"Clearly, Judge Day was enamored with BAS's notoriety and his accomplishments in the military," the commission wrote. "This fascination with BAS's military history caused Judge Day to lose perspective on who he was really dealing with."
Though the commission found that Day "has a sincere interest in helping veterans," it also found that he lied on several occasions: when he claimed the full team of the Veterans' Treatment Court knew about his outside meetings with Shehan, when he denied that Shehan had held a gun at Day's daughter's house, and when he denied that he had discussed whether to waive Shehan's weapons prohibition after that incident and another incident in which Day took his son to Shehan's house and his son handed a gun to Shehan.
"During these incidents, Judge Day verbally granted permission for BAS to handle the weapon," the commission found. "Although Judge Day continues to deny this, it is actually inconceivable that BAS would handle a firearm in the presence of Judge Day without asking and receiving permission from the judge. BAS was on Judge Day's caseload and had every motivation to be successful on probation. For this veteran, success meant not having a felony conviction on his record at the end of his probationary period. Judge Day clearly waived the prohibition against BAS handling a firearm during these incidents."
Day later falsely claimed he did not know that Shehan had a felony conviction, the commission found.
It also said that Day changed Shehan's contract with the court retroactively to try to cover his tracks.
On Feb. 6, 2015, Day's former attorney, Mark Fucile, wrote to the commission in defense of Day. He cited language in Shehan's contract: "I understand and agree that there will be discussions about my case, my treatment program, and my condition which may take place out of my presence or the presence of my attorney. I also understand that out of court contact with any members of the VTC team, including the VTC Judge and court personnel, authorized by the VTC team or treatment professionals is not considered ex parte contact."
Judge Day added the second sentence to Shehan's contract on the day that Fucile wrote to the commission, without discussing the change with other team members on the Veterans' Treatment Court.
Day committed a felony by giving Shehan access to guns, the commission found.
"By facilitating the handling of a firearm by a convicted felon on each of these dates, Judge Day aided and abetted in the commission of the crime of felon in possession of a ,firearm, which is a felony," the recommendations state. "Thus, during these incidents Judge Day violated Rule 2.l(B), which prohibits a judge from committing a criminal act."
Day lined his fourth-floor courtroom, chambers and hallway with dozens collages of war art, mostly commemorating World War II.
Although in some instances Day paid for the art himself, the commission found that he also solicited money from attorneys who appeared in his court. In one case, he asked for money from an attorney during a status meeting in his chambers.
The commission found that Day violated Judicial Code of Conduct Rule 4.5(A), which "prohibits judges from personally soliciting funds from anyone for any organization or entity," the commission wrote. "There are exceptions to this rule, but there are no exceptions that excuse Judge Day's solicitations. Soliciting funds from anyone in this context is a violation of Rule 4.5(A). Judge Day's doing so from attorneys who appear before him is a flagrant violation of the rule."
And Day falsely claimed that he did not ask attorneys for money, the commission found.
The commission found that Day used his authority as a judge to try to intimidate a referee at his son's soccer game.
Day's son took a nasty header from another player at a Chemeketa Community College soccer game in October 2013. Referee Andrew Deuker said he stopped the game immediately to address Day's injuries. But Judge Day wasn't pleased.
Day angrily confronted him on the technical side of the field, where spectators are not normally allowed, Deuker told the commission during questioning by commission attorney Darlene Pasieczny.
Deuker said it was the only time such a thing had happened in his 17 years as a referee.
"Never have I ever been encountered by a spectator," Deuker said. He said Day thrust his business card into Deuker's hand and said he was going to report Deuker to the authorities.
As Deuker drove out of the parking lot after the game, he passed Day and his son. He said Day pulled out paper and pen and appeared to write something down.
"I thought it was my license plate," Deuker said. "I was incredibly frightened. My permanent address and registration was at my parents' house. They were the first people I contacted. I said, 'I don't know what he could do, or what he's capable of, but he has our information now.'"
"Are you still concerned for your safety as a result of that Oct. 17 game?" Pasieczny asked.
"Yes," Deuker said.
Day claimed that Deuker had asked for his card and said he had approached Deuker only to express his concerns about player safety.
"I would never intimidate anybody with my position or even my person," Day told the commission.
The commission sided with Deuker.
"The commission finds Mr. Deuker to be a very credible witness," the commission wrote. "Mr. Deuker has absolutely no motivation to misrepresent what occurred. He made a timely complaint about Judge Day's behavior, which he memorialized in writing very shortly after the event. Mr. Deuker's testimony was consistent and corroborated by other witnesses. Mr. Deuker's demeanor on the stand was earnest. Clearly nervous, he expressed fear about potential repercussions for reporting Judge Day's conduct. The depth of his concern was evident in his voice and manner on the witness stand."
The commission found Day's testimony about the incident with Deuker unreliable.
"Judge Day's testimony regarding the soccer incidents was internally inconsistent and inconsistent with his initial written response to the Commission," the commission found. "His testimony is contrary to virtually every other witness. His demeanor on the stand was measured and controlled when being asked about his version of events. However, when challenged by contrary evidence, his facial expressions and responses were tinged with a bit of sarcasm. Furthermore, Judge Day's demeanor while Mr. Deuker was testifying bordered on mockery. As Mr. Deuker emotionally related how afraid he felt when Judge Day was noting his license plate number, Judge Day was smiling smugly. The Commission does not find Judge Day's testimony credible."
Day said in a statement released through his spokesman that he was "disappointed" with the commission's decision.
Categories / Uncategorized
Read the Top 8
Sign up for the Top 8, a roundup of the day's top stories delivered directly to your inbox Monday through Friday.