I spent the last half of last week in the back of a conference room on the ground floor in the Sherif's Building at 55 Younger Street in San Jose. A three person panel was listening to a disciplinary case brought by the management in the Public Defenders office against one of their Attorneys, Thomas Spielbauer. I had missed the first three days of testimony, but they interviewed every witness about the same general stuff, so slowly a picture emerged that I would like to share with you.
The possible infraction they were using to nail the guy was that he had misled Judge Paul Teilh in a case that was tried in late January of last year. Apparently Spielbauer had inadvertently ran into and spoke with a witness named Troy Boyd on Superbowl Sunday, and then told the Judge on the following Monday the guy was unavailable to testify. When Spielbauer took the stand, he explained that Troy Boyd had a warrant out for his arrest, and he didn't want to go where it would be easy for the law to catch him. When Judge Teilh took the stand he said he knew Troy Boyd didn't want to go to court because it would get him arrested. He even said that he considered the disciplinary action "disgraceful". He made it very clear he thought Spielbauer had done nothing wrong.
Despite this, the County Prosecutor asked a parade of judges and lawyers about a hypothetical case where an investigator talked to a witness and then told a judge the witness hadn't been contacted and then asked them if this was dishonest. Every time the defense attorney said "Objection your honor, the hypothetical case does not fit the facts." Every time the lead judge allowed the question, and the witness said "yes that would be dishonest." After prodding they would add something like "the judge ought to discipline that person through the State Bar." I got the feeling that Spielbauer was being railroaded by a prosecutor that was burying one Judges true story in a lie repeated many times.
The larger story of why the knives came out emerged as the days progressed. Spielbauer had noticed the County Supervisors had passed a resolution opposing George Bush II's Gulf War, and he had tried to get the Public Defenders office to do some contingency planning for defending Peace Activists in the event of mass arrests. The project was a nonstarter to his supervisor and his manager, so Spielbauer had tried to light a fire under their butts with press coverage. David Mann denounced the idea in a Palo Alto Daily News article from early March. In the fire storm that followed, they decided to hang Spielbauer, and this disciplinary hearing was the result.
Many character witnesses said good things about Thomas Spielbauer's work and community involvement. He set up a mentoring program for juveniles that he had defended, and many of them have stayed clean as a result of it. He has been President of La Raza Lawyers, both at the County and Statewide level. The fact that he was willing to step forward and put teeth into the County Supervisors Resolution opposing the Gulf War was a strong positive in my book.
The trial resumes Wednesday morning, 10AM. The hearing will probably conclude at the end of the day. A ruling is expected by the end of January. The defense clearly believes that public support is good for their case. There are only a few chairs available, but the more of them we can fill the better. The system needs to know that there is support for Public Defenders that want to support the Board of Supervisors when they work with the peace community. The proceedings are actually quite interesting, on top of everything else.
Tian Harter
January 18th, 2004
2075
1/22/04 Addendum : The space allowed for the public to attend was full for part of the day, and almost full the whole day. The information presented did not really change my perception of what was going on much. The people making the decision announced that it will come down at their Feb. 20th meeting in their usual meeting place (Room 157) at 9:00 AM in the County Building at 70 W. Hedding Street.
2/24/2004 Addendum: I went to the hearing where the decision was announced, and what happened there is well described in the following email I got from Thomas Spielbauer later that day:
The Personnel Board rendered its decision this morning in my employment and
termination matter with the Public Defender's office of Santa Clara
County. The Board sustained both grounds alleged against me and approved
the termination of my employment.
I was surprised by this finding as I did not believe, my attorney did not
believe and neutral observers throughout the hearing did not believe that
the evidence supported either finding, particularly the extreme sanction of
termination. Judge Teihl had testified on my behalf.
There were a significant number of supporters present at the meeting in
which the results were announced, primarily from the Libertarian and Green
Parties. I deeply thank those who attended in my support. No one appeared
on behalf of county agencies other than the deputy county counsel who
prosecuted the matter.
The following is a link to the closing statement which I delivered to the
Board on January 21, 2004. It was not read verbatim and portions were
modified during delivery, but the statement itself was not substantially
modified.
Word Perfect:
http://www.spielbauer.com/Closing_Statement_Final_Personnel.wpd
Word:
http://www.spielbauer.com/Closing_Statement_Final_Personnel.doc
Adobe:
http://www.spielbauer.com/Closing_Statement_Final_Personnel.pdf
The next stop will be a writ with the Superior Court and a request for a
trial de novo to set aside the findings by the board and order my
reinstatement.
Thomas
The following is the verbatim ruling issued by the Personnel Board:
February 20, 2004
On December 17, and continued on December 18 and 19, 2003 and January 14,
15, 16 and 21, 2004, Personnel Board Members Jane Hermann, Primo Ramos, and
Libby Spector heard the appeal of Thomas Spielbauer.
Mr. Spielbauer was terminated from his position as Attorney IV in the
office of the Public Defender on July 3, 2003. The charges include: making
false and misleading representations to a Judge and insubordination for
refusing to answer questions from his supervisor concerning this matter.
After careful consideration all of the evidence presented and the arguments
of counsel for both sides, the Board finds that the County has met its
burden of proof as to both grounds for discipline and also finds that the
amount of discipline imposed is appropriate. Counsel for the prevailing
party shall prepare proposed findings of fact, as was agreed by both sides
at the beginning of the hearing in this matter.