silence on the part of the Plaintiff
15
Judge Stevens' public statements were an expression that one should not
Judge Stevens public statements were made after the case was over and
there was no chance of the case coming back before him on appeal. That case was
not pending.
62.
Generalized fear, based in stereotypes, is the very fear that forms the basis of
a racist ideology and forms the basis of actions that have resulted in the loss of
young black lives all over this country.
63.
this matter. Its effect is to chill the speech of many others who agree with Judge
Stevens' words and disagree with the use or advancement of racially offensive and
stereotypical language.
64.
No man or woman should be judged on the color of his or her skin. Fear
16
65.
The Defendants action and proposed suspension of Judge Stevens for the
That Plaintiff has a substantial chance of success on the merits of his claims
and the Defendants violation of Judge Stevens First Amendment right to free
speech constitutes irreparable harm. Elrod v. Burns, supra.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable Court:
1.
Complaint are in violation of the Plaintiffs rights under the First Amendment and
likely Due Process Clause via the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and exceed Defendants authority;
2.
Permanently enjoin the Defendants, their agents, employees and all other
Provide any further relief that the Court deems just and proper under the
circumstances.
17
VERIFICATION
I verify that I have read this Complaint and the contents are true and correct.
________________________________________________
Olu A. Stevens, Plaintiff
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON
)
)SS
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY )
Subscribed to and sworn to before me by Olu A. Stevens, after first being duly
sworn upon his oath, on this 31st day of March, 2016.
My Commission Expires: April 22, 2017.
________________________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE-AT-LARGE
Respectfully Submitted:
By: ___________________________________________
Larry O. Wilder
Counsel for Plaintiff
530 East Court Avenue
Jeffersonville, Indiana 47130
(812) 288-6820
J. Bart McMahon
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff
119 South Seventh Street
Fourth Floor
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
(502) 589-4713
18