County Attorney Suspended

The Kansas Supreme Court suspended a county attorney for six months based on the following facts:

In early May 2007, certain minors attended a Greeley-area party at which beer was consumed. One minor girl, C.H., who had drunk approximately six beers, was photographed by other partygoers while she had sexual intercourse with a foreign exchange student, M.V. The amateur photographers also recorded certain minors drinking beer at the party.

Within a few days, C.H. informed her school counselor that M.V. had sexually assaulted her at the party. Law enforcement was notified. During this same time period, the Anderson County Sheriff’s office was also investigating a similar report about M.V. from a second female high school student.

Law enforcement officers obtained some of the photographs taken at the May party and forwarded them to Respondent. Respondent altered the photographs to obscure faces and certain body parts but not others. He concluded that he would not pursue prosecution of M.V. because Respondent believed the sexual conduct depicted in the photographs to have been consensual.

The Anderson County Review newspaper ran an article in early July 2007 in which it discussed Respondent’s view of the incident. The newspaper further reported that Respondent planned to show the photographs from the May party to the parents of minors who had attended.

Upon reading the article, C.H.’s mother contacted Respondent to tell him that he did not have her permission to show the photographs of her minor daughter to others. The Respondent challenged the mother, saying he did not need her permission. Thereafter, Respondent proceeded with his plan to show the photographs to several parents of minors who attended the party.

The newspaper ran a follow-up article regarding the photographs as well as an editorial written by Sandy Barnett, Executive Director of the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence. After counsel for C.H. and her mother contacted Respondent about sealing the photographs from public view, Respondent wrote a return letter, stating,

“As the photographs you refer to are evidence of criminal activity by several minors and as I cannot lawfully withhold evidence, I have allowed and will continue to allow the parents of potential respondents to view altered versions of them, in my office . . .

“. . . I further want to thank you for any future litigation that you pursue in this matter as it will inevitably generate a large amount of publicity for the issue of underage drinking, hosting of minors and the harmful effects of minors engaging in public sexual acts. I was beginning to fear that nothing would be done and that this issue would fade from the public eye.”

C.H. was subjected to public ridicule as a result of these events, and she now suffers from depression.

The attorney was found to have violated Kansas Rule 4.4 by engaging in conduct that had no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay or burden a third person as well as conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The court rejected the suggestion that his motive to discourage underage drinking or asserted conditions mitigated the misconduct:

  Counsel for Respondent argued to us that, although his client’s conduct was egregious, itarose out of a “right reason,” i.e., a zeal to end underage drinking. Counsel alsoasserted that therecord on appeal contained evidence that his client suffered from Asperger’s Syndrome, a maladythat impairs his ability to empathize with others and that his client had apologized to C.H.’smother after the disciplinary hearing concluded.

  When Respondent addressed this court, he echoed his counsel’s “right reason” argument,saying he had seen the damage underage drinking could do and thought he could “fix the world”by showing the photographs to the parents of teens depicted drinking at the party. Nevertheless,he demonstrated little understanding of how troubling his method was. Had he been one of thoseparents shown the photographs, he said, he would have been angry with himself for being a “badparent.” He also denied that he had contacted the press about his plan to display the photographsbut admitted the first story followed his mention of that plan to a reporter and another lawyerduring a Rotary meeting. He stated explicitly that he did not understand why other women andgirls who believed themselves to be victims of sex crimes might now be reluctant to report thecrimes or assist with prosecutions. Also, despite his counsel’s assertion that he had severalmentors who would guide the exercise of his prosecutorial discretion, he had not pursued anyindependent review of his decision not to prosecute in C.H.’s case. Regarding Asperger’sSyndrome, Respondent said he had been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) duringhis first year of law school and that there was a letter in the record on appeal about his condition.In addition, he took the position that his condition had worked to his advantage as a prosecutorbecause he could be dispassionate when evaluating cases.

  The letter in the record on appeal to which both Respondent and his counsel evidentlyreferred was written by Respondent’s doctor. It confirms that Respondent has a diagnosis ofADD. Beyond that, it says only: “[Campbell] also presents with other personal characteristics thathave become apparent during his years of treatment. The possible diagnosis of high functioningAutism – Asperger’s Disorder has been considered during his treatment. At this point, myprofessional medical opinion is he does not present with sufficient criteria for diagnosing thoseconditions, however, one does not need to meet the full level of intensity to make a definitivesubsymdromal diagnosis.” Counsel for Respondent, although he discussed Asperger’s Syndromein his argument, explicitly did not invoke it as a defense to the conduct in which Respondentengaged.

The comment to this post correctly notes that the conduct ran afoul of a specific Kansas statute mandating the confidentiality of the information that the attorney disclosed. (Mike Frisch)