Tag: Kansas Supreme Court

Kansas Supreme Court Justice Carol A. Beier has announced her retirement, effective Sept. 18.

Justice Beier served on the Supreme Court since September 2003. She earlier served on the Kansas Court of Appeals for more than three years. She made her announcement early Friday morning.

“I will be ever grateful for the opportunities I have been given to spend so much of my legal career in service to my home state and its citizens,” Beier said. “Twenty years and thousands of cases since my children helped me put on my robe for the first time, I will pack it away with pride. This is possible because I can bear personal witness to the good faith and daily striving of our Kansas courts to be and remain fair and impartial guardians of the rule of law and the rights of all.”

Beier was appointed to the Supreme Court by former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and to the Court of Appeals by former Gov. Bill Graves.

Before taking the bench, she was a partner at Foulston and Siefkin law firm in Wichita and taught at the University of Kansas School of Law. She spent her first few years after law school in a private white collar criminal defense practice in Washington, D.C.; as a staff attorney at the National Women’s Law Center; and as a clerk for former federal Court of Appeals Judge James K. Logan.

Justice Beier, a native of Kansas City, Kansas, received the Distinguished Alumni Award from the KU Law School. She has a journalism and law degree from KU. Beier graduated in 1976 from Bishop Ward High School.

She is the first female graduate of the KU School of Law to serve on the high court. She was named to the KU Women’s Hall of Fame in 2012.

The voters of Kansas retained Justice Beier four times – in 2002, 2004, 2010, and 2016.

Chief Justice Marla Luckert, who has served on the Supreme Court with Beier since 2003, said Beier leaves an outstanding legacy as an appellate jurist with a steadfast dedication to the rule of law who wrote her opinions with the reader in mind.

“Her writing is always clear and easily understood, eloquent, usually accented by a memorable and clever phrase, and reflects principled reasoning,” Luckert said. “Attorneys will recall her piercing questions, quick wit, sharp intellect, and fairness and impartiality. Court employees will speak highly of her leadership, commitment to transparency, and concern for them. Most memorable is her dedication to the rule of law. She set aside her personal opinions to embrace the rule of law knowing some of her decisions would be unpopular. She will be greatly missed, and we wish her and her family well.”

Merit-based selection process

Supreme Court vacancies are filled using a merit-based nomination process that Kansans voted to add to the Kansas Constitution in 1958.

When there is a vacancy on the bench, the Supreme Court Nominating Commission reviews applications and conducts public interviews of nominees. The commission narrows the nominee pool to three names that it sends to the governor. The governor chooses one nominee to appoint.

Eligibility requirements

To be eligible, a nominee must be:
• at least 30 years old;
• a lawyer admitted to practice in Kansas and engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years, whether as a lawyer, judge, or full-time teacher at an accredited law school.

Supreme Court Nominating Commission

The Supreme Court Nominating Commission has nine members. There is one lawyer and one nonlawyer from each of the state’s four congressional districts, plus one lawyer who serves as chairperson. Nonlawyers are appointed by the governor. Lawyers are elected by other lawyers within their congressional districts. The chairperson is elected by lawyers statewide.

Selection criteria

When the Supreme Court Nominating Commission reviews nominees for justice, they look at the person’s:
• legal and judicial experience
• educational background
• character and ethics
• temperament
• service to the community
• impartiality
• respect of colleagues

Judicial conduct

Justices must follow the law and not be influenced by politics, special interest groups, public opinion, or their own personal beliefs. Justices demonstrate their accountability by following a Code of Judicial Conduct that establishes standards of ethical behavior. They also take an oath of office that includes swearing to support, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution and Kansas Constitution.

Retention elections

After a new justice serves one year on the court, he or she must stand for a retention vote in the next general election to remain in the position. If retained, the justice serves a six-year term.

The Kansas Supreme Court today reversed a restitution order against a defendant from Wyandotte County.

The court stated that the restitution plan was unworkable for Jason R. Tucker, who was sentenced to life in prison without parole after pleading guilty to capital murder charges.

According to court documents, when Tucker was sentenced in Wyandotte County District Court, the state requested restitution of $5,000 for funeral expenses of one of the victims, and $13,587.85 for medical expenses of Balza. Although the defense attorney argued the restitution plan was unworkable because Tucker would spend the rest of his life in prison, the judge in the case ordered restitution of $5,000 plus $200 for DNA tests, and court costs.

In return for pleading guilty to one count of capital murder, the death penalty was not sought against Tucker, and other charges were dropped.

In his plea agreement, according to court documents, Tucker admitted forcing his way into a residence, after which he shot and killed Jeremy Rocha, Bernadette Gosserand and Vincent Rocha. He also shot Bryan Balza in the back, according to court documents. Balza, who had a protection from abuse order against Tucker, survived and identified Tucker as the shooter. The agreed sentence was to be life without possibility of parole.

The shootings took place in May 2017 near the 1900 block of South Boeke Street in Kansas City, Kansas.

Before sentencing, the Wyandotte County District Court found Tucker was indigent based on a financial affidavit showing the defendant made $14 a month at time of arrest, according to court documents.

The Supreme Court held the restitution was unworkable because the impossibility of parole meant Tucker would not have an opportunity to earn money after release from prison.

If the sentencing court intends for the restitution to be paid while in prison, it must specifically make such an order on the record and had not done so in this case, the Supreme Court stated.

The court’s decision is at https://www.kscourts.org/KSCourts/media/KsCourts/Opinions/119242.pdf?ext=.pdf.