State bar: 'Just cause' to think prosecutor Charles Sebesta commited misconduct

Charles Sebesta, the former Burleson County District Attorney who withheld evidence in Anthony Graves' 1994 capital murder case, may finally face disciplinary action by the state bar. But regrettably proceedings will be held in secret. Here's Texas Monthly's Pam Colloff describing the latest development:

It’s been eight years since the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the DA who prosecuted Anthony Graves for capital murder had done something unconscionable : withheld favorable evidence and used false testimony to secure a conviction—a conviction that sent Graves to death row.

Since that federal ruling came down in 2006, granting Graves a retrial, many good things have happened: Anthony was freed from prison in 2010, after all charges against him were dropped; he was formally exonerated by the State of Texas; and he received $1.4 million in compensation for the eighteen years he spent in prison for a crime he did not commit. But the man who secured his 1994 conviction—former Burleson County DA Charles Sebesta— never faced any consequences.  The state bar took no action against him. Even when he continued to impugn Graves’ character, telling Texas newspapers as recently as this January that Graves was guilty of murder,  he did so with impunity.

Finally, last week—twenty years after Graves’ wrongful conviction—the bar took a small but significant step toward ensuring that Sebesta would have to answer for his actions. The bar’s chief disciplinary counsel determined that there was “just cause” to believe that the former prosecutor had engaged in misconduct in Graves’ case. This finding followed a lengthy investigation, which the bar conducted after Graves brought a grievance against Sebesta this March. (Graves was only able to do so because lawmakers recently passed Senate Bill 825, which changed the existing statute of limitations, allowing exonereees to file such grievances with the bar up to four years after their release from prison.)

A legal proceeding will now follow, in which the bar will decide whether or not to dismiss the grievance, or sanction Sebesta. If the bar decides to sanction him, he could receive a punishment as light as a reprimand—essentially a slap on the wrist—or as severe as disbarment.

Though Sebesta has always put great stock in trying people before the court of public opinion—to this day, he continues to insinuate on his website that Graves is a murderer —he has asked that the bar hear his case in a confidential proceeding, rather in than open court. (The bar allows attorneys who are the subject of such grievances to choose whether they will have their cases heard in a district court before a judge or jury, or privately, before a panel of lawyers who serve on the bar’s grievance committee.) “His conduct against Anthony Graves was in a public proceeding and he continues to make public attacks on Mr. Graves,”  said Kathryn Kase, executive director of the Texas Defender Service, a non-profit organization that represents Graves, along with attorneys in the Houston law firm Susman Godfrey. “He should defend his conduct in a public proceeding, for all to see.”

There’s no word yet on when the bar will make its determination about Sebesta. Whether or not the bar will take action at all still remains to be seen. Except for the recent disbarrment of Ken Anderson, the ex-Williamson County D.A. who prosecuted Michael Morton,  the bar’s track record for disciplining prosecutors has been abysmal. From 2004 to 2012, in 91 criminal cases in which the courts decided that Texas prosecutors had committed misconduct, not a single prosecutor was ever disciplined.

For a long time, Sebesta has claimed that the state bar's prior failure to discipline him meant he'd done nothing wrong. (E.g., "Had I withheld evidence in the Graves Trial, ‘sanctions’ would and should have been appropriate. But that did not happen and the State Bar of Texas obviously agreed with their dismissal of the grievance!") But the bar's stated reason for failing to take action was a four-year statute of limitations on older cases. Then, Sen. John Whitmire's SB 825, passed last year, changing the statute of limitations for bar complaints related to withholding exculpatory evidence. Now, exonerees have up to four years after their release to file a complaint, which is the provision that placed Mr. Sebesta in the crosshairs.

Grits would love to have been a fly on the wall when Sebesta received the news about the state bar's latest action. I bet the old man was apoplectic. But I wish the former prosecutor had opted for a public jury trial instead of hashing it out in secret. Charles Sebesta never hesitated to go public with his various allegations and insinuations about Anthony Graves, and what's good for the goose ...

MORE: Find below the jump a press release from the Texas Defender Service on the topic, including a statement from Anthony Graves:

Rare self defense finding by grand jury in no-knock raid resulting in deputy's death

A Burleson County grand jury ruled Henry Magee acted in self defense when he shot and killed a Sheriff's deputy during a SWAT raid on his home based on an informant's misinformed testimony. Turned out, he had a pair of six-inch pot plants in the house, not the large-scale grow the informant had claimed. He will still be prosecuted on drug and weapons charges, says the local DA. See Radley Balko for more.

The episode may portend changes both in public perceptions about personal use levels of marijuana as well as unjustified deployment of no-knock raids. The Bryan College Station Eagle's editorial board called the grand jury "courageous" for their decision, opining that "there was no reason to employ a no-knock warrant on the home of Hank Magee. Officers could have knocked and waited for him to answer. They could have waited until he left his home. There was no advantage in not waiting, in not knocking."