You know the old saying: “If at first you don’t succeed, engage in openly contemptuous behavior to secure a new trial.” At least that’s how some Houston prosecutors interpret the maxim we all learned as children — but State District Judge Stacey Bond was having none of it. In a seven-page opinion, Judge Bond rips the prosecution for multiple acts designed to impugn the integrity of the court and force a mistrial after the state realized it wasn’t going to get a conviction in the trial of Dr. Robert Yetman, a Houston doctor accused of molesting a child patient.

Prosecutor Tiffany Johnson of the Harris County District Attorney’s Office provided the primary fuel for Judge Bond’s ire:

The Prosecutor’s next words to the jury were, “You see what Matthew [the Complainant] is up against.” The Prosecutor gestured broadly around the courtroom with her right arm. The Prosecutor’s tone of voice and statement to the jury inferred that the Court and the courtroom audience were biased against the Complainant.

Note that Dr. Yetman is a white dude and the victim is African-American. Johnson was arguing that the American legal system and an elected Republican judge are biased toward suspected child molesters over black kids. As Ron Burgundy told his dog Baxter, “I’m not even mad… that’s amazing.” Chutzpah indeed.

The accusation got the expected response:

The Prosecutor’s argument provoked gasps of shock and audible comments of disapproval from some members of the audience. The audience’s audible reactions were the direct result of the Prosecutor’s provocative comments. The jurors also appeared shocked or surprised by the Prosecutor’s statements. The audible reaction to the Prosecutor’s improper comments disrupted the orderly and expeditious conduct of the trial. To restore appropriate decorum in the courtroom, the Court found it necessary to admonish the audience regarding outbursts.

Judge Bond sustained the inevitable objection and considered instructing the jury to disregard the conduct, but ultimately determined that a jury instruction could not cure the harm. That’s when she sat down and looked at Johnson’s behavior throughout her closing and began to suspect foul play, determining, “After reviewing the Prosecutor’s actions throughout the trial and her behavior immediately before the Court ordered a mistrial, the Court does not believe Ms. Johnson’s statements to the jury were made in the heat of battle or were the result of Ms. Johnson having a momentary lapse in judgment.”

But that’s not all!

During its cross-examination of the Defendant, the Prosecutor, Angela Weltin, directly violated the Court’s Order granting a Motion in Limine. Despite having agreed to abide by the Court’s Order granting the Motion in Limine at a pretrial conference, Ms. Weltin violated the Court’s Order granting a Motion in Limine during her cross-examination of the Defendant. By asking the Defendant questions about whether he discussed with his co-workers the type of pornography he preferred, Ms. Weltin violated the Court’s Order granting the Motion in Limine. Ms. Weltin’s questions to the Defendant were planned, calculated, and an intentional violation of the Court’s Order granting the Motion in Limine.

Wow. Hey, innuendo is a kind of evidence.

Now if you want to contemplate something really scary, consider how many times such behavior is written off as careless bumbling. In fact, put yourself in Judge Bond’s robe and consider whether or not you’d have the fortitude to declare unequivocally that these laughable gaffes were really a contrived plot to get another bite at the apple? And that’s why prosecutors successfully subject defendants to double jeopardy more often than we’d like to think.

(Check out the whole opinion on the next page…)

Judge: Prosecutors forced mistrial to prevent acquittal in Robert Yetman case [Houston Chronicle]

Trial begins for Houston doctor accused of molesting child [Houston Chronicle]