Pierce County Superior Court judges, still reeling from public criticism about their handling of cop-killer Maurice Clemmons, released new statements today regarding their actions.

One statement came from Judge Thomas Felnagle, who handled two bail hearings for Clemmons in July and November. Here’s what he said, in part:

December 2, 2009

My prayers go out to the families and friends of the officers lost in this tragedy.

I have had many requests to comment concerning the cases of State of Washington vs. Maurice Clemmons, but believe it would be improper to do so given my duties as criminal presiding judge.

Felnagle also provided verbatim transcripts of the two hearings. You can read them here and here.

Superior Court judges also released a general statement and a transcript of an earlier hearing involving Clemmons. You can read the transcript here.

The judges’ statement is long, posted in full below. It provides some additional details that were reported in our story published today regarding Clemmons and bail.

FROM: Pierce County Superior Court
DATE: December 2, 2009
RE: Statement of Sympathy
Public Comments by Judges Limited by the Code of Judicial Conduct
Bail Considerations in Washington State

Statement Of Sympathy.

Pierce County Superior Court staff mourns the death on Sunday of the four Lakewood Police officers killed in the line of duty. They staff extends their sympathy to the families of the officers, to the men and women of the Lakewood Police Department, and to the law enforcement community, all of whom are so profoundly hurt by this loss.

Public Statements By The Court Are Limited By The Code Of Judicial Conduct.

Canon 3(A)(7) of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides, in pertinent part:

(7) Judges shall not, while a proceeding is pending or impending in any court, make any public comment that might reasonably be expected to affect its outcome or impair its fairness or make any nonpublic comment that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing. The judge shall require similar abstention on the part of court personnel subject to the judge’s direction and control. This section does not prohibit judges from making public statements in the course of their official duties or from explaining for public information the procedures of the court.

The death of Maurice Clemmons does not end the related legal proceedings that may come to the court. For instance, other people have been charged in connection with Mr. Clemmons’ movements since Sunday morning. However, the court can point out the information in the available record and applicable law to explain to the public the process that took place.

Initial Proceedings.

On May 9, 2009 Mr. Clemmons was arrested and booked by law enforcement for four offenses, 2 counts of Assault in the Third Degree and 2 counts of Malicious Mischief in cause number 09-1-02365-6. The schedule booking bail for these charges is $10,000 each. Mr. Clemmons posted a total of $40,000 in bail bonds before he was seen in court. He was, therefore, released by the jail on May 10, 2009 with a report to court date of May 12, 2009 for an arraignment. When the Information was filed by the prosecutor on May 11, 2009, it charged the 2 assaults and 6 – not 2 – counts of Malicious Mischief. On May 12, 2009, Mr. Clemmons failed to appear in court and the court issued a warrant for his arrest. On June 26, 2009, Daniel J. Murphy, Jr. filed a Notice of Appearance (dated May 11, 2009) as Mr. Clemmons counsel. Mr. Murphy also scheduled a hearing for July 1, 2009 to have Mr. Clemmons appear in court and quash the warrant that had been issued May 12, 2009.

On July 1, 2009, Mr. Clemmons and his counsel appeared in court. While waiting for his hearing, Mr. Clemmons was arrested in the courtroom on new charges. Because of this, he was not arraigned on the Assault and Malicious Mischief charges until the next day. The bail bonding company asked to be released from the four $10,000 bail bonds and the court granted that request. In order to be released on the Assault and Malicious Mischief charges, Mr. Clemmons now would have to post another $40,000 bail.

Proceedings Before Judge John McCarthy.

On July 2, 2009 the prosecutor filed two new charges. The first, Being a Fugitive from Justice in cause number 09-1-03159-4, alleged that he was charged in Arkansas with a parole violation, robbery, two counts of theft and a Burglary. The second charge, Rape of a Child in the Second Degree, was filed in cause number 09-1-03166-7. On that day Judge McCarthy saw Mr. Clemmons for the first and only time. He set bail in the Rape case at $150,000; he continued bail on the Assault and Malicious Mischief case at $40,000 and noted that a new bail bond would have to be posted. Because the previous bail bond in the Assault/Malicious Mischief case had been removed the day before, in order to be released, Mr. Clemmons would now have to post new bail totaling $190,000. On the Fugitive case, Judge McCarthy honored the request of the Arkansas court and ordered that no bail be allowed. Because of this, Mr. Clemmons would be held in jail on the Fugitive case even if he posted bail on the other two charges.

Washington Law Regarding Bail.

The Superior Court Criminal Rules are promulgated by the Washington State Supreme Court. Criminal Rule 3.2 governs the release of an accused. It provides, in pertinent part:

(a) Presumption of Release in Noncapital Cases. Any person, other than a person charged with a capital offense, shall at the preliminary appearance. . . be ordered released on the accused’s personal recognizance pending trial unless:
(1) the court determines that such recognizance will not reasonably assure the accused’s appearance, when required, or
(2) there is shown a likely danger that the accused:

(a) will commit a violent crime, or
(b) will seek to intimidate witnesses, or otherwise unlawfully interfere with the administration of justice.

This is in accord with Washington State Constitution, Art. I, section 20 that provides: “All persons charged with crime shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses when the proof is evident, or the presumption great.”

The lengthy court rule goes on to indicate that in situations where there is a reasonable concern about the failure of the defendant to appear or likely danger is shown, the court can impose a variety of conditions and it can order bail. But the rule makes clear that the court must allow some amount of bail and it must allow a bond. Moreover, it cannot require that bail be all in cash. Yakima v. Mollett, 115 Wn.App. 604 (2003).[1]

Subsequent Proceedings.

On July 23, 2009, the Fugitive case was dismissed at the request of the Pierce County Prosecutor. The reason offered to the court was that Mr. Clemmons “is no longer wanted by the requesting state. . ..” This meant that the “no bail hold” no longer applied but that he was still held on a total of $190,000 bail on the other two cause numbers.

Proceedings Before Judge Thomas Felnagle.

Two hearings involving Mr. Clemmons were held before Judge Felnagle. At the first hearing, held July 24, 2007, the defendant appeared in custody and made a motion to have his bail reduced. The state opposed the motion. Judge Felnagle denied defendant’s motion and the defendant remained in custody. Later that day, Mr. Clemmons posted $190,000 bail previously set on the two remaining cases and he was released by the jail.

At the second hearing, held November 12, 2009, the defendant again appeared in custody. The second bail bond company made a motion to cancel the bail bonds that it had posted for the defendant. The defendant objected to the motion. The State took no position. Judge Felnagle granted the bonding company’s motion and cancelled defendant’s bail bond. Next, the State presented an order continuing the bail as previously set. Judge Felnagle signed the order as presented. The defendant remained in custody. On November 23, 2009, Mr. Clemmons posted another $190,000 through a third bail bond company and he was released from the jail.

In sum, Mr. Clemmons posted a total $420,000 of bail bonds to be released in this matter.

Transcripts of the hearings before Judge McCarthy and Judge Felnagle are being released along with this statement.

This recitation of case events does not comprise all that occurred. For more information, interested person are referred to the court files related to each case. The files can be accessed electronically through the Pierce County Clerk of Court