Hang tight while we fetch the video data and transcripts. This only takes a moment.
Connecting to YouTube player…
Fetching transcript data…
We’ll display the transcript, summary, and all view options as soon as everything loads.
Next steps
Loading transcript tools…
Cocky Prosecutor Gets PUT IN HER PLACE By No-Nonsense Judge! | Audit the Court | YouTubeToText
YouTube Transcript: Cocky Prosecutor Gets PUT IN HER PLACE By No-Nonsense Judge!
Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.
Share:
Video Transcript
Video Summary
Summary
Core Theme
A procedural error in filing court documents prevented a judge from issuing warrants for defendants who failed to appear, leading to a heated exchange between the judge and the county attorney regarding accountability and prosecutorial immunity.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
At the end of the daily docket in the
Greenwood County Magistrate Court in
Eureka, Kansas, courtroom cameras
captured Judge Phyllis Webster and
County Attorney Jill Gillette discussing
several individuals who allegedly failed
to appear for their scheduled court
date. During their conversation, Judge
Phyllis discovered that a procedural
error had left her unable to take action
against the individuals who did not
appear in court and implied that the
county attorney's office may be the
source of the error. Miss Gillette's
response to Judge Webster's remarks
prompted a heated exchange that very
well could have placed her career in jeopardy.
jeopardy.
>> Tanya Sanchez,
>> we already did Sanchez.
We have a Tiana Richardson
and a Dustin Newport. I still have
>> Well, hold on. That's not what I'm
showing. What do you have uh missing?
>> I have Alfonso Caldwell and Tiana
Richardson that Newport bonded out or
no? Well, he bonded on ours and then
Line County come and got him before
>> I noticed. Okay, he was taken off the
docket. What did I do? mix up Tanya
>> And no one mentioned that I was using
the wrong name.
>> You were using the right name.
>> Well, and these are my couple that I
don't have anything com uh filed to show
that they have to be in court. I don't
have a a summons. I don't have a uniform
notice to appear issued by the officer
in the ticket. Judge, the girls filed
the ticket earlier today.
>> Okay, let me see if it's Maybe I just
need to double check. Mr. >> Cwell,
>> Cwell,
>> tickets were issued January 23rd, 25 at
209 hours. But
>> let me let me make sure they made it to
the file because I'm not seeing that. I
don't see that, Miss Gillette. And until
I can I have filed verification that
>> and not finding that. You're sure they
filed them?
>> Narleene was the one who did it for us.
>> No. Missy, do you have that where you
can look at it because I am not seeing
it filed. Maybe I need to No, I think
I've already refreshed to see if they've
been added. What was that missing?
>> I said they're not they're they're not
showing up in the case yet.
I don't know if upstairs hasn't approved
them or what's going on.
I can check.
>> Would you would you check? We'll take
just a real quick recess because I don't
have anything in the file to show they
have notice of the hearing. So, I can't
take any action for their failure to
appear without it. Judge Webster argues
that she cannot take action for the
defendants's failure to appear without
any filed evidence showing that the
defendants received notice that they
needed to appear in court. Generally,
when an individual knowingly fails to
appear for a scheduled court date,
judges have the authority to issue a
so-called bench warrant for their
arrest. For instance, section 19-4739
of the Kansas statutes authorizes judges
to site individuals charged with county
code violations who fail to appear for a
court date with contempt of court and
issue a bench warrant. However, this
statute only allows the judge to take
these actions if the defendant fails to
appear, now quoting from the statute,
after service of notice to appear.
Although we do not know the details of
the charges against the individuals who
did not appear at their court dates,
notice of the requirement to appear in
court is essential to proving that an
individual knowingly disregarded that
requirement. And it is more than
reasonable that Judge Webster refused to
take action without any evidence of this
notice in the defendant's files.
>> Arlene's going to bring the unfiled copy
upstairs, your honor, but they're they
were submitted this morning by Jessica.
>> I need the originals. You're thinking
the originals are on file somewhere or
waiting to be filed. See what Missy
finds. Maybe they'll find the originals
at the clerk.
>> What? Judge, I'm sorry. I'm back now.
>> Well, she said they'll bring up, if I
understood, Miss Gillette, right,
they're bringing up copies, but where
are the originals?
>> I I think I actually have a copy because
I was asking them today about it. So,
>> well, I need
>> I can print you off the copies that I
got sent.
>> Copies. I need I need original
documentation that these people had
notice of this hearing either in the
form of a returned summons or a citation
and I don't have one of anything to show
that they know about this hearing today.
>> Your honor, the citations, we get a
xerox of them. We don't get the
originals. The originals normally stay
either in the file with the sheriff's
office now or they go straight upstairs.
But this had to be long formed because
it's marijuana
and so
>> well even with the long form I would
accept you don't you don't have the originals
originals
you want you have you have copies. Have
those been filed with the clerk?
>> They have been filed. They didn't make
it into their file. Do you know why?
>> Well because that's the clerks.
>> Well Missy, did you check with the clerks?
Yes, I just checked with them and they
have not been they do not have them.
They're not in the the queue to approve.
>> I know they're not in the queue. I
looked through the queue. Oh, unless you
mean their Q. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> What I'm going to do now, I'm looking at
copies of tickets, and I've seen enough
tickets over the years to know these are
tickets. And they are they do appear to
be signed by the signature I know as
Blake Fischers, although I'm not a
expert in handwriting, but I am not
comfortable issuing any kind of failure
to appear warrants if there's no
documentation in the file. These are
just handcopied to or handed to me. But
once they are filed,
then I would not hesitate to issue
warrants for their failures to appear.
So, I'm going to set these two cases
over till next Tuesday. By then, I'm
sure that we'll figure out whether the
why those haven't been filed
and uh then if they're not here at that
date and time, we'll issue warrants. But
they'll have to be given notice of the
new date and time. And it looks like
they're out of Witchaw, Kansas. Yes. So,
>> if I have to issue new summones, then
it's going to be more than a week
because I have to issue them, send them
to Witchah, and have them served on
them. They have their notices to appear complaints.
complaints.
>> All right, I'll tell you what. I I you
know, I don't
>> I don't even get the original anymore.
>> I just file the copies, whatever. But
they have to be filed. Miss Gillette, I
have nothing that gives me legal
authority to issue failure to appear
warrants. I have in the file, and I'm
looking at it, a complaint,
a probable cause affidavit, a notice
that you're going to rely on KBI reports,
reports,
and that's it.
There is nothing in the file to show
legally that they have notice of this
hearing. So, I don't know where the cop
where the tickets are. I don't know why
they're not filed. I understand that
someone in your office said they gave
them to the clerk. I understand the
clerk to say they don't have them. I
don't know where they are, but I do not
have them. So, I cannot issue any kind
of a
warrant for failure to appear. In fact,
if you find them,
if you find them and get them in there
even today, we can deal with it today
rather than trying to issue summones.
Get me something I can legally use. Otherwise,
Otherwise,
>> I'll call Sheriff Samuels and ask him if
he can bring the originals out of his file.
file.
>> I'm not telling you you have to do the
originals. I'm just telling you, Miss
Gillette, I cannot legally issue a
warrant. And you know that you know I
have to have verification before I issue warrant
warrant
>> and we emailed them to your staff who
has them this morning. They were sent to
>> my secretary is not the clerk of the
district court. My secretary is not
the custodian for that
up to you. I'm not going to argue with
you. Just
>> Well, you better not.
>> We'll just take it up later. Miss
Gillette, who is the judge here?
I am not going to accept your behavior.
You're you're putting me in a position
where I'm going to have to find you in
contempt of court if you're going to act
like this.
>> I don't have the original judge. I can't
get it to you. We filed them this
morning. That's all I can tell you.
>> You are not t You are not listening to
me and you're being contemptuous.
>> The state has contempt immunity. We
already briefed this. If you would like
us to get them filed again, we will find
>> Do you have contempt immunity? Do you
have ethical immunity that you can talk
to a judge any way you want and have no
repercussions? Is this what you're saying?
saying?
>> Ms. Gilllet claims that prosecutors are
quote unquote immune from being held in
contempt of court. And Judge Webster
reminds her that she also has ethical
obligations as an attorney. As the
Supreme Court determined in the 1976
case of Imler versus Pockman, state
prosecuting attorneys acting within the
scope of their duties and initiating and
pursuing criminal prosecutions are
absolutely immune from civil lawsuits
for damages. In reaching this
conclusion, the court reasoned that
quote, "To be sure, this immunity does
leave the genuinely wrong defendant
without civil redress against a
prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest
action deprivives him of liberty. But
the alternative of qualifying a
prosecutor's immunity would disservice
the broader public interest. It would
prevent the vigorous and fearless
performance of the prosecutor's duty
that is essential to the proper
functioning of the criminal justice
system. However, immunity from civil
lawsuits, which shield prosecutors
against legislation from defendants who
believe they were wrongfully charged,
does not logically extend to protecting
prosecutors against being held in
contempt by a judge for misconduct in a
courtroom. Section 20-1203 of the Kansas
statutes grants judges the authority to
punish individuals for quote unquote
direct contempt, which section 20-1202
defines as quote contempts committed
during the sitting of the court or of a
judge at chambers in its or his
presence. There is no language limiting
this power to everyone in the courtroom
except the prosecutor. And courts have
long recognized a judge's power to hold
attorneys in contempt for their conduct.
For instance, in the 1877 case of Inray
Prior, the Supreme Court of Kansas held
that an attorney may be punished for
contempt by insulting or disrespectful
language or conduct in the presence of
the court. The court noted that quote,
"An attorney is under special
obligations to be considerate and
respectful in his conduct and
communications to a judge. He is an
officer of the court, and it is
therefore his duty to uphold its honor
and dignity. The independence of the
profession carries with it the right
freely to challenge, criticize, and
condemn all matters and things under
review and in evidence. But with this
privilege goes the corresponding
obligation of constant courtesy and
respect toward the tribunal in which the
proceedings are pending. A failure to
extend this courteous and respectful
treatment is a failure of duty. And it
may be so gross a dereliction as to
warrant the exercise of the power to
punish for contempt. Now, I could not
find any case law promoting Miss
Gilllet's assertion that prosecutors are
quote unquote immune from contempt, but
she did state that she had quote unquote
briefed the matter, which indicates that
she at least has a colorable legal
argument supporting her position. And I
would be interested in reading this
brief and learning her reasoning.
However, even if state prosecutors are
immune from contempt in Kansas, as Judge
Webster pointed out, attorneys are also
subject to certain ethical obligations
regarding their behavior in court and
may be punished for their conduct if it
violates ethical rules. According to
rule 3.5D of the Kansas Rules of
Professional Conduct, quote, "A lawyer
shall not engage in undignified or
discourteous conduct degrading to a
tribunal," referring to the court.
Therefore, Miss Gilllet's behavior
towards Judge Webster could potentially
subject her to discipline for violation
of the rules of professional conduct.
>> Judge, I will find the originals,
whoever has them, and we'll see if we
can get them to you. We will get them filed
filed
>> and we will finish this later. Miss
Gillette, at this time, Missy, it looks
like Miss Gillette has decided to remove
her from the self from the hearing. As I
said, this matter is not over and it
will not be tolerated.
But for now, we will be in recess.
>> It is unclear whether Miss Gillette
faced any disciplinary action, but she
has since appeared in court on good
terms with Judge Webster. This
interaction highlights that although
prosecutors are entitled to some degree
of judicial immunity, they are not
impervious to consequences for acting in
bad faith, and they must abide by the
procedural and administrative aspects of
the judicial system as much as anyone
else participating within it. I commend
Judge Webster for refusing to issue
warrants for citizens she didn't believe
she had the lawful authority to have
arrested. Although the judge knew that
the information Miss Gillette relayed
was likely reliable, she forced the
prosecution to fulfill their
administrative duties before proceeding
with the warrants and did not offer any
difference to the government that she
wouldn't have offered to the citizen. It
is important to note that one small
outburst does not define Ms. Gillette's
character, and nothing in this episode
is meant to suggest that she is
incompetent or unqualified to act as a
county attorney. Procedural errors are a
frustrating aspect of many jobs. And
while that doesn't necessarily excuse
Miss Gillette's outburst, it should
serve as a reminder that we've all been
there in one form or another, and none
of us are immune to having a bad day at
work. Let us know if there's a case or
courtroom interaction you'd like us to
cover in the comments below. Thank you
for watching and don't forget to
subscribe and share so we can help
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
