Filed: 8/10/2016 10:38:10 AM

Lisa David, District Clerk

Williamson County, Texas
Jennifer Sims

16-0816-C425
CAUSE NO. ____________________
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
EX REL. DEE HOBBS, COUNTY ATTORNEY
FOR WILLIAMSON COUNTY TEXAS

Plaintiff
V.
JANA DUTY A/K/A JANA L.
HUNSICKER, IN HER OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS DISTRICT ATTORNEY
OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS,
Defendant

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

Williamson County - 425th Judicial District Court

WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS

___________JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORIGINAL PETITION FOR REMOVAL, REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES AND

MOTION TO SUSPEND THE DEFENDANT FROM OFFICE AND APPOINT A
TEMPORARY REPLACEMENT
TO HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES, the STATE OF TEXAS, by and through DEE HOBBS in his official
capacity as County Attorney for Williamson County, Texas acting pursuant to statute and on the
relation of DEE HOBBS, in his capacity as a citizen of Williamson County, Texas, and hereby
files this Original Petition for Removal seeking to remove JANA DUTY A/K/A JANA L.
HUNSICKER, Defendant, from her public office as District Attorney for Williamson County,
Texas; and additionally including Request for Disclosure and Motion to Suspend the Defendant
from Office and Appoint a Temporary Replacement.

Page1of12

Envelope# 12087763

I.
NATURE OF THE PENDING ACTION
By nature of this civil removal suit, the State seeks to have Defendant permanently
removed from the public office of District Attorney for Williamson County, Texas due to
incompetency and official misconduct.
This action is pursuant to Chapter 87 of the Texas Local Government Code and is necessary
to guard the public welfare and to protect the interest of the people of Texas.

II.
PARTIES
The STATE OF TEXAS, by and through DEE HOBBS in his official capacity as County
Attorney for Williamson County, Texas and acting on the relation of DEE HOBBS, Relator, files
this suit for removal pursuant to Chapter 87 of the Local Government Code. The STATE OF
TEXAS acting on its own authority and on the relation of the Relator, seeks to remove Jana Duty
from the Office of District Attorney of Williamson County, Texas pursuant to Texas Constitution
Art. 5, Sec. 24 and Chapter 87, Texas Local Government Code. Tex. Const. V, 24; Tex. Loc.
Govt Code Ch. 87 (2016). Relator is a resident of Texas who has lived in Williamson County for
at least six (6) months, and he is not currently under any indictment. Tex. Loc. Govt Code 87.015
(2016).
JANA DUTY A/K/A JANA L. HUNSICKER, Defendant, is the District Attorney for
Williamson County, Texas. On information and belief, Defendant is a resident of Williamson
County, Texas and may be served with citation at 141 Waterford, Georgetown, Williamson
County, Texas 78628.

Page2of12

The STATE OF TEXAS has, concurrently with the filing of this original petition, filed an
Application for Issuance of Citation with a proposed Order on behalf of Relator and requests the
Court approve the issuance of citation to Jana Duty and the service of citation upon her pursuant
to Section 87.016, Texas Local Government Code. Tex. Loc. Govt Code 87.016 (2016).

III.
PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
Following issuance of citation and pursuant to to Rule 166, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure,
the State proposes and request entry of the attached pre-trial scheduling order (attached as Exhibit
A), which includes a discovery schedule and deadlines for other matters listed in Rule 166. Tex.
R. Civ. P. 166.

IV.
DISCOVERY
The discovery in this removal action will be limited. The facts in this case are not disputed,
only whether the uncontested facts rise to the level for removal is in dispute. Due to the nature
and circumstances of this removal action under Chapter 87, Texas Local Government Code, the
State requests that the Court approve an accelerated Discovery Control Plan pursuant to Rule
190.4, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (Level 3), with discovery limited and tailored to meet the
circumstances of this specific suit. Tex. Loc. Govt Code Ch. 87; Tex. R. Civ. P. 190.4. In order
to meaningfully and effectively prosecute this action, the State requests that, following the issuance
of citation, discovery be conducted in the accelerated, expedited manner set forth in Exhibit A,
proposed Pre-Trial Scheduling Order.

Page3of12

V.
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
Pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 194, Defendant is requested to disclose to the
State, within 30 days of service of this request, the information or material described in Rule 194.2.
Tex. R. Civ. P. 194.4.

VI.
JURY DEMAND
The State hereby asserts its demand for a jury trial in this cause. Tex. Loc. Govt Code
87.018 (2016); Tex. R. Civ. P. 216.

VII.
LEGAL GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL
According to Section 87.013(a), Texas Local Government Code, a public officer may be
removed from office upon proof of incompetency or official misconduct. Tex. Loc. Govt Code
87.013(a)(1),(2) (2016).
Incompetency is defined as (A) gross ignorance of official duties; (B) gross
carelessness in the discharge of those duties; or (C) unfitness or inability to promptly and properly
discharge official duties because of a serious physical or mental defect that did not exist at the time
of the officers election. Tex. Loc. Govt Code 87.011(2) (2016).
Official Misconduct is defined as intentional, unlawful behavior relating to official
duties by an officer entrusted with the administration of justice or the execution of the law. The

Page4of12

term includes an intentional or corrupt failure, refusal, or neglect of an officer to perform a duty
imposed on the officer by law. Tex. Loc. Govt Code 87.011(3) (2016).
A public official, including a district attorney, may be removed from office upon petition
and trial if, after trial, a jury finds the evidence that at least one of the statutory grounds for removal
alleged in the removal petition are true. Tex. Loc. Govt Code 87.018(c) (2016).

VIII.
FACTUAL GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL
Defendant was duly elected to the position of District Attorney in November of 2012 and
assumed her official duties on January 1, 2013. The official duties of this public office include:
DUTIES OF DISTRICT ATTORNEYS. Each district attorney shall represent the
State in all criminal cases in the district courts of his district and in appeals
therefrom . . . It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, including
any special prosecutors, not to convict, but to see that justice is done. They shall
not suppress facts or secrete witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the
accused. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 2.01 (2016).
Defendant after being duly elected to the position of District Attorney in November of 2012
and in assuming her official duties swore and Oath of Office on January 1, 2013 swearing or
affirming:
I, [Jana Duty], do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the duties
of the office of District Attorney of Williamson County and of the State of Texas,
and will to the best of my abilities preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution
and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God. Tex. Govt Code
42.002.
Pursuant to Section 87.015(c), Texas Local Government Code, the State contends that the
following facts are grounds for removal of Defendant from the position of District Attorney for
Williamson County, Texas:

Page5of12

A. Defendant was incompetent and engaged in official misconduct by failing to timely

disclose evidence.
As District Attorney, Defendant served as lead attorney in Cause No. 13-0826-K277, State
of Texas v. Crispin James Harmel, a criminal case pending in the 368th District Court. During the
discovery phase of the Harmel case, Defendant Duty produced a DVD of Wal-Mart surveillance
footage to Harmels counsel. Prior to commencement of the trial of the case on April 28, 2014,
Harmels counsel asked Defendant for a time-stamped version of the surveillance footage,
including by email to Defendant on April 13, 2014. The request was premised on an offense report
written by Detective Dailey that mentioned the existence of time-stamps. Rather than contacting
Detective Dailey directly, Defendant instead contacted Detective Pando, who was not the author
of the offense report that mentioned time stamps. Defendant then represented that the DVD did
not contain time-stamps. Defendant displayed gross carelessness in the discharge of her duties by
failing to ascertain the existence and availability of said time-stamps on the video pursuant to the
discovery request made by Harmels counsel.
However, during the jury trial, Defendant finally discovered that the time-stamps were on
the DVD, but required a proprietary player in order to view them. The footage could be played
with other players, but the time-stamps would not be visible. After discovery of this fact,
Defendant intentionally decided to withhold this information from Harmels counsel. Defendant
proceeded to introduce images from the DVD that included the time-stamps as evidence in trial.
Upon realization of the time-stamp information on the evidence, Harmels counsel moved for
mistrial, which was granted by the trial court on May 7, 2014.
Subsequently, a complaint against Defendant was made to the State Bar of Texas. In the
Agreed Judgment of Probated Sentence issued in the matter on June 1, 2016, the Commission for

Page6of12

Lawyer Discipline made findings related to the failure to disclose the time-stamps and found that
Defendant violated the following Rules of the Texas Disciplinary Rules for Professional Conduct:
a. 4.01(a) Truthfulness in statements to others: In the course of representing a client
a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a
third person;
b. 8.04(a)(3) Misconduct:

A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving

dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; See Exhibit B, Agreed Judgment of

Probated Suspension, attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
This conduct is evidence of Defendants incompetency because it demonstrates her gross
ignorance of her official duties and also her gross carelessness in the discharge of those duties.
Further, it is evidence of Defendants official misconduct because it demonstrates her intentional,
unlawful behavior relating to official duties by an offer entrusted with the administration of justice
or the execution of law and/or the intentional failure, refusal or neglect of an officer to perform a
duty imposed on the officer by law.
B. Defendant engaged in official misconduct by intentionally violating a gag order and
committing contempt of court.
Also, in the Harmel case, a gag order was requested by the State. The trial court entered a
written gag order on April 9, 2015 prohibiting all attorneys in that case from communicating with
the press/media regarding this case or publically commenting on this case during the pendency of
the proceedings. See Exhibit C, Order, attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Prior to
entering the written gag order, the trial court verbally instructed the parties to not communicate
with the media about the case on March 20, 2015, March 31, 2015, and April 8, 2015.
Defendant intentionally violated the gag order on May 6, 2015 when she contacted Claire
Osborn, a reporter for the Austin American Statesman and discussed the case.
Page7of12

Due to this violation, Defendant was subsequently found guilty of contempt of the 368th
District court and was sentenced to 10 days jail and a $500.00 fine. See Exhibit D, Judgment of
Contempt and Order of Commitment, attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
A complaint against Defendant was made to the State Bar of Texas. In the Agreed
Judgment of Probated Sentence issued in the matter, the Commission for Lawyer Discipline made
findings related to the violation of the gag order and found that Defendant violated the following
Rules of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct:
a. 3.04(d) Fairness in Adjudicatory Proceedings: A lawyer shall not knowingly
disobey, or advise the client to disobey, an obligation under the standing rules of
or a ruling by a tribunal except for an open refusal based either on an assertion that
no valid obligation exists or on the client's willingness to accept any sanctions
arising from such disobedience.
b. 8.02(a) Judicial and Legal Officials: A lawyer shall not make a statement that the
lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity
concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory official or public
legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office.
See Exhibit B.
This conduct is evidence of Defendants official misconduct because it demonstrates her
intentional, unlawful behavior relating to official duties by an officer entrusted with the
administration of justice or the execution of law and/or the intentional failure, refusal or neglect of
an officer to perform a duty imposed on the officer by law.

Page8of12

C. Defendant was incompetent and engaged in official misconduct by violating the Texas
Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.
A complaint against Defendant was made to the State Bar of Texas. On June 1, 2016, the
Commission for Lawyer Discipline issued an Agreed Judgment of Probated Sentence. See Exhibit
B. In this judgment, the Commission made various findings related to the DVD time-stamps in
the Harmel case and the gag order issued in the same matter. Id. Based on those findings, the
Commission concluded that Defendant violated Rules 4.01(a), 3.04(d), 8.02(a), and 8.04(a)(3) of
the Texas Rules of Professional Responsibility. Id.
This conduct is evidence of Defendants incompetency because it demonstrates her gross
ignorance of her official duties and also her gross carelessness in the discharge of those duties.
Further, it is evidence of Defendants official misconduct because it demonstrates her intentional,
unlawful behavior relating to official duties by an officer entrusted with the administration of
justice or the execution of law and/or the intentional failure, refusal or neglect of an officer to
perform a duty imposed on the officer by law.

IX.
MOTION TO TEMPORARILY SUSPEND DEFENDANT AND TO APPOINT
ANOTHER PERSON TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
FOR WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS
Pursuant to Section 87.017, Texas Local Government Code, the STATE respectfully
requests the temporary suspension of JANA DUTY A/K/A JANA L. HUNSICKER, Defendant,
from the public office of District Attorney for Williamson County, Texas. The STATE further
request that the Court appoint another qualified and competent person to perform the duties of that
office during the pendency of this case.

Page9of12

For purposes of this motion, the STATE hereby incorporates the foregoing allegations as
support for the appropriateness and necessity of a temporary suspension.

X.
REQUESTED RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the STATE OF TEXAS respectfully
request the following relief from the Court:
1. That the Court enter an order temporarily suspending Defendant from the public office of
District Attorney for Williamson County, Texas during the pendency of this case and
appoint another person to perform the duties of that office during that suspension.
2. That, upon the jury trial of this cause, the Court enter a final judgment permanently ousting
and removing Defendant from her public office as District Attorney for Williamson
County, Texas;
3. That the Court assess and tax costs against Defendant as authorized by Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 131 and related Rules, or against the Relator as authorized by Section 87.016,
Texas Local Government Code, and related Rules, as circumstances may warrant;
4. That the Court authorize the issuance of appropriate writs of execution providing for the
collection of said costs.
5. Finally, the STATE OF TEXAS requests such other and further relief to which it may be
justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,
Dee Hobbs
Page10of12

WILLIAMSON COUNTY ATTORNEY

/s/ Dee Hobbs
SBN: 24026934
405 M.L.K. Street, Suite 240
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Tel: (512) 943-1111
Fax: (512) 943-1431
dhobbs@wilco.org
ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served on
August _______, 2016 to the following counsel in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure:
Daniel Richards
Clark Richards
Attorneys for Defendant
Richards Rodriguez & Skeith, LLP
816 Congress, Ste. 1200
Austin, Texas 78701
Tel: (512) 476-0005
Fax: (512) 476-1513
drichards@rrsfirm.com
crichards@rrsfirm.com

/s/ Dee Hobbs

Dee Hobbs

Page11of12

VERIFICATION
STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON

Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Dee Hobbs, the
Relator in the above-referenced lawsuit, who upon his oath stated that he has read the foregoing
Petition for Removal and that the facts stated in the foregoing pleading are all within his personal
knowledge, or information and belief, and are true and correct.

Dee Hobbs
I'"'~UBSCRIBED TO AND SWORN BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this

__1_!.L_ day of August, 2016.

,,.";:~

STEPHANIE J LLOYD

~~~:Notary Public, State of Texas

i*\
]*~ My commission Expires
\!J}t';fa;~
DECEMBER 6, 2018
...,,. ,,,,

Page 12 of 12

Exhibit B - Agreed Judgment of Probated Suspension

BEFORE THE EVIDENTIARY PANEL FOR

STATE BAR DISTRICT NO. 8-6 STATE BAR OF TEXAS
COMMISSION FOR LAWYER
DISCIPLINE,
Petitioner
V.
JANA L. HUNSICKER,
Respondent

*
*

*
*
*
*
*
*

201503044
201503662

AGREED JUDGMENT OF PROBATED SUSPENSION

Parties and Appearance
On this day, came to be heard the above styled and numbered cause. Petitioner
and Respondent, Jana L. Hunsicker, Texas Bar Number 24000244, announce that an
agreement has been reached on all matters including the imposition of a Probated
Suspension.
Jurisdiction and Venue
The Evidentiary Panel 8-6 having been duly appointed to hear this complaint by
the chair of the Grievance Committee for State Bar of Texas District 8, finds that it has
jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action, and that venue is proper.
Professional Misconduct
The Evidentiary Panel, having considered the pleadings, admissions, stipulations
and agreements of the parties, finds Respondent has committed Professional Misconduct
as defined by Rule 1.06(W) of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
Findings of Fact
Petitioner and Respondent agree to the following findings of fact. Accordingly, the
Evidentiary Panel finds:

CF6-15A

Agreed Judgment of Fully Probated Suspension

Page 1 of7

Exhibit B - Agreed Judgment of Probated Suspension

1. Respondent is an attorney licensed to practice law in Texas and is a member

of the State Bar of Texas.
2. Respondent resides in and maintains her principal place of practice in
Williamson County, Texas.
3. Respondent Jana Duty took office as the elected district attorney of Williamson
County, Texas, on January 1, 2013. On or about May 9, 2013, Crispin Harmel
was indicted in Williamson County for the offenses of capital murder,
aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. Respondent is lead counsel
for the State in the Harmel case.
4. Defense attorneys Ryan Deck and R. Scott Magee were hired to represent Mr.
Harmel. An important aspect of the trial was the timeline of events that occurred
on the night of the murder. The State provided the defense attorneys a copy of
the DVD of the surveillance footage from the Wai-Mart where the kidnapping
occurred. On several occasions in April of 2014, Mr. Deck asked Respondent
for a "time-stamped" version of the DVD. In two separate emails on April 13
and 14, 2014, Respondent represented to Mr. Deck that the DVD did not
contain timestamps. However, the timestamps were embedded on the DVD
and required proprietary software and a particular player to display the
timestamps. Trial began on April 29, 2014. On the sixth day of trial, the State
used what is known as a March Networks player to play the DVD for the jury,
which showed the timestamps. The defense objected that their case had been
severely impaired because they had based their trial strategy on a certain
timeline of events that the timestamp DVD contradicted. The trial court granted
a mistrial. In his later Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the judge made
certain findings concerning the time stamp issue. The judge found that
Respondent "affirmatively stated to the Defense that a time-stamped copy of
the video did not exist and did not correct that statement when she learned
otherwise." The judge also found that Respondent "was aware of, and watched,
the Walmart surveillance video with timestamps prior to trial but did not disclose
this fact to the Defense." Respondent disputed the correctness of those
findings, and the State contended that the timestamps were inculpatory, not
exculpatory, of Defendant Harmel.
5. On March 20,2015, at a status hearing before the re-trial of the case, the State
requested a gag order. The court instructed the parties not to have any
conversations or discussions with the media about the case. Again on March
31, 2015, the court told the parties that no one should talk to the media about
the case for any reason, including any posts on Facebook or any other social
media outlets. On April 8, 2015, the court confirmed for the third time in open
court that a gag order was in place. On Apri19, 2015, the court signed a written
gag order prohibiting "communica[tions] with the press/media regarding this
case or publicly commenting on this case during the pendency of the
proceedings."
CF6-15A

Agreed Judgment of Fully Probated Suspension

Page 2 of7

Exhibit B - Agreed Judgment of Probated Suspension

6. On May 6, 2015, Respondent sent an email to the trial judge informing him that
she intended to make statements to the Austin American Statesman defending
her actions in the case. Thereafter, in violation of the oral and written gag
orders, Respondent made statements about the case to the Austin American
Statesman which were published in an article on May 7, 2015. During the
afternoon of May 7, 2015, in a series of emails to Respondent and defense
counsel, the judge wrote, "I was trying to schedule everyone to come to court
on Monday, May 11th, however it is my understanding that Ms. Duty will be out
of town on Monday... I want to meet with all counsel tomorrow. I can be
available at any time. . . Please meet in my courtroom at 10:30 am."
Respondent did not appear before the court the next morning, but she did send
two attorneys from her office to represent the State during the meeting.
Respondent later explained in an email to the judge that she felt he had not
respected her and therefore she would not respect him by showing up. She
went on to say, "If you feel I need to be reprimanded for communicating with
The Statesman, I understand. But making a public spectacle out of punishing
me just hurts everyone. No one will come out unscathed."
7. The defense filed an Application for Pre-Trial Writ of Habeas Corpus. The trial
court held a hearing with live testimony and, on September 11, 2015, entered
findings of fact and conclusions of law. On September 17, 2015, Respondent
filed Objections to Judge's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law wherein
she stated that the judge had improperly sealed his divorce case to protect his
political career. She further stated:
"[The judge] testified under oath, on August 6, 2015,
when he was subject to the penalties of perjury, that
the defense attorney's had in fact been given all of the
evidence, they just did not know how to use the
evidence. Then, when [the judge] felt he was no longer
subject to the penalties of perjury, and two weeks
before his friend announced that he is going to run
against Ms. Duty, [the judge] cranked out 25 pages of
Findings saying now, that Ms. Duty did in fact withhold
the evidence from the defense attorneys. This is a
blatant lie. If [the judge] refuses to correct these lies,
Ms. Duty will have no choice but to seek sanctions
against him with the Commission on Judicial Conduct.
These lies also raise the question of whether or not
these lies rise to the level of Aggravated Perjury. This
will be investigated as well."
8. The Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas has incurred
reasonable attorneys' fees and direct expenses associated with this
Disciplinary Proceeding in the amount of $3,250.00.
CF6-15A

Agreed Judgment of Fully Probated Suspension

Page 3 of7

Exhibit B - Agreed Judgment of Probated Suspension

Conclusions of Law

Petitioner and Respondent agree that, based on the foregoing findings of fact, the
following Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct have been violated.
Accordingly, the Evidentiary Panel concludes that the following Texas Disciplinary Rules
of Professional Conduct have been violated: 4.01 (a), 3.04(d), 8.02(a), 8.04(a)(3).
Sanction

It is AGREED and ORDERED that the sanction of a Probated Suspension shall be

imposed against Respondent in accordance with the Texas Rules of Disciplinary
Procedure.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of eighteen (18) months, with the
suspension being fully probated pursuant to the terms stated below. The period of
probated suspension shall begin on June 1, 2016 and shall end on November 30, 2017.
Terms of Probation

It is further ORDERED that during all periods of suspension, Respondent shall be

under the following terms and conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

CF615A

Respondent shall not violate any term of this judgment.

Respondent shall not engage in professional misconduct as defined by Rule
1.06(W) of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
Respondent shall not violate any state or federal criminal statutes.
Respondent shall keep State Bar of Texas membership department notified of
current mailing, residence and business addresses and telephone numbers.
Respondent shall comply with Minimum Continuing Legal Education
requirements.
Respondent shall comply with Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA)
requirements.
Respondent shall promptly respond to any request for information from the
Chief Disciplinary Counsel in connection with any investigation of any
allegations of professional misconduct.
Agreed Judgment of Fullv Probated Suspension
Page4of7

Exhibit B - Agreed Judgment of Probated Suspension

8.

9.

In addition to complying with the Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)

requirements of the State Bar of Texas, Respondent shall complete six (6)
hours additional hours of continuing legal education in the area of Ethics.
These additional hours of CLE are to be completed by September 1, 2016.
Within ten (1 0) days of the completion of these additional CLE hours,
Respondent shall verify completion of the course to the State Bar of Texas, via
USPS: Office of the CDC, State Bar of Texas, P.O. Box 12487, Austin, TX
78711-2487; or via Delivery: Office of the CDC, State Bar of Texas, 1414
Colorado St., Suite 200, Austin, TX 78701.
Respondent shall make contact with the Chief Disciplinary Counsel's Offices'
Compliance Monitor at 877-953-5535, ext. 1334 and Special Programs
Coordinator at 877-953-5535, ext. 1323, not later than seven (7) days after
receipt of a copy of this judgment to coordinate Respondent's compliance.
Probation Revocation

Upon information that Respondent has violated a term of this judgment, the Chief
Disciplinary Counsel may, in addition to all other remedies available, file a motion to
revoke probation pursuant to Rule 2.23 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure with
the Board of Disciplinary Appeals ("BODA") and serve a copy of the motion on
Respondent pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.P. 21a.
BODA shall conduct an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, BODA shall determine
by a preponderance of the evidence whether Respondent has violated any term of this
Judgment. If SODA finds grounds for revocation, BODA shall enter an order revoking
probation and placing Respondent on active suspension from the date of such revocation
order. Respondent shall not be given credit for any term of probation served prior to
revocation.
It is further ORDERED that any conduct on the part of Respondent which serves
as the basis for a motion to revoke probation may also be brought as independent
grounds for discipline as allowed under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional
Conduct and Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.

CF615A

Agreed Judgment of Fully Probated Suspension

Page 5 of7

Exhibit B - Agreed Judgment of Probated Suspension

Attorney's Fees and Expenses

It is further ORDERED Respondent shall pay all reasonable and necessary
attorney's fees and direct expenses to the State Bar of Texas in the amount of $3,250.00.
The payment of attorney's fees and direct expenses shall be made by certified or cashier's
check or money order and made payable to the State Bar of Texas. The payment shall
be submitted to the State Bar of Texas, Chief Disciplinary Counsel's Office, P.O. Box
12487, Austin, TX 78711-2487 (1414 Colorado St., Austin, TX 78701) on or before the
date this judgment is presented to the Evidentiary Panel for execution.
It is further ORDERED that all amounts ordered herein are due to the misconduct
of Respondent, are assessed as a part of the sanction in accordance with Rule 1.06(Z)
of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Any amount not paid shall accrue interest
at the maximum legal rate per annum until paid and the State Bar of Texas shall have all
writs and other post-judgment remedies against Respondent in order to collect all unpaid
amounts.
Publication
This suspension shall be made a matter of record and appropriately published in
accordance with the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
Other Relief
All requested relief not expressly granted herein is expressly DENIED.

SIGNED this

_j__ day of ~

'2016.

EVIDENTIARY PANEL 8-6

DISTRICT NO. 8
STATE BAR OF TEXAS

CF6-15A

Agreed Judgment of Fully Probated Suspension

Page 6 of7

Exhibit B - Agreed Judgment of Probated Suspension

Savan
roud
District 8-6 Presiding Member

AGREED AS TO BOTH FORM AND SUBSTANCE:

+ti

"I i

uj!fl=f

Jan a

L/J Hunsicker

A~-<J\j
.'

(I\

State gar No. 24000244

Respondent

Charles Herring, Jr.

State Bar No. 09534100

Counsel for Respondent

CF615A

Agreed Judgment of Fully Probated Suspension

Page 7 of7

Exhibit C - Order

No. 13-0826-K277

THE STATE OF TEXAS

IN THE 368th JUDICIAL

v.
CRISPIN JAMES HARMEL

DISTRICT COURT OF
WILLIAMSON COUNTY

ORDER
The parties, attorneys, and employees of the attorneys in this case are
prohibited from communicating with the press/media regarding this case or
publicly commenting on this case during the pendency of the proceedings .

..

ORDERED, this the

Cj

day of

~ l lois-

Kennon
Presiding dge
368 1h District Court
Williamson County, Texas

at

Io 6 t~ILEDk__f2--M
j)'cloc

n,
,

,>

Dletrlct

APR 1 0 2015

JJ..Ah

... ',

:,

~.

:i

~WIIIIamaon Co:, TX.

Exhibit D - Judgment of Contempt and Order of Commitment

at

CAUSE NO. 15-0486-C368

-fiLED~

ll S o'cla.k :,.,, . .

AUG 1t ~015, ~

' -~
IN THE DISTRICT COUR~ ~
,.,,.~"'

EX REL JANA DUTY

368th JUDICIAL DI~eflerk, Williamson Co., TX.

WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS

JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT AND ORDER OF COMMITMENT

On August 6, 2015, the Amended Motion To Hold Jana Duty In Contempt filed in
this cause on July 29, 2015 by Special Prosecutors Randy Howry and Archie Carl Pierce, as
appointed by order of the 368th District Court, that requested the court to hold Jana Duty in
contempt of court came on for hearing before Judge Doug Shaver, special visiting judge.
THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
1.

On July 10, 2015, Respondent Jana Duty filed a Motion to Recuse the Honorable

Rick Kennon, Judge of the 368th District Court, Williamson County.

2.

On July 13, 2015, the filing of the Motion to Recuse Judge Rick Kennon was

acknowledged by Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield, Presiding Judge, Third Administrative Region,
and in said acknowledgment, Judge Stubblefield appointed this Court, Judge Doug Shaver, to
hear the Motion to Recuse and to make such orders as justice may require.
3.

On July 22, 2015, Judge Rick Kennon signed an Order ofRecusal and transmitted

notice of same to Judge Stubblefield.

4.

On July 29, 2015, the Amended Motion To Hold Jana Duty In Contempt was

filed.
Judgment Of Contempt And Order Of Commitment
Ex. Rel. Jana Duty I CAUSE NO. 15-0486-C368

Exhibit D - Judgment of Contempt and Order of Commitment

5.

At the hearing on this matter on August 6, 2015, counsel for Jana Duty stated that,

in their capacity as counsel for Jana Duty, said counsel had received service of the July 29th

Amended Motion To Hold Jana Duty In Contempt on July 29, 2015, and that counsel for Jana
Duty stated on the record at the hearing on August 6, 2015 that Jana Duty expressly waived any
requirement that Jana Duty be personally served with said July 29 Amended Motion To Hold
Jana Duty In Contempt.
6.

The Court finds that the July 29, 2015 Amended Motion To Hold Jana Duty In

Contempt suggested to the court that respondent Jana Duty was and is in contempt of the 368th
District Court, Williamson County, Texas, the Honorable Rick Kennon,
intentional
stated

disobedience to and violation of the order

on the record

in open

of the 368th District Court

failure

to appear

her
as

court on March 31, 2015, for her intentional

disobedience and violation of the Court's written order entered

her intentional

by reason of

on April

9, 2015, for

in Court in the 368th District Court in response

to the

May 7, 2015 email sent by Judge Rick Kennon of the 368th Judicial Court and thus
intentionally disrespecting the court, and for her intentional
displayed in her email
7.

disrespect

of the Court

dated May 8, 2015 4:06P.M.

On August 6, 2015, all parties and counsel appeared at 9:00AM, and the

court asked for and received the appearances of counsel as follows: Randy Howry and
Archie Carl Pierce announced their appearance as Special Prosecutors in this matter and
Perry Q. Minton and Samuel E. Bassett announced as counsel for Jana Duty. The court
asked whether the parties were ready to proceed to trial, and all parties, by and through
counsel, announced ready for trial.
Judgment Of Contempt And Order Of Commitment
Ex. Rei. Jana Duty I CAUSE NO. 15-0486-C368

Exhibit D - Judgment of Contempt and Order of Commitment

the court's order appeared in a published article as evidenced by Movant's

Exhibit 6.
(2)

that Jana Duty was and is hereby found guilty of contempt of the 368th

District Court as alleged in Count 2 of the Amended Motion To Hold Jana Duty
In Contempt, because her contact of and communication with reporter for the
Austin American Statesmen on or about May 6, 2015 regarding the State of Texas
v. Crispin Harmel was an intentional disobedience to and violation of the Court's

written order entered on April 9, 2015 that prohibited the attorneys in the case of
State of Texas v. Crispin Harmel "from communicating with the press/media

regarding this case or publically commenting on this case during the pendency of
the proceedings." Jana Duty intentionally violated the orders of March 31, 2015
and April9, 2015 by contacting Claire Osborn, a reporter for the Austin American
Statesmen, on May 6, 2015 for the express purpose of discussing the case of State
of Texas v. Crispin Harmel. Said intentional communications by Duty with the
reporter in violation of the court's order appeared in a published article as
evidenced by Movant's Exhibit 6.
(3)

that Jan Duty was and is hereby found guilty of contempt of the 368th

District Court, as alleged in Count 3 of the Amended Motion To Hold Jana Duty
In Contempt, for her intentional failure to appear in the 368th Judicial District
Court in the case of State of Texas v. Crispin Harmel May 7, 2015 at 10:30 a.m.,
such failure to appear being an intentional disrespect to the authority and office of
the 368th Judicial District Court and such conduct tending to bring the 368th
Judicial District Court into disrespect. Jana Duty received and had personal
Judgment Of Contempt And Order Of Commitment
Ex. Rei. Jana Duty I CAUSE NO. 15-0486-C368

Exhibit D - Judgment of Contempt and Order of Commitment

8.

As a pre-trial matter, the court proceeded to hear a Motion to Quash a Subpoena

filed by non-party Claire Osborn, a reporter for the Austin American-Statesman in connection
with a subpoena served on her on Monday, August 3, 2015.
Chapter 22 of the TEXAS

based on

CNIL

The objection to the subpoena was

PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE. After hearing the

arguments of counsel, the court ultimately sustained the objection to the subpoena of Claire
Osborne.
9.

There being no other pretrial motions or other objections or exceptions filed

or asserted by any party, and all parties announcing ready for trial, the court thereafter
proceeded to swear witnesses, place same under the rule, and to hear opening statements
and to hear the evidence.
12.

At the close of guilt or innocence phase of the proceeding, the court

thereafter pronounced judgment on guilt or innocence as set forth below. Thereafter, the
court reopened the proceedings and received evidence and heard argument in the
punishment phase of the proceedings.
13.

After consideration of the Amended Motion To Hold Jana Duty In Contempt, the

evidence - - in both the guilt or innocence phase and the punishment phase - - and all exhibits
admitted into evidence, and the arguments and remarks of counsel, THE COURT HEREBY
FINDS AND AS FOLLOWS:
(a)

that this court has jurisdiction of this proceeding;

(b)

that the Amended Motion To Hold Jana Duty In Contempt is in all respects proper

and sufficient;
Judgment Of Contempt And Order Of Commitment
Ex. Rei. Jana Duty I CAUSE NO. 15-0486-C368

Exhibit D - Judgment of Contempt and Order of Commitment

(c)

that Jana Duty was in all respects afforded due and proper notice of these

proceedings;
(d)

that counsel for Jana Duty received the Amended Motion To Hold Jana Duty In

Contempt;
(e)

that Jana Duty, by and through her counsel, expressly waived personal service of

the Amended Motion To Hold Jana Duty In Contempt;

(f)

that the COURT FURTHER FINDS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT as

follows:
(1)

that Jana Duty, was and is hereby found guilty of contempt of the 368th

District Court as alleged in Count 1 of the Amended Motion for Contempt,

because of her contact of and communication with a reporter for the Austin
American Statesmen on or about May 6, 2015 regarding the State ofTexas v.

Crispin Harmel and such conduct was an intentional disobedience to and

violation of the order that Jana Duty had personal knowledge of as stated on the
record in open court by the 368th District Court on March 31, 2015, said order
granting the State's request for an order in the case of State of Texas v. Crispin

Harmel to prohibit the attorneys from talking to the media for any reason. Jana
Duty intentionally violated the orders of March 31, 2015 and April 9, 2015 by
contacting Claire Osborn, a reporter for the Austin American Statesmen, on May
6, 2015 for the express purpose of discussing the case of State of Texas v. Crispin
Harmel. Said intentional communications by Duty with the reporter in violation of
Judgment Of Contempt And Order Of Commitment
Ex. Rel. Jana Duty I CAUSE NO. 15-0486-C368

Exhibit D - Judgment of Contempt and Order of Commitment

knowledge of a May 7, 2015 email sent by Judge Rick Kennon of the 368th
Judicial District Court which requested her to appear in the 368th Judicial District
Court on May 8, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. Jana Duty failed to appear in Court on May 8,
2015 as requested by Judge Rick Kennon of the 368th Judicial District Court. Jana
Duty was physically available to appear in Court on May 8, 2015 as requested by
Judge Rick Kennon of the 368th Judicial District Court. Jana Duty was available
to appear in court at said time. Jana Duty's intentional failure to appear in Court
on May 8, 2015 as requested by Judge Rick Kennon of the 368th Judicial District
Court was an intentional disrespect of the Court on her part.
(4)

that Jana Duty was and is hereby found guilty of contempt of the 368th

District Court,

as alleged in Count 4 of the Amended Motion To Hold Jana Duty

In Contempt, for her intentional disrespect to the authority and office of the 368th
Judicial District Court by her use of the language, statements, and
communications directed to the 368th Judicial District Court in her email May 8,
2015 4:06 p.m. and also published to other counsel of record in the underlying
criminal case as follows:
"This meant one of two things, one, it wasn't that
important or two, you did not respect me enough to
give me an answer. Your next response was, "be
in my courtroom at 10:30," even tho [SIC] I had
not responded that that time would work for me, nor
had you answered my question."
"To get an email at 5:30 saying "can you be here?"
then ignoring my request for an explanation as to
why, followed by "be here at 10:30" reeked of
disrespect. I felt, if you do not respect me enough
to give me the information I requested, I will not
give you respect and show up."
Judgment Of Contempt And Order Of Commitment
Ex. Rel. Jana Duty I CAUSE NO. 15-0486-C368

Exhibit D - Judgment of Contempt and Order of Commitment

"If you feel I need to be reprimanded for

communicating with The Statesman, I understand.
But making a public spectacle out of punishing me
just hurts everyone.
No one will come out
unscathed. "
(5)

The court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct as set out

above of Jana Duty with respect to Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4 was criminal contempt of
the 368th District Court in that Jana Duty intentionally obstructed or tended to
obstruct the administration of justice, Jana Duty engaged in intentional conduct
which was in opposition to and was an intentional defiance of the authority and
dignity of the 368th Judicial District Court or its processes, Jana Duty engaged
in conduct which was intentionally disrespectful to the authority of and office of
the 368th Judicial District Court, and Jana Duty engaged in intentional which
tended to bring the 368th Judicial District Court into disrespect.
IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by this Court that
Relator Jana Duty is;
1. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal contempt of the 368th District Court of
Williamson County, as alleged in Count 1 of the Amended Motion To Hold Jana
Duty In Contempt;
2. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal contempt of the 368th District Court of
Williamson County, as alleged in Count 2 of the Amended Motion To Hold Jana
Duty In Contempt;

Judgment Of Contempt And Order Of Commitment

Ex. Rei. Jana Duty I CAUSE NO. 15-0486-C368

Exhibit D - Judgment of Contempt and Order of Commitment

3. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal contempt of the 368th District Court of
Williamson County, as alleged in Count 3 of the Amended Motion To Hold Jana
Duty In Contempt;
4. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal contempt of the 368th District Court of
Williamson County, as alleged in Count 4 of the Amended Motion To Hold Jana
Duty In Contempt;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED by the Court that the
following punishments are imposed on Relator Jana Duty for these several acts of contempt set
forth above which the court has found to exist beyond a reasonable doubt:

1.

10 days confinement in jail and a $500.00 fine for her contumacious conduct
found to exist by the Court as alleged in Count 1 of the Amended Motion To Hold
Jana Duty In Contempt;

2.

10 days confinement in jail and a $500.00 fine for her contumacious conduct
found to exist by the Court as alleged in Count 2 of the Amended Motion To Hold
Jana Duty In Contempt;

3.

10 days confinement in jail and a $500.00 fine for her contumacious conduct
found to exist by the Court as alleged in Count 3 of the Amended Motion To Hold
Jana Duty In Contempt;

4.

10 days confinement in jail and a $500.00 fine for her contumacious conduct
found to exist by the Court as alleged in Count 4 of the Amended Motion To Hold
Jana Duty In Contempt;

Judgment Of Contempt And Order Of Commitment

Ex. Rei. Jana Duty I CAUSE NO. 15-0486-C368

Exhibit D - Judgment of Contempt and Order of Commitment

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, DECREED that each separate period of

confmement and fine for each Count is separate and apart from the fmdings and punishment for
other Counts, provided that the four separate 10-day periods of confinement specified above are
to run concurrently for a maximum period of confinement for all four 10 day periods not to
exceed a total confinement of 10 days, and the four separate $500.00 fines specified above are to
be applied concurrently for a total maximum fine of $500.00. It is the intent of the Court of the
court that the punishment of 10 days and $500.00 for each count remain enforceable even if one
or more or the other counts is ruled invalid or unenforceable for some reason.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that a capias be issued commanding the sheriff
of Williamson County, Texas, to arrest Jana Duty and place Jana Duty in the county jail in
Williamson County, Texas, and to safely keep Jana Duty until she has served the ten (1 0) days
confinement, as ordered above, and she has paid the total fines of $500.00 as ordered above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the Court that capias recite generally the proceedings in
this case, and that it be accompanied by a certified copy of this judgment of commitment order to
be served on Relator Jana Duty as further evidence of the Sheriffs authority.
Signed this

/b

day of August, 2015.

a,Jiv=---=__
Doug Shaver, Judge Presiding

Judgment Of Contempt And Order Of Commitment

Ex. Rei. Jana Duty I CAUSE NO. 15-0486-C368