State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Miller
2013 OK 49
| Okla. | 2013Background
- In 1998 a drive-by shooting killed Shauna Farrow; Derrick Smith (survivor) was the State's key, but inconsistent, witness. Two defendants (Douglas and Powell) were tried separately, convicted, and sentenced to death; those convictions were later reversed by the 10th Circuit in Douglas v. Workman for prosecutorial misconduct.
- The Oklahoma Bar Association filed disciplinary charges in 2011 against Assistant District Attorney Robert B. Miller alleging multiple Rules of Professional Conduct violations arising from his role in the prosecutions. The PRT conducted a 14-day hearing and recommended a one-year suspension plus full costs.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court conducted de novo review of the record, independently evaluated the evidence (did not adopt federal court findings as binding), and considered whether the conduct warranted attorney discipline under Oklahoma rules.
- The Court found mixed results: it did not find clear-and-convincing evidence for some allegations (notably an undisclosed explicit deal with Smith or eliciting false testimony), but found violations for subpoena abuse of minors, failures to disclose exculpatory/impeachment information, and obstruction/timely-disclosure breaches.
- The Court imposed a 180-day suspension and ordered partial costs ($12,834), reducing the PRT’s recommended one-year suspension and full costs partly because the conduct occurred decades earlier, Miller’s cooperation, and no prior discipline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Miller cut or engender an undisclosed deal with witness Derrick Smith and elicit/use false testimony? | OBA: Miller promised assistance to Smith in exchange for testimony and failed to disclose, amounting to eliciting false testimony and misconduct. | Miller: No clear proof of an express deal; Smith is not credible; federal findings not binding; no clear-and-convincing evidence of eliciting false testimony. | Court: No clear-and-convincing proof of an express deal or eliciting false testimony; Count I not sustained. |
| Did Miller abuse processes in dealing with minor witnesses (Laster sisters) by using fake subpoenas/warrants and failing to secure counsel/parental notification? | OBA: Miller coerced minors, misused subpoenas/writs, and violated duties to unrepresented persons. | Miller: Actions occurred years ago under office policies/supervision; disputed specifics and credibility of recantations. | Court: Clear-and-convincing evidence of subpoena/writ abuse and failure to protect minors’ rights; Rule 8.4(d) violation sustained for Count II. |
| Did Miller fail to disclose impeachment/exculpatory evidence (Greer interview and other material) to defense (Brady/Rule 3.8(d))? | OBA: Miller withheld impeachment/exculpatory information about the suspect vehicle and witness statements. | Miller: Some file notes and open-file policy may have put defense on notice; extent of nondisclosure unclear. | Court: Miller failed to expressly disclose Greer interview and related impeachment information; Rule 3.8(d) violation sustained for Count III. |
| What discipline is appropriate for proven misconduct? | OBA: One-year suspension and payment of full costs ($~61,920). | Miller: Discipline should reflect time elapsed, lack of prior sanctions, cooperation, and comparative precedents — less than one year. | Court: 180-day suspension and partial costs ($12,834, payable in three installments). |
Key Cases Cited
- Douglas v. Workman, 560 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2009) (federal reversal of convictions based on prosecutorial misconduct)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Bolton, 904 P.2d 597 (Okla. 1995) (standards for attorney discipline and court supervisory role)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Downes, 121 P.3d 1058 (Okla. 2005) (OBA's role as aid to the Court in disciplinary matters)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Rennie, 945 P.2d 494 (Okla. 1997) (comparative disciplinary analysis and precedents for suspension)