Will Hill County’s former prosecutor be a prisoner in her own home?
The idea that Jessica Cole-Hodgkison may serve jail time became increasingly plausible when the county sheriff took the stand this afternoon in Justice Court. Sheriff Jamie Ross testified about taxpayer cost and the specifics of the burdensome task of keeping her safe from inmates who were prosecuted by her.
Hill County Sheriff Jamie Ross testifies about the cost and burden of jailing a former prosecutor. // Paul Dragu, photo
The Hill County Detention Center was definitely out of the question, Ross testified. The chances she’ll run into someone she’s prosecuted are good. Fort Benton was not an option either, as some inmates who go through Hill County courts are sometimes transported there. Gallatin County, the sheriff said, would probably be a better option. However, there would probably be additional costs on top of the usual, the sheriff said, related to boarding her dog. Her dog’s sudden illness, Cole-Hodgkinson had said during the hour and a half summary proceeding hearing, was the reason she missed three hearings in Justice Court.
In the end, Justice of the Peace Judge Audrey Barger decided the best route — for taxpayers and Cole-Hodgkinson’s safety — was to impose six days of house arrest, during which she would wear a tracking bracelet, for three counts of contempt of court. She also fined the former prosecutor $1,500 and barred her from practicing law in her court for a year, unless she was representing herself.
Cole-Hodgkinson, who “respectfully” told the judge that she disagrees with her take on the law, said she going to file a writ of review of her sentence and fine. The review would be most likely filed in District Court, where it will be up to Judge Daniel Boucher.
Boucher had also ordered Cole-Hodgkinson to appear in his court for missing deadlines and hearings before he vacated the show cause hearings in his court Wednesday. He had declined to comment on why.
Cole-Hodgkinson’s 19-month tenure as county attorney was rife with controversy and the fodder of much bad publicity. Her official resignation was effective July 30. According to the Voluntary Resignation Agreement between her and the county commissioners, obtained by The Havre Herald Friday, she received over $49,000 — through the duration of her term Dec. 31 — to resign. The agreement says Cole-Hodgkinson and county officials had a falling out and the agreement’s purpose was to “induce” her to resign.
The purpose of today’s hearing, Barger repeatedly emphasized, essentially came down to her absence: “The reason this is an issue in this court is because you didn’t show up,” Barger said. There was no excuse, she would say later, why those hearings shouldn’t have happened. Cole-Hodgkinson could’ve arranged for a replacement prosecutor or filed for a continuance, but she didn’t. Not knowing is not an excuse.
Cole-Hodgkinson did not show up to hearings July 16, 18 and 25. Then-Deputy Attorney Karen Alley — who has since been sworn in as the new county attorney — could not prosecute in the hearings because of a conflict of interest related to her time at the Regional Office of Public Defender.
Cole-Hodgkinson’s defense centered on two major points: Justice Court had been almost exclusively handled by Alley; and that she didn’t know she was needed. Barger later deemed that latter point “not credible.” Alley, Barger said during the hearing, notified Cole-Hodgkinson that she couldn’t work those cases because of a conflict of interest.
Cole-Hodgkinson defended her ignorance of the hearings by reading a litany of text messages and emails, going back months, between her, Alley and defense lawyers. The point was to build up a case that a “pattern of communication” between her and Alley and others working on cases had been established and was working for months. Cole-Hodgkinson read messages aloud for minutes. Some of the messages were correspondences about cases. Some of the others were them talking about feeling bad and going home early, being burned out, or dreading the next day’s large workload.
One of the messages Cole-Hodgkinson read was Alley saying July 16 that “court went fine.” July 16 was the day of a preliminary hearing for Theodore E. Bear, which included a felony charge of a fourth or subsequent driving under the influence (the case was dismissed without prejudice, which means the charges can be refiled). If she couldn’t have handled the hearing, why did Alley say that court went fine, Cole-Hodgkinson rhetorically asked. That’s the last time she had heard from Alley.
Alley commented later: “Hill County Attorney’s Office has a conflict of interest policy in place to prevent me from appearing in cases where I had a conflict of interest. Employees were informed and aware of that policy and it was effective July 3, 2017.”
Judge Audrey Barger listens as Cole-Hodgkinson defends herself and says why she shouldn’t be held in contempt.
On July 15, her dog suddenly became ill, Cole-Hodgkinson testified. “I had to take care of my dog. He’s a service dog. … He’s a companion,” she said. The dog had a seizure that tuned into cardiac arrest.
Had she known she had to be in court, she said, she would’ve taken steps to make sure she was there.
“I had no reason to slight this court,” Cole-Hodgkinson said.
Near the end of the hearing, Cole-Hodgkinson backed off a little about having shown up no matter what. If she couldn’t have arranged a replacement or gotten a continuance, she probably still would not have shown up to court, she said, reiterating how important her dog is.
Her own health, Cole-Hodgkinson said, had also been “unreliable.” She specifically mentioned spiking blood pressure and “cardiac arrhythmia.” She said it was the reason she resigned — her conditions and too many elements beyond her control. Barger would later say she should have resigned earlier if everything was too much to handle.
Throughout the hearing, Cole-Hodgkinson maintained she had taken responsibility for her actions. She understood Barger’s frustration, she said. “I accept responsibility for the inconvenience of the court.” But she never strayed from her stance that the hearings could’ve and should’ve been done without her. Her office was full of grown-ups. They could’ve and should’ve handled the matter. She took responsibility by relying on Alley to let her know what she needed, she told Barger. Barger would later tell Cole-Hodgkinson that she too should have behaved like an adult during her tenure.
“It was your responsibility to know about these hearings,” Barger said. “I was at those hearings and you were not. That’s all there is.
“Your behavior … was unacceptable to the court.”
Now it’s up to Boucher, who will soon find an appeal on his desk.
Montana law on the appeal process: “3-1-523. Judgment and orders in contempt cases final — family law exception. (1) The judgment and orders of the court or judge made in cases of contempt are final and conclusive. Except as provided in subsection (2), there is no appeal, but the action of a district court or judge can be reviewed on a writ of certiorari by the supreme court or a justice of the supreme court and the action of a justice of the peace or other court of limited jurisdiction can be reviewed by the district court or judge of the county in which the justice or judge of the court of limited jurisdiction resides.”
Cole-Hodgkinson looks at her cellphone during recess. // Paul Dragu, photo
- More