At today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) questioned Kevin Gafford Ritz, nominee to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, about his record.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00 quite confused about this ethics issue or issues.
00:03 So maybe you can just help me sort it out.
00:06 So I don't think I maybe understand the facts here.
00:08 So you said that you've never been subject
00:11 to an ethics complaint before, is that right?
00:13 I said, to my knowledge, never been subject
00:16 to an OPR complaint or any sort of formal complaint.
00:21 Okay, I'm looking at a letter from May 16th, 2010
00:26 to the Office of Professional Responsibility that reads,
00:29 "This letter is a formal request
00:30 "that your office investigate matters
00:31 "pertaining to the fair dealing
00:32 "and more important, honesty of assistance
00:34 "to United States Attorney Kevin Ritz."
00:36 If that letter exists, Senator,
00:37 I was unaware of it until just now.
00:40 But you're aware of the issues
00:42 surrounding the Von Rieke-Weber case,
00:44 which is the subject of this letter
00:45 asking for a formal investigation into you,
00:47 you're aware of that?
00:48 As I said, I do have some recollection of that matter.
00:51 Okay, so you were subject to a complaint.
00:55 I have the letter right here.
00:58 Let's just try to figure out what's going on in this case.
01:02 I mean, this was a case involving a public defender
01:05 who you got a plea agreement with
01:07 and then she asked to withdraw as counsel
01:10 because she said you misrepresented the situation to her
01:14 and the court granted her motion to withdraw as counsel.
01:18 That's pretty unusual, isn't it?
01:21 I mean, what's happening here?
01:23 She said that you told her that she relied
01:27 on information about the nature of the crime,
01:31 which was she was told was going to be
01:33 a marijuana trafficking offense
01:34 and then when she got the PSR,
01:37 it had a base offense level of 34
01:39 because the underlying offense was cocaine trafficking.
01:42 So she had advised her client
01:43 based on your representations,
01:45 here's what you're gonna be likely subject to.
01:48 They accepted the plea deal.
01:49 She looks at the PSR and it's something very different,
01:53 she says, than what you told her.
01:54 Now, this is a public defender now.
01:56 And so on that basis, she had to withdraw as counsel
01:58 and the court granted her request.
02:00 That's very unusual.
02:03 I mean, what happened here?
02:05 - Senator, first of all,
02:06 I believe it was not a public defender,
02:08 it was a defense attorney on the CJA panel
02:10 in West Tennessee.
02:11 There was a written plea agreement that was entered into.
02:16 That written plea agreement,
02:17 as with all of our plea agreements,
02:18 includes a provision that says,
02:20 these are all of the promises made
02:22 to this defendant by the government.
02:23 - Yeah, but then neither the indictment
02:25 nor the change of plea transcript
02:27 nor that agreement says anything about the underlying crime.
02:31 It just says, funds were the proceeds
02:34 of distributing controlled substances
02:35 without any specification of the alleged illegal narcotics.
02:38 So what she says is, you sandbagged her, basically.
02:43 - And that's not true.
02:44 I made no such promise along those lines.
02:46 - But was there any indication before the PSR
02:49 that you were gonna hit this guy with a cocaine?
02:51 I mean, this is unusual.
02:52 It's unusual to have, to be a Democrat administration,
02:57 nominate somebody who is accused of,
03:00 who's hated by federal public defenders
03:02 and who's accused of sandbagging indigent defendants.
03:05 So I'm baffled by this.
03:08 I'm truly, like, I am totally baffled by this.
03:10 So I'm trying to figure out what in the world happened.
03:12 And then you got taken off this case, I think, right?
03:15 - My recollection, Senator,
03:17 is that the office had someone else handle it
03:20 in case I needed to be a witness at a proceeding.
03:23 - Well, here's what Vivian Donelson,
03:25 who is the counsel who ended up
03:27 representing the United States,
03:28 at Ms. Chastain's motion to withdraw as counsel,
03:30 here's what she said,
03:31 "These allegations about you are serious.
03:34 "That's one of the reasons I am here," meaning in court,
03:37 "and Mr. Ritz will more than likely be taken off this case
03:40 "because of these particular allegations."
03:42 So did that happen?
03:43 - And again, I believe it was in case
03:45 I needed to be a witness, but those allegations--
03:47 - This is what your supervisor said in open court.
03:49 I'm not quoting you now a private letter.
03:51 I'm quoting you something from open court.
03:52 She says you were removed from the case
03:54 because of the allegations,
03:55 which she says were very serious.
03:57 Now, you've represented this committee.
03:58 You knew nothing about all of this.
04:00 You answered a question in the committee questionnaire
04:03 that you weren't aware of any complaint.
04:05 You weren't aware of any disciplinary committee.
04:08 You weren't aware of any inquiry ever, ever.
04:10 But yet, I'm reading you a transcript from open court
04:14 in which your supervising attorney says
04:15 the allegations against you are very serious
04:17 and you're gonna be removed.
04:18 So I have to tell you, I don't think it's,
04:19 I'm trying to figure out what in the world is going on here
04:22 'cause it doesn't sound to me
04:23 like you've been very forthcoming,
04:24 certainly to this committee.
04:25 So what happened?
04:26 Were you removed because of the allegations
04:29 of improper behavior?
04:31 - The allegations were false, first of all.
04:33 - I'm not asking you about your view.
04:35 I'm asking you about what you told the court
04:37 and what your supervising attorney told the court.
04:40 - And I don't recall exactly why
04:43 there may have been a change in counsel.
04:45 - Mr. Ritz, don't you think you'd wanna,
04:46 I mean, don't you think that's kind of
04:47 important information?
04:48 - These allegations were false
04:51 and there was never a finding.
04:52 - You have a clear memory of that,
04:53 but you don't have a clear memory
04:55 of what happened in open court
04:56 and you being potentially removed
04:58 by your supervising attorney.
04:59 This is very bizarre, I have to say.
05:01 I've never seen it quite like this.
05:03 This is very, very strange.
05:05 And I just noticed that we have a sudden instance
05:08 of amnesia any time we're dealing
05:10 with the actual ethical complaint,
05:11 but you seem to remember the case exceptionally well.
05:14 So I just, this troubles me and it's strange.
05:19 It's very, very strange.
05:20 Maybe my Democrat colleagues can clear this up.
05:22 I'm sure they've vetted you.
05:24 I just, this is very, very odd.
05:27 So your testimony is you weren't removed,
05:30 all of this was false, you were never investigated,
05:33 and this is what, this just all went away?
05:37 - There was certainly no court finding
05:38 or any other finding by an investigative body
05:41 of any unethical behavior.
05:43 - I thought the court allowed this defendant
05:45 to change his guilty plea.
05:46 He pled guilty and then the court allowed him to withdraw it.
05:48 That's also very unusual.
05:51 - It does happen from time to time, Senator.
05:53 - On the basis of your misrepresentations.
05:55 - That was not the finding of the court.
05:57 - Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
06:00 - Senator Whitehouse.
06:02 - Welcome to the committee, Mr. Ritz.
06:06 - Thank you, Senator.
06:07 (audience laughing)