Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Wilson

Supreme Court of Arizona

June 8, 1953

In re WILSON.

Page 434

[76 Ariz. 50] Frank J. Barry, Jr., Tucson, for State Bar.

Bryce H. Wilson, Jr., in pro. per.

Darrel G. Brown and John T. Kettlewell, Tucson, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Bryce H. Wilson, Jr. (hereinafter called respondent), an attorney at law regularly admitted to practice before this court, was cited on April 14, 1952 to appear and answer seven charges of unprofessional conduct before the Local Administrative Committee for District No. 3 (hearinafter termed the Committee), sitting at Tucson, Arizona. Pursuant to Rule I (C) of the rules of the Supreme Court, as amended, [76 Ariz. 51] hearings were held thereon. Respondent was present in person at the principal hearing on June 14, 1952. The evidence adduced then and later primarily consists of: (1) a partial Reporter's Transcript of the testimony taken at the second trial of respondent in the superior court of Pima County, which criminal proceedings were based in part upon the same facts as herein charged (The jury was unable to agree upon a verdict at either trial); (2) two reels of a sound recording tape of the words spoken between respondent and one Dolores Raines in a private room at the Ghost Ranch Lodge near Tucson on June 7, 1950. This had been admitted in evidence at the first trial of respondent in the superior court, with a typewritten transcript thereof; (3) two compromising photographs of respondent and Dolores Raines; (4) the testimony of a deputy county attorney identifying the matters referred to under (1), (2), and (3), supra; (5) the testimony of respondent; and (6), certain affidavits submitted by respondent.

Thereafter, on August 19, 1952, the Administrative Committee made findings of fact as follows:

'I

'That between January 1, 1949, and January 1, 1951, Bryce H. Wilson was the duly elected, qualified and acting County Attorney of Pima County, Arizona, and a member of the State Bar of Arizona; that about February, 1950, the said Wilson met and became acquainted with one Dolores

Page 435

Raines who was then well known to said respondent Wilson to be a prositute.

'II

'That during the period between February, 1950, and June, 1950, the respondent Wilson did on a number of occasions associate with the said Raines, not in furtherance of his duties as County Attorney.

'III

'That sometime between February, 1950, and June, 1950, the respondent Wilson did receive at least $50.00 from the said Dolores Raines, for protections from prosecution, the respondent making an express or implied prmise of protection from prosecution. That the respondent Wilson knew the said Dolores Raines was engaged in prostitution commercially during said period and had reason to believe the money received by him from her was from her earnings as a prostitute in Pima County, Arizona;'

and recommended that he be disbarred.

The complete record was then certified to the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Arizona (hereinafter termed the Board) for its consideration. The respondent did not personally or by counsel appear before the Board but he did file a verified Statement of Opposition. No additional evidence was proffered on the part of either the respondent or the Examiner representing the State Bar. The Board, after thorough consideration, approved of the action suggested by the Administrative Committee[76 Ariz. 52] by recommending the disbarment of respondent.

The matter was orally argued before this court by the respondent, his attorneys, and counsel representing the State Bar. We granted permission to the parties to thereafter file briefs, which have now been submitted and the matter is ready for determination. Other than the admissibility of certain evidence which will shortly be treated, no question has been raised as to the procedural steps taken by the Administrative Committee and the Board of Governors. It manifestly appears that both bodies meticulously ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.