Defense attorney Leroy Davies is seeking to prevent District Attorney Jon Alexander from prosecuting six of Davies’ cases.
Davies filed motions to recuse Alexander in the cases, claiming that he does not receive fair treatment from Alexander after being banned from entering any area of the District Attorney’s Office except for the public lobby, according to court documents.
A hearing was held about the motions Friday and the documents from Davies and Alexander were submitted to Judge Chris Doehle, who has yet to render a decision.
In November, an e-mail was sent to all of the DA’s staff members informing them that Davies was banned from the office.
Davies contends in court documents that not having access to the DA’s Office means he is unable to properly communicate with Alexander about his clients’ cases.
Davies claims that — save for a phone call in December — he has not communicated with Alexander since he gave a deposition in Alexander’s State Bar trial in mid-August.
In addition, Davies claims that Alexander has become unreasonable regarding plea negotiations by ordering his deputy attorneys to seek the maximum sentence. Alexander doesn’t allow his deputies to deviate from his perception of a case, nor are they allowed to negotiate a plea without his approval, the documents state.
According to Alexander’s written response, Davies was barred from the DA’s Office because of inappropriate behavior and comments, as well as a full-page advertisement Davies placed in the Triplicate on Nov. 6 — the day before he was banned from the office — that Alexander described as “attacking” him and “which disturbed and baffled many in the courthouse community and the District Attorney’s Office.”
The advertisement was a copy of a document Alexander filed to the State Bar Court regarding his trial.
Alexander also states in documents that access to the District Attorney’s Office is a “courtesy, not right, and to be respected.”
Alexander contended Davies “personal attacks” against him would not prejudice him or his deputies toward any consideration of Davies’ clients, and the DA listed several cases in which he authorized his staff to offer plea deals to Davies that were seeking less than a maximum sentence.
In his response, he also referred to the phone call they had in December stating that following it Davies apparently dissatisfied with its outcome denied all plea deals and sought that several of his cases that had preliminary hearings the following day move forward.