Haven't commented before on the Bar charges related to alleged sexual harassment by JM, aka the grounds for Count 2 of 2 on the Probable Cause order.
The MCAO-related allegations that were dismissed months ago were also part of Count 2, a charge of unprofessional conduct that JM will be defending against in April.
What's left of Count 2- and thus of the sexual harassment allegations- involves a single court employee: Marla Knox, a court reporter for Maricopa County Superior Court.
The Bar charge states that Knox served as a court reporter "during portions of (TA's killer's) trial," and alleges that "during a number of hearings in (killer's) case, JM frequently stared at Knox in ways that made her feel uncomfortable."
Also:
" During the portions of the (killer's) case in which Knox served as court reporter, JM frequently, sometimes daily, commented on Knox's skirts, shoes and physical appearance. These comments were unwelcome and made Knox feel uncomfortable."
"As she feared repercussions if the incidents were reported, Knox merely smiled or left the courtroom, if possible, in response."
"At some point during (killer's) case, the comments escalated in nature and he began making comments such as "I like the person that's in the skirt," or "I would like to see what's inside that skirt."
"Because of his comments, Knox arranged to switch times with another court reporter during some of (killer's) proceedings, in order to avoid being near JM during his presentations."
When the court reporters' supervisor learned of the switch, she advised both to abide by the original schedule. The supervisor wasn't aware of the reason for the schedules being switched.
---------
Ok, then. A little context.
1. Knox was one of 22 court reporters who worked on the killer's case and 2 trials (2008-2015). Of these 22 reporters, many of them women, she is the only one alleging inappropriate behavior by JM.
2. Knox wasn't present for any of the killer's pre-guilt trial hearings held between 2008-2012, nor for any part of the original guilt phase and sentencing trials.
She first worked on the killer's case in 2013, for a single day (September 13; for an 8 minute status hearing).
Her next appearances were to record 6 pre-PP2 hearings, largely trial status hearings, that took place in early summer through mid-September, 2014 (2 in June, one in July, 3 in September. The length of these hearings ranged from 8-12 minutes.
Knox's first involvement of any length or significance began with PP2 jury selection, on October 1, 2014. Knox covered most of voir dire:
Oct. 1. (worked one and 1/2 hours)
Oct 2. (worked 7 minutes)
(Mike Babicky covered Oct 6)
Oct. 7. (worked 9:33-5:03).
Oct. 8. (worked 9:32-12:20).
PP2 opening statements took place on October 21. Knox first worked PP2 on day 2, October 22. She covered 2 other days in October, including October 30, the killer's first day of testimony in closed court.
Knox worked 4 days in November: one status conference; a hearing on the computer farce, and 2 trial days.
In December, Knox worked a total of 3 days; one of those days an evidentiary hearing.
Knox worked 5 days in January 2015 (January 8, 14, 22, 26, 28) and 8 days in February (February 3-4; 9, 11, 18-19; 24-26).
----
3. On the allegation that JM "stared" at Knox in a "number of hearings." How could that happen, exactly, these stares by JM that were so out of the ordinary in some way as to make Knox "uncomfortable," especially given that Knox would presumably be focused on her job, recording every word that was being spoken by all parties?
And in PP2 hearings that were largely in and out meetings lasting under 15 minutes, always with, at minimum, all counsel, JSS, and the killer present?
2. On the allegation that on "days Knox served as court reporter" (? that was her job, so...every day she worked?) JM would " frequently, sometimes daily" comment upon her shoes, skirts, and physical appearance."
So...frequently doesn't mean every day, because (the comments) were "sometimes daily." How frequent could frequent be if they were only sometimes made daily, and Knox only worked a handful of days or less each month of killer's trial?
To recap, she worked:
October 2014. 3 days.
November 2014. 4 days.
December 2014. 3 days.
January 2015. 5 days.
February 2015. 8 days.
3. At the risk of sounding dismissive of sexual harassment claims in general, or of not understanding/sympathizing with victims of sexual harassment, here goes.
A. IMO, a man telling a woman he likes her shoes or that she looks pretty does NOT automatically equate to sexual harassment. Not even when the man and woman are workplace colleagues, and for that matter, not even when the man is the woman's boss/supervisor.
B. What matters, imo, is how the woman responds to the comments being made. If she tells the fellow directly or even indirectly that the comments are unwelcome or are making her uncomfortable, and the fellow continues to make them, THAT is sexual harassment, imo.
Or, it's evidence enough to put sexual harassment on the plate if she is, for whatever reason, incapable or unwilling to speak to the fellow directly, but is "uncomfortable" enough to report her concerns, however unofficially.
So, how did Knox respond to the alleged comments JM made about her shoes and skirts and physical appearance? According to the Bar, she "smiled," or exited the courtroom, if she could.
What cue, exactly, is ANY man in that situation supposed to pick up on that his comments are unwelcome?
The Bar's assertion that Knox "feared repercussions" if she reported the incidents makes little to no sense either, imo. What kind of repercussions could there possibly have been?
First of all- Knox didn't work for JM, or for anyone else in the County Attorney's office. She was employed by the Superior Court of Maricopa County, an entirely separate entity from MCAO. JM had zero authority or power over her or her job.
Second, and what IMO raises substantial doubt as to the merit of Knox's allegations: Knox has told the Bar that her supervisor warned HER that "certain persons were flirtatious and to be avoided," and that JM was one of those persons.
Given that Knox's supervisor supposedly gave her a direct warning to avoid JM because he was "flirtatious," what repercussions could Knox have feared if she told her supervisor that JM was being flirtatious?
Next, according to the Bar. JM's comments later "escalated in nature" to remarks about "liking what was in that skirt," or "wanting to see what was in (her) skirt. "
Those comments, if JM actually made them, using those words, IMO do cross the line. Color me skeptical, though, and throw rocks at me if you'd like.
Again, we aren't talking JM and Knox interacting anywhere remotely private, where JM could furtively sexually harass her without being heard or seen. They were in a courtroom. With Nurmi and Wilmott and the killer lurking a few feet away, bailiffs at hand, TA's family on benches right behind JM, and at some point, with JSS on the bench.
And again, what the Bar has stated about Knox and her supervisor contributes to my skepticism.
JM's comments supposedly escalated beyond shoe-admiring to a level any even semi- legally astute or responsible supervisor in any workplace would find problematic.
Did Knox at this point, then, speak to her supervisor, the one who allegedly warned Knox to avoid flirtatious JM? Nope.
Instead, although Knox claimed JM's escalated
comments made her so uncomfortable that she switched days with another court reporter to avoid JM, she never told her supervisor the reason for the switches, even after her supervisor ordered them both to resume their original schedules.
The most favorable case for these Knox related charges, IMO, is that JM in fact did make Knox uncomfortable. But.
Again an IMO. The first appropriate avenue for addressing the problem of JM making Knox feel uncomfortable would have been for Knox to tell JM that he was making her feel uncomfortable.
Next, if she couldn't do that, was for Knox to speak to her supervisor about JM, ESPECIALLY given how wide open a door that supervisor had left open explicitly on this topic, and explicitly about JM. (Allegedly, anyway).
Third, if the court reporters' supervisor had observed a pattern/history of inappropriate conduct by JM or by any other MCAO attorney, it was her responsibility to have reported that conduct to the Court, and the Court's responsibility to report the conduct to MCAO.
What I don't find remotely appropriate, fair, or reasonable is Knox's complaint being surfaced by the
crusading Karen Clark years after the fact, and being
"handled" as a Bar complaint against JM. And, as egregiously- having Knox's allegations tacked on by Clark to fortify her Bar complaint that had so little foundation or merit the Bar originally dismissed it outright.
