The Orange Leader
October 20, 1988
Wade lawyers want Cobb out
By Thomas Pfeil
Cox News Service
BEAUMONT - Attorneys for suspended Orange County Sheriff James Wade filed a motion Wednesday asking that U. S. District Judge Howell Cobb disqualify himself from further proceedings in he case in the grounds that he has a personal prejudice against the defendant.
Wade, convicted Sept. 21 of seven counts of violation of the federal controlled substance act and two counts of obstructing justice, currently is jailed awaiting sentencing.
Wade's attorneys, Jeff Kearney and Gary L. Richardson, also filed motions asking that Wade be released pending sentencing and for a new trial, or acquittal, after having been found guilty.
Included in the motion alleging prejudicial conduct by Cobb during the trial was an affidavit signed by Richardson in which he claimed Cobb told him he hoped the trial would continue because his court reporter needed the work.
Richardson stated that the conversation took place on the afternoon of Sept. 19, when Cobb invited him to his chambers.
"As we walked in and sat down, Judge Cobb made the comment 'well it looks like you may have walked him out of here,'" Richardson wrote in the affidavit attached to the motion.
"I responded by saying, 'Yes I think that we may have. It looks pretty good and I sure hope we did.'
"Judge Cobb responded by saying 'Well, to tell you the truth I hope you don't. I'll tell you it has nothing to do with the case."
" I said, 'Well that's even more interesting.' Judge Cobb said, 'It has to do with the fact the my court reporter is in financial straights and I would like to see him get the work,'"
Cobb went on to say that he sets everything he can down for rearing in order to create work for his court reporter, Richardson wrote.
"Then, as I was leaving, Judge Cobb insisted that I not reveal this conversation regarding Wade to anyone," he wrote.
The motion charges that Cobb's bias was reflected during the trial in several ways:
-
In his admission of hearsay statements by the government over the defendant's objections and refusal to admit such statements on behalf of the defendant.
-
In questioning of witnessess by the court in front of the jury to bolster the government's case.
-
in a comment made by the court in front of the jury that the defendant could appeal of not satisfied with the court's ruling - which gave the jury the impression that the court felt the case would end in a conviction.
Cobb had been scheduled to conduct post-trial sentencing hearings within 30 days of Wade's conviction Sept. 21.
Assistant U. S. Attorney Paul Naman said both motions should be denied because prosecutors presented sufficient evidence and the judge acted fairly throughout the trial.
"Judge Cobb conducted a long and arduous trial with fairness and impartiality," Naman said. "There was no showing of bias or prejudice. I think they realized they had no grounds to base their motion for a new trial so they decided to go after the judge."
"The prosecution put on witness after witness that showed that James Wade was guilty," Naman said. "This just a standard motion by the defense. There are no grounds for a new trial or an acquittal.
Back
