Menu
Ewing v. Dunfield and Bickel
Lynn Ewing III is making some strong accusations against local attorney Dustin Dunfield and Judge James Bickel, concerning a case filed by Dunfield and presided over by Bickel on Aug. 16, in Nevada.
"Judge Bickel improperly sealed and opened the case file," said Ewing. "He did not recuse himself from this case as he had in two previous cases filed by Dunfield on the same matter. And in his decision, he did what the judges in the two previous cases said could not be done, that is, he set aside Dunfield's 1996 guilty plea to felony statutory rape."
"It was all triggered by Mr. Dunfield's filing of a false declaration of candidacy in 2014," said Ewing. "If he hadn't done that, none of what he did before would have come out and nothing that has taken place since then, including the actions and decisions by Judge Bickel in the most recent case, would even have occurred and I wouldn't have needed to write that script."
On Aug. 26, Ewing stepped into the offices of the Nevada Daily Mail and subsequently distributed to other media outlets, a 3,000 plus word "letter to the editor, outlined as acts and scenes in a play, detailing events and accusations." Ewing and Bickel personally provided information for this story.
Quoting from the materials provided by Ewing, "In 1996 [in Stockton], Dunfield entered an 'Alford' plea of guilty to the felony crime of statutory rape."
Writes Ewing, "An Alford plea is made when a defendant says to the court, 'I did not do it, but I have seen the State's evidence against me, and I will plead guilty without admitting guilt, to receive the benefit of a plea bargain from the jury.'"
"Dunfield received a Suspended Imposition of Sentence (SIS) and was placed on probation. He successfully completed his probation and the file was [sealed] closed from public view," writes Ewing.
"In 2010, Dunfield applied to take the Missouri Bar exam," writes Ewing.
Continuing the story, Ewing said, "Dunfield did disclose his Alford plea and SIS to the Missouri Bar, but must not have mentioned the case had to do with a charge of statutory rape or else the bar would have denied him permission to sit for the exam but they would have asked if he had registered as a sex offender."
But having received permission, Dunfield took and passed the bar exam and so received his license to practice law in Missouri in 2011.
In 2014, Dunfield filed as a candidate for Vernon County Prosecutor, a position held at the time by Lynn Ewing III.
One of the forms that must be filled out and turned in to be a candidate is titled, "Candidate Declaration Form." In part, the form states, "I declare that I have not been found guilty of or pled guilty to a felony or misdemeanor under the federal laws of the United States of America and that I have not been convicted of or found guilty of or pled guilty to a felony under the laws of Missouri."
"In 2014, as a lawyer, Dunfield signed the form and that is called 'filing a false declaration of candidacy' and is a crime in this state," said Ewing.
"A friend informed me of Dunfield's candidacy and his Alford plea and so I sought to verify the facts," said Ewing.
"Dunfield learned about my efforts and this prompted him to file what turned out to be the first of three lawsuits in which he was trying to have his guilty plea set aside. At this time I also filed a lawsuit in Vernon County to have Dunfield removed from the November 2014 ballot."
Said Ewing, "If I was out to help myself, I would have waited and no one else could have been put on the ballot or if I filed after the election I might have been appointed by the Democratic governor, but I took my oath of office seriously."
Dunfield's name was ordered removed from the ballot and the replacement candidate went on to defeat Ewing in the 2014 election.
Judge Timothy Perigo from Newton County denied Dunfield's 2014 lawsuit and Judge Tom Pyle of Cedar County did the same to Dunfield's 2015 case.
"I should explain that if you are convicted of a crime, the courts and even the governor can overturn the judgment," said Ewing. "But if you plead guilty and an Alford plea is considered in the eyes of the law as a type of guilty plea then neither the governor nor any court can undo that plea, even if it was made under duress."
In all three of Dunfield's attempts to change his guilty plea, prosecutors stated that due to a ruling in a Missouri Supreme Court case known as the Kauble ruling (State ex rel. Harold Kauble, Relator v. The Honorable James R. Hartenbach, Respondent), even if the state did want to help the plaintiff, its hands were tied.
Asked for comment, Dunfield said, "Anything I have done or anyone else has done has been done in accordance with the law."
In his script, Ewing calls what comes next, Act V and says, "The events in this act are what trouble me."
In his office, Judge Bickel responded.
"Judge Bickel improperly sealed and opened the case file," writes Ewing.
"When a deputy clerk notified me the case had been sealed previously, I ordered it to remain that way until a hearing could be held on the matter," said Bickel.
"State's attorney presented compelling evidence for me not to keep the file sealed and so I ordered it opened," said Bickel.
"Though I am not at liberty to explain, I should note that every party who had an interest in the case had been informed and so with no reason to delay I proceeded into hearing the case," said Bickel.
Claims Ewing about Bickel, "He did not recuse himself from this case as he had in two previous cases."
"I recused myself in the first case because no matter how I ruled it would be seen as favoring one candidate or another," said Bickel. "And as to the second one, I simply had too much on my plate at that time and so again, I recused myself. I took the case this time simply because I had no good reason not to," said Bickel.
Finally, Ewing claims Bickel, "did what the judges in the two previous cases said could not be done, that is, he set aside Dunfield's 1996 guilty plea to felony statutory rape."
"Let's be clear," began Bickel. "I've known Lynn Ewing for a good many years. He's a fine attorney whom I've seen litigate on behalf of the people many times."
"However, Mr. Ewing has clearly not read my decision, although anyone can read it on Casenet," said Bickel.
"I did not ignore or attempt to overturn the Kauble decision; it is the law," continued Bickel. "And so I denied Mr. Dunfield's request to have his Alford plea set aside. Instead, I made a finding that the conviction was erroneous and so I set it aside."
"Evidence was brought up which absolutely convinced me that if Mr. Dunfield had gone to trial he would have been found innocent," said Bickel. "Since registration for the sexual offenders list is based on having a conviction and I had set that aside, I ordered that Mr. Dunfield does not have to register as a sex offender."
And if Mr. Dunfield sought another elected position, would he be eligible to file and serve?
"I suppose not," said Bickel. "I suppose not."