Special To The Plain Talk

 

NEWPORT-The Tennessee Court of the Judiciary has given Cocke County General Sessions Judge John A. Bell until July 21 to formally respond to charges filed against him in May by the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary.

 

When the initial charges were filed in Nashville on May 6, the court announced that Bell had 30 days from the time of the findings to file a formal, written response to the charges. With that time having expired, Judge Bell, through his attorney, requested additional time to prepare a response, and that extension was granted by the court this week.

 

The court has scheduled a public hearing in Newport sometime during the week of September 23-26 to hear arguments in the case before making a decision. The exact day on which the hearing will be held has not been decided.

 

Sue Allison, the public information officer of the court of the judiciary, confirmed on Wednesday morning that the court has granted an extension giving Judge Bell until July 21 to file his formal response.

 

Although Judge Bell has promised several times to provide a full and complete response to the public about the pending charges, his most significant public response to date has been, "I have followed the law...and I have done nothing wrong."

 

Judge Bell has been formally charged with four counts of "judicial misconduct" by an investigative panel of the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary, an action which could result in disciplinary action ranging from the judge's formal censure to a recommendation for impeachment and removal from office. The court could also acquit Judge Bell of any wrongdoing.

 

The panel also found that Judge Bell was disqualified from hearing cases involving misdemeanor probation, yet continued to hear such cases despite having been informed in writing more that a year ago that his actions were improper. He has since temporarily stepped down from hearing such cases until resolution of the complaint before the court of the judiciary.

 

A hearing before Circuit Judge Ben W. Hooper II on whether to make permanent a temporary restraining order preventing public payment to an attorney to represent Judge Bell in the case permanent had been set for June 16, but attorneys representing both parties in the lawsuit filed an "agreed order" that  morning extending the temporary restraining order until a final hearing of the case. A date for the new hearing on the restraining order has not been set.

 

After the CLB first approved a county-paid attorney to represent Judge Bell before the court of the judiciary, Cocke County resident Michael McCarter filed a lawsuit to stop the payment and Judge Hooper signed the temporary restraining order, setting a hearing for Monday on whether the order should be made permanent.

 

The agreed order filed that Monday and signed by attorney Jeff Greene, on behalf of the CLB, Cocke County Mayor Iliff McMahan, and Finance Director Anne Williams, and attorney David Webb, who represents McCarter, announces a "mutual agreement to extend the temporary restraining order without prejudice to either party [until] the final hearing of this cause, whereupon all issues which are hereby reserved shall be heard."

 

No reason for the extension is cited in the order, but sources say one reason is to give the CLB an opportunity to make a decision and instruct Greene on how to proceed when the final hearing is scheduled.

 

Judge Bell has been accused of four counts of "judicial misconduct" by a three-judge panel of the court of the judiciary. The court, which monitors the performance of judges in Tennessee, could acquit Judge Bell or it could take actions ranging from a public censure of the judge to a recommendation to the state legislature for impeachment and removal from office.

 

The charges focus on the judge's hearing of cases involving misdemeanor probation because of a family connection with the provider of probation services; the alleged violation of the civil rights of Newport resident Dan Metcalf, who at the time was a local bondsman, with a contempt of court citation for remarks he was alleged to have made outside of the courtroom on a courthouse bench; and the alleged failure to report accepting a $100 appearance fee for speaking at a local church.

 

Tommy Large, Judge Bell's brother-in-law, operates East Tennessee Probation, the company which was given the exclusive contract to administer the misdemeanor probation in Cocke County. The court of the judiciary's three-member investigative panel found that this is an improper conflict of interest.

 

The panel also found that Judge Bell was disqualified from hearing cases involving misdemeanor probation, yet continued to hear such cases despite having been informed in writing almost a year ago that his actions were improper.

 

The two primary issues raised in the notice of formal charges concern alleged nepotism in Judge Bell's handling of misdemeanor probation cases in sessions court and an incident in February 2006 in which the judge allegedly threatened Metcalf with contempt of court.

 

The judge's acceptance of a $100 appearance for speaking at a local church and not reporting the fee is also an issue in the case.

 

The document listing the formal charges against Judge Bell was filed on May 6 by Court of the Judiciary Disciplinary Counsel Joseph S. Daniel at the direction of the three-judge panel of the court. The members of the panel were judges David G. Hayes, Don R. Ash, and Gregory D. Smith.

 

The panel found that "there is reasonable cause to believe that the Honorable John A. Bell has committed and continues to commit judicial offenses alleged herein...and directed disciplinary counsel to file formal charges," according to the document filed before the court in Nashville.

 

According to the court of the judiciary's web site, "judicial misconduct generally is [defined as] 'willful misconduct' that is in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

 

"The state Code of Judicial Conduct proscribes various rules relating to how a judge should conduct himself or herself in the performance of the duties of office," according to the court's definition.

 

"Also, any disability, physical or mental, of a judge that substantially interferes with his or her judicial duties may be considered," according to the court's web site.