TEXAS JUDGE WHO HELD DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY CRAIG WATKINS IN CONTEMPT WILL 'NOT' BE REMOVED FROM THE CASE

TEXAS JUDGE WHO HELD DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY CRAIG WATKINS IN CONTEMPT WILL 'NOT' BE REMOVED FROM THE CASE

July 25, 2013, By Jennifer Emily

Second Update: Ovard will not recuse Levario, says Watkins did not meet burden that a “reasonable person” would think Levario was biased.

Original post: Closing arguments are expected this afternoon in the case of whether to recuse the judge who held Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins in contempt for refusing to testify at a hearing where the DA was accused of prosecutorial misconduct.

Administrative Judge John Ovard will then decide whether to remove State District Judge Lena Levario from the case after a recently fired county employee alleged Levario made disparaging remarks about Watkins over lunch.

Ovard will decide whether to recuse Levrio based on whether a “reasonable person” would think Levario is biased, not on whether Ovard thinks Levario is biased.

The former employee, Jill Reese, testified Friday that the Levario said she was going to “serve Craig Watkins up to the FBI on a silver platter.”

Reese said the comments were made during a lunch at Subway while they are other county employees were going through computer training in Fort Worth.

Reese testified that Levario remarked that Watkins thought he was a “superstar” who was “above the law” and said Levario said that Watkins “would definitely see the inside of a jail cell when this was all over with.”

Two others at the same lunch testified did not hear Levario make those remarks.

Levario held Watkins in contempt March 7 after he refused to testify at a hearing looking into claims by oil family heir Al Hill III that he was indicted on mortgage fraud charges as a favor to Watkins’ political benefactor, Lisa Blue.

Reese said the May 20 conversation began when Levario sat down at the table and said she had been on the phone with the FBI, who wanted access to sealed documents in the mortgage fraud case.

Attorneys involved in the case have said that the FBI is investigating dealings between Blue and Watkins. Levario did sign an order granting agents access to such documents.

Reese was demoted days before she signed an affidavit on July 11 about the remarks she alleged Levario made and fired by a Skype instant message two days later.

The latest chapter in the increasingly bitter feud between the two elected Democrats has to be resolved before Watkins can find out whether the contempt of court charge against him will be upheld.

When officers of the court such as Watkins are held in contempt, as he was by Levario, then they are given a hearing before another judge to determine if the charge should stick. Even if Levario remains on the case, she would not be the final say on the charge against Watkins.

That hearing was to take place July 15, but the judge, State District Judge Bob Brotherton, ordered Levario to redo her original contempt charge based on a motion filed by Watkins’ attorneys because it didn’t specify what punishment Watkins could face.

As part of their bid to have her forcibly recused from the contempt case, Watkins’ attorneys are also arguing that Levario can’t remain judge because she was also called as a witness for Monday’s hearing about whether or not to uphold the contempt charge. She testified briefly before Brotherton ordered her to redo the contempt charge.

If Levario remains on the case, she will amend the contempt charge and send it to Brotherton, who will then hold a hearing to decide whether to uphold the contempt charge.

But if Ovard removes Levario from the case, he must appoint another judge.

If that other judge decides Watkins should be held in contempt, that judge will send a contempt of court charge to Brotherton for another hearing on whether or not to uphold the contempt charge. But if the judge does not believe Watkins should be held in contempt, the case ends. Brotherton would not need to hold a hearing.

If Brotherton upholds the contempt charge against Watkins, then Watkins could face a fine or jail time. According to testimony, Levario had previously indicated she might levy a fine.

Hill is the great-grandson of oilman H.L. Hunt, and Blue had represented him in a dispute over part of the family fortune. But Blue and other attorneys sued Hill over legal fees. When Hill was indicted by Watkins’ office on a charge of mortgage fraud, Hill argued, the indictments prevented him from taking the stand during a civil trial over the legal fees. He lost the fight over the fees, although that decision is now being revisited.

Levario also dismissed the charges against Hill, saying he could not get a fair hearing without Watkins’ testimony. The DA’s office is appealing that decision and considering whether to refile criminal charges against Hill.