LA GRANDE — The Union County District Attorney’s Office filed a motion to disqualify Circuit Judge Wes Williams from overseeing any of its cases.

Oregon law allows attorneys to disqualify a judge from presiding over a case without submitting a reason. District Attorney Kelsie McDaniel, however, took the unusual step of providing a 31-page memorandum to spell out why she does not believe her office can receive a fair trial under Williams.

“It was a very thoughtful decision we didn’t take lightly,” McDaniel said. “We talked to multiple community partners and heard complaints and concerns from those partners before we filed this motion.”

McDaniel filed the motion April 6 on Oregon v. Michael R. Royal, a felony case involving the unlawful use of a weapon. McDaniel’s lengthy memo does not include the Royal case but provides examples of previous cases to support the claim that “the state cannot receive a fair and impartial trial or hearing before Judge Williams in any criminal or civil matter to which the State of Oregon, the Union County District Attorney’s Office or Kelsie J. Davis McDaniel is a named party.”

McDaniel in the memo argues there are six “general areas” that serve as the basis for the reason to sideline Williams:

• Starting criminal and civil proceedings without an attorney representing the state.

• Not complying with certain Oregon states, rules and case law.

• Not considering and complying with rights and protections for victims.

• Making legal decisions that do not keep with local standards.

• Making release decisions that do not comply with Oregon laws or local standards.

• Having a “clear alignment with and preference for defendants and their attorneys in criminal matters.”

McDaniel in the memo provided at least two examples for each area.

In one instance, according to the memo, Williams started an arraignment hearing Sept. 23, 2019, for a failure-to-appear charge without the presence of Chief Deputy District Attorney Greg Baxter, who was handling another matter at the request of Circuit Judge Thomas Powers. When Baxter appeared before Williams, the judge relayed what the defendant said, adding the district attorney’s office could not use the statements against the defendant because they came from the judge. Williams also commented the failure to appear was an honest mistake and released the defendant.

Another example cited by McDaniel claims Williams ignored a victim’s rights in a domestic violence case on Dec. 3, 2019, when he released a defendant and allowed him to have phone contact with the victim, which the memo stated is a violation of Oregon law. And earlier this year in a sex abuse case involving a 6-year-old, Williams reduced a defendant’s bail to the point he was able to get out of jail.

McDaniel listed a slew of cases to illustrate the claim Williams takes the side of the defense over the prosecution.

In one 2019 case, a La Grande man faced misdemeanor charges of menacing and disorderly conduct for starting a fight. While out on bail, according to the memo, the defendant went to a bar, drank, drove drunk and collided with two cars at Riverside Park, La Grande. The defendant pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of intoxicants, reckless driving and the original disorderly conduct charge. Williams then waived all fines except the $100 bench probation fee, the memo stated, and while Williams found the defendant violated his release, the judge discharged all the bail, stating, “I think we owe you something” in reference to the defendant being a veteran.

La Grande Police Chief Brian Harvey said he supports the motion as a local law enforcement officer.

“I’ve been hearing things from my staff who go in to testify,” Harvey said. “And they say they see improper handling of cases by a judge.”

While the motion applies to one case so far, McDaniel said her office intends to file the motion on any case Williams may oversee. Williams and anyone who disagrees with the district attorney’s claims can file against the motion and receive a hearing. The deadline to challenge is May 5.

Michelle Leonard, trial court administrator for the 10th Judicial District, which encompasses Union and Wallowa counties, said the motion has not affected case scheduling. With COVID-19 restrictions in place, the courthouse has limited cases to one courtroom and one judge per week, which means Williams will continue to oversee criminal and civil proceedings. She said it’s too early to speculate on what the motion means going forward.

But local defense attorney Jared Boyd said granting the motion would “drastically change” how the criminal justice system in the county functions.

“We are eliminating one of only two judges in the Union and Wallowa County district, and we would have to bring in visiting judges to fill that gap,” he said.

Williams cited the judiciary code of ethics in response to questions for comment, which states in part a judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary and perform the duties of the office fairly, impartially and diligently.

“I hung these words above me when I first became a judge, and I read them every day,” Williams said.