Tulsa World: Case against District Judge Harris dismissed

MAKE US YOUR HOMEPAGE | Saturday, November 21, 2009 | WIRELESS

Home > News > Article

Comment

RSS

Bookmark

Case against District Judge Harris dismissed

Tulsa County District Judge Jesse Harris makes his way into court Oct. 2, 2008. An indecent exposure charge was dismissed Monday against Harris. MIKE SIMONS/Tulsa World

By BILL BRAUN World Staff Writer
Published: 6/15/2009 10:11 AM
Last Modified: 6/15/2009 9:12 PM

Document: Read the agreement of deferred prosecution between Jesse Harris and the District Attorney.

Document: Read the dismissal motion in the Jesse Harris case.

At a prosecutor’s request, an indecent exposure charge was dismissed Monday against Tulsa County District Judge Jesse Harris.

Washington County District Attorney Rick Esser requested that the felony case be dismissed “for the reason that after review of all evidence it is in the best interest of justice,” records show.

Pursuant to a request by the Tulsa World under the state Open Records Act, a document obtained from the Washington County District Attorney’s Office indicates that Harris, 54, entered into a “deferred prosecution” agreement with Esser’s office.

That agreement — signed by Harris, Esser and two defense attorneys — states that “the accused” admits that he committed the offense of gross injury of the public peace, a misdemeanor.

The District Attorney asserts that his office has sufficient evidence to charge Harris with the misdemeanor offense of “willfully and wrongfully committing an act that was grossly injurious to public peace at the Extended Stay Motel” in the 8200 block of East Skelly Drive on March 9, 2008.

Harris’ trial on an indecent exposure charge had been scheduled to begin Monday. Following a brief court proceeding, defense lawyers Joel Wohlgemuth and Allen Smallwood declined to comment on the resolution. Efforts to obtain comment from Harris were unsuccessful.

The indecent exposure case was dismissed by Creek County District Judge Joe Sam Vassar without prejudice, which means by law it could be refiled.

The deferred prosecution agreement requires Harris to pay $1,200 in reimbursement for witness travel expenses incurred by the District Attorney’s Office.

It requires him to complete a “Judges Helping Judges” program, which is a program that addresses problems involving judges.

Under the deferred prosecution agreement, the District Attorney’s Office agrees to defer or delay the filing of a gross-injury misdemeanor charge for one year and will not file any charge if Harris complies with the agreement. If Harris did not comply with the agreement, the misdemeanor charge can be filed.

Harris has previously denied accusations that he indecently exposed his genitals in March 2008 to two women in a parking lot outside the hotel on Skelly Drive.

Harris was released on his own recognizance after being charged in April 2008 by Esser, who was appointed by the state Attorney General’s Office to handle prosecutorial duties in the case.

State Supreme Court Chief Justice James Edmondson assigned Vassar to conduct a trial. Harris, who presided over a felony docket prior to being charged, has continued to handle judicial duties, but in a different area of the law. He works in the Probate Division, where cases involve wills, trusts, estates and guardianships.

Register for Latest News Alerts: Every day at 4 p.m, get the day's top headlines sent directly to your inbox. It's free and easy to set up. Already a registered user? Click here to visit your profile to sign up. For new registration, click here.

By BILL BRAUN World Staff Writer

Comment

RSS

Bookmark

Reader Comments

Reader comments for this story have been moved to the most updated version of the story, now under the headline "Case against judge dismissed," which was published on 6/16/2009. So far, 135 comments have been made.