Law&Crime Sidebar - Texas Judge Accused of Punching Girlfriend, Standing on Her Neck Suspended

Episode Date: February 12, 2024

Prosecutors in Galveston, Texas have filed assault charges against a fellow member of the judicial system, 228th District Court Judge Frank Aguilar. The judge is suspended with pay while he��s under scrutiny for allegedly assaulting his girlfriend on New Years Eve. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber the possible repercussions with retired Judge Fanon Rucker.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If you’ve ever been injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. You can submit a claim in 8 clicks or less without having to leave your couch. To start your claim, visit: www.forthepeople.com/LCSidebarHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerScript Writing & Producing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that will

keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. A judge finds himself in hot water and suspended after being charged with a violent assault. Can he remain on the bench? We break it down with retired judge Phan Rucker. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. So we usually cover stories about judges presiding over criminal cases, but now we have a judge who apparently is the subject of a criminal case himself.

Yes, Harris County, Texas criminal court judge Frank Aguilar of the 228th criminal district court has been suspended for, quote, a pending criminal matter. This comes after he was charged for allegedly assaulting his girlfriend. on New Year's Eve. Now, more specifically, repeatedly punching her in the face and putting his foot on her head and chest area, some reporting indicating her neck? Yeah, yikes. Now, Aguilar was arrested for assault and bodily injury family violence.

He's currently out on a $1,500 bond. Now, as we break this down, I want to bring in the perfect guest. Yeah, definitely the perfect guest. A guest who I think is perfect always, but specifically for this subject, attorney and former judge for non-ruckers with us. He served as the Hamilton County Municipal Court in Ohio judge. Good to see you. Good to see you too, Jesse. Thanks for having me on. Of course. I apologize. I'm losing my voice, but I'm powering through it. But let's talk about this. So, such a fascinating case. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct said that this was a pending criminal matter.

And under Rule 15A, any judge can be suspended from office with or without pay. he's being with pay by this commission quote for immediately upon being indicted by a state or federal grand jury for a felony offense or charged with a misdemeanor involving official misconduct what are your thoughts on this well you know it's interesting quite a few things are interesting about it first of all the fact that the irony that this is a criminal court judge who is now who specifically does the uh who specifically presides over criminal cases is now the subject of his own criminal case, you know, every state has different rules when it comes to judicial conduct. Certainly Ohio has hours, and if you travel through different states, there are

some consistencies, but there are also some particulars that certain states have. I had never seen where the rules specifically state the particulars that if a judge is indicted for a felony or if there are certain types of misdemeanors that they can be and will be removed or suspended with the without pay. That certainly is not the case here in Ohio. So it's interesting that Texas, with the foresight they have of how their judges should behave in office, decided that that is an appropriate rule, and they actually enforced it here. It brings up some interesting questions about how they decide. That's so interesting. So you're saying in Ohio, a judge could be arrested, could be charged, but as long as the case hasn't been adjudicated, as long as they

haven't been convicted, they can remain on the bench in Ohio? Absolutely correct. And that's why it brings up a few interesting questions. The judge is presumed, of course, as every other citizen innocent unless and until proven guilty. But what the law and the rules there allow for is for the removal of this judge with pay based on a presumption of that innocence, based on an allegation. Before the person is actually even found guilty, or although if you're indicted, I suppose that there's been established that they were. is in fact probable cause, meaning that something happened, it's likely that something happened such that the case can move forward. But it's an interesting argument of the consequences simply based on an allegation made by

somebody else. Well, apparently, he might have a way to stay on the bench because the rules say that he has a right to a post-suspension hearing to prove that he can continue to serve and will not jeopardize the interest of any parties and court proceedings that he's presiding over, nor will it impair public confidence. how would he be able to show that at a hearing like that? Yeah. Well, you know, it's a question of due process.

You cannot deprive someone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. And so the argument that the state bar has the ability, the Supreme Court there has the ability to suspend him with or without pay, well, there has to be some type of process in place to challenge that. What, for example, is as, you know, has happened in some. sometimes the person making the allegation has malicious intent, and that can be shown early on in the process. Or what if the process takes an in an orderly long period of time, and the judge is suspended without paid during that time? So it's important that there is a process where that can be

challenged. What does he need to show in order to be able to resume the bench? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing it'll be something to the effect of this didn't happen, or this was a a family dispute that perhaps will be resolved without consequence or without punishment, such that no question of the administration of justice will be legitimately raised. There's a number of things I think that can be shown, but I'm sure that the disciplinary committee will be looking into his background, looking in the prior complaints possibly against the judge, to find out how likely it is that this actually occurred,

and the impact of such a conviction. or even an allegation on someone who holds the public trust in the way that this judge does. I'm going to get to that his past in a minute before I do at the beginning of the month, the Harris County prosecutors, they filed documents that they wanted him to recuse himself from at least seven domestic violence cases that were pending before him. He refused and didn't feel that that was appropriate. I mean, maybe it's the type of cases that he should be able to preside over. Maybe he shouldn't preside over domestic violence cases, but should be able to preside over other kinds of cases.

What are your thoughts on that? The fact that he was fighting back and says, no, I should be able to hear these kinds of cases. Yeah, so both sides have a legitimate reason to argue their positions. The prosecutor has a legitimate reason to argue that here is someone who presides over these types of cases. we believe in the strongest possible sense with the evidence that we've seen that he has, in fact, committed the type of offense that he's presiding over and it's just not appropriate. So we're going to push the envelope to say we're convinced that he committed these types of offenses and we're so sure about it that we're saying that he shouldn't even be able to preside over these.

That's a strong prosecutor position. Well, the judge has a strong position and saying, no, number one, I didn't do this. I'm not guilty until proven so by the state, but more importantly, I have the ability to be fair and unbiased and all that I do. I've been doing that up until now. And so I'm going to tell you right now, despite what I'm charged with, despite what I'm alleged to have engaged in, I can and should be able to preside over all the kind of cases that come before me between now and the time that I'm no longer a judge. He has to argue that rather than acquiesce, because in acquiescence, it would be to many and publicly an acknowledgement of some amount

of guilt on his end. See, the thing for the way I think about it is in terms of the public confidence in his being able to preside over these cases and also the ability for defense attorneys down the line to use this as an issue for him to be removed. Why do I say that? Because, you know, the reporting indicates that this suspension is in place until his case is dropped or he's acquitted. But for me, even if that were to happen, I would.

wonder if he can even remain on the bench because he apparently was reportedly charged but found not guilty of attacking another girlfriend back in 2010 when he was a Carras County magistrate. So now you're seeing what could be alleged repeated patterns of this. And I just feel that for the public confidence and the ability of defense attorneys to perhaps make this an issue for him to recuse himself in other cases, that even if he's acquitted or even if the case is dropped, how does he stay on? And I know we're kind of beating the Bush here with this, and you've made excellent points about due process,

but you see my concern? Of course. But ultimately, when we're talking about positions like this judge held and positions like I held until I retire, that is the public is our employer. It's the votes that people cast that make the decision, ultimately, whether they think that I'm fit

or appropriate to stay in a particular position. He apparently was elected or appointed by some neutral body to that position after the initial allegation. And I don't know this judge's term, but again, whoever is running against him, I would presume, would not let the voting population forget that these indications of smoke may point to some fire that may be burning with this judge. that he is not appropriate to be in this position. But the public confidence that the Supreme Court is focused on

is not so much about the individual confidence, excuse me, individual whom they may or may not have confidence in, but the entirety of the judicial system. And although that is most certainly a very important focus of the court, it's tough to measure when you're talking about the public being able to vote someone in or out, based on what people know that they're engaged in,

that may be salacious or may not be appropriate for many people to support them. Talking all of this law, by the way, let me just take a minute to talk to you about our incredible sponsor here on Sidebar, Morgan and Morgan, which is actually the largest personal injury law firm in America. I like talking about Morgan and Morgan because not all law firms are the same. And Morgan and Morgan, what they have done is they have taken a really complicated legal process and completely modernized it for their clients. From submitting your claim to signing contracts, to talking to your legal team,

they make it possible for you to do all of this right on your smartphone. You can see if you have a case in just a few minutes. And when I say case, I'm talking about how your injury could be worth millions. That's because Morgan and Morgan doesn't settle for lowball offers. In the past couple of months, Morgan and Morgan saw verdicts of $12 million in Florida, $6.8 million in New York, and $26 million. in Philadelphia. Now, mind you, this is considerably higher than the highest insurance offers for these accidents. It's important to take action to protect your rights. And also, get this,

the fee is absolutely free unless you win. So to start your claim now with Morgan and Morgan, go to for the people.com slash LC sidebar or click the link in the description and pinned in the comments. If he is convicted or if he pleads guilty, is that mean his time on the bench is over? Interesting. Not necessarily. You know, certain states, again, have certain prohibitions on the ability of individuals to run for or to hold office depending on the types of conviction that they have. Every state does not preclude people who have felony convictions from participating in office. Every state does not require a clean record for someone to be a judge or even a practice law. If in Texas, He has to prove that he is worthy to continue to represent the public in this capacity because, you know, lawyers and judges have an obligation to uphold the administration of justice and to avoid conflicts of interest and those types of things. The conviction itself is not a rubber stamp reason that he would be removed. there still has to be a showing by the Supreme Court or whoever brings the complaints against him that, in fact, he has violated some of the rules of professional conduct or judicial rules of conduct

that, in fact, prohibit him from serving in that capacity, but it's not automatic. I just, if he gets convicted or takes a deal, in my opinion, I don't see a scenario where he stays. You could be right, but I just don't see it. And by the way, what makes this even more complicated is this. District, the 228th District Court, it is handling this very big local criminal case regarding a raid in which police killed two residents. Several officers were injured. It's been pending for the last five years. It still hasn't gone to trial. I wonder what this development would do to a case as high profile as that. Well, what we heard is that he resides over criminal

cases. And so presumably he would not be involved. Now, what the question would be is, whether any of the officers involved in his case have some involvement in that larger case. Because, you know, if we're talking about, you know, questionable actions by law enforcement, it's not just that their actions and that their procedures are criticized in the case before the court. If the attorneys are good in what they do and critical in what they do, they're looking at all of the cases that those officers involved in to find some reason that they were inappropriate or not not following procedures. And so if somehow the police officers involved in his case have some involvement in that very high profile case,

it could open doors and questions and comments and considerations for more than just the case that they're involved in very publicly. That's such a good point. It's such a good point because even taking that case away, the officers that arrested him, if they turn out to be witnesses in a case that he's presiding over, I feel like he's got to recuse himself. Under those circumstances, that's right. You know, as judges, we are criticized, not criticized, we are discouraged from simply recusing ourselves

if a defense attorney or if a prosecutor says, hey, we want you to recuse yourself. It's supposed to be a pretty careful point of introspection to decide if we believe we can, in fact, be fair and unbiased in our position on the case. And 99% of the time, judge is going to fall in the area saying, yes, I can be fair and unbiased, no matter what may be some of the issues here. But in cases like that, you have to, you have to be logical and say,

yeah, this officer put me in handcuffs. I probably shouldn't hear a case where there's going to be a cross-examination and a question of this officer's credibility. I'm still pretty mad at him for that. Yeah, yeah. Well, you know who there's no issues of bias or issues of problematic behavior or issues of any kind of conflicts, former Judge Fonan Rucker. This is the standard, everybody. This is the standard. We're all trying to get to that level.

Thank you so much for coming on, sir. I really appreciate it. Thank you so much, Jesse. That's all we have for you here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. And please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcast.

I'm Jesse Weber. Speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this law and crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.