COUNTYWIDE : Judge Asks for New Ruling in Gates Case

A Municipal Court judge asked the Superior Court on Monday to reconsider its ruling that overturned Sheriff Brad Gates’ conviction for illegally releasing county inmates to relieve jail overcrowding.

In a petition filed in Superior Court, the lawyer for Municipal Court Presiding Judge Richard W. Stanford said Gates’ conviction should be reinstated because the county attorney who represented the sheriff lied to the Superior Court judge.

“The attorney . . . made material misrepresentations of fact to the court during oral argument, and the court obviously relied upon these misrepresentations,” Philip D. Kohn, who represents Stanford, said in the petition.

Stanford had sentenced Gates to 30 days in jail and fined him $17,000 for prematurely releasing 17 prisoners in recent years in violation of state law.

During a hearing last month, the county lawyer, Thomas Agin, told Superior Court Judge Eileen Moore that the Sheriff’s Department had no way of accurately knowing exactly how many prisoners were behind bars at any given time in the county’s bustling, 4,400-inmate jail system.

But in the “petition for reconsideration” filed Monday, Kohn said that the department has a sophisticated computer system that could have provided that information to sheriff’s deputies.

The information is important to the case because Gates has argued that while five of the 17 prisoners were released at a time when the jails were less than overflowing, the deputies who authorized the releases did not know that there was room to house the suspects.

Because of that, Gates’ lawyers argued, the sheriff was not in contempt because the releases were not a willful violation of the law but rather an inadvertent one.

Kohn told the court that he would present at least one witness and an orientation videotape produced by the Sheriff’s Department that would back up his assertion.

Agin was not available for comment late Monday, and Laurence M. Watson, the assistant county counsel in charge of litigation, said he would withhold comment until after he had received and reviewed the petition.

Gates, however, said that he had read the transcripts from the latest hearing, and he defended the statements by Agin. “The county counsel told the facts as they are,” he said. “I’m a little surprised that the judge is doing this.”

County supervisors and other county officials, many of whom have objected to Stanford’s actions in the past, reiterated their concerns when they learned of his intention to pursue the Gates matter.

“I find this incredible,” said Supervisor Roger R. Stanton. “I would hope that Judge Stanford would pay for this himself and not ask the taxpayers to do it. This is an inappropriate way for Judge Stanford to get some notoriety.”

Because Kohn’s legal bills are paid by the county government, taxpayers so far have spent more than $26,000 on attorneys fees relating to Stanford’s contempt charges against Gates. Those bills are expected to mount as the next round of court battling goes forward.

“I think this is a ridiculous waste of the taxpayers’ money,” said County Administrative Officer Ernie Schneider. “While we’re laying people off and trying to save wherever we can, that they’re doing this is absolutely ridiculous.”

Stanford declined to comment in detail on the petition.