[don-o]

Is it pretty much a sure thing that Peterson will preside at the Examining Trial? Is Broden without any recourse?

[Cboldt]

I doubt Petersen will preside over the examining trial. My primary point in this series of posts is that today's hearing doesn't decide Petersen's recusal, no matter what, if anything, comes out of it. If Petersen refuses to recuse himself, Broden will likely appeal that decision - to a court, not the Commission. I think it is more likely than not that Petersen will recuse himself.

[Cboldt]

Retired State District Judge Joe Carroll granted the motion for recusal filed by Clendennen's attorney, F. Clinton Broden.

That effectively removes Peterson from hearing any further issues in Clendennen's case, including an examining trial on probable cause for Clendennen's arrest on May 17, the day nine bikers were killed and 20 others injured in a gang gunfight at the restaurant.

Carroll will send his ruling to the regional administrative judge, Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield, in Georgetown, who will decide who should preside over Clendennen's examining hearing next month.

Judge Removes Local JP From Twin Peaks Case - kwtx.com - Paul J. Gately - July 23, 2015

[Cboldt]

My previous remarks (not the fact of recusal, but to the nature of the hearing) was based on a line in a news report. Seems the news reports are conflicting.

Joe Carroll, Senior Judge of the 27th Judicial District Court

vs.

The complaint, filed with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct

Both lines appear in a Waco Trib article, and one or the other controls the nature of the hearing and the possible outcomes. So, my remarks on this thread are in light of a hearing before the Commission, which is not the same as a hearing before the 27th Judicial District Court. Hearings in court are public, court decisions CAN result in recusal.

Just explaining why most of my remarks in this thread are irrelevant to the hearing that took place this morning.