As regular readers of Somervell County Salon know, I have been putting up parts of various publicly available testimony regarding the Joelle Ogletree case. Not only are the transcripts from the 2004 criminal trial, and the 2006 ALJ/TEA hearing available, but also references to the appearance on the Dr Phil Show in November. You can click on the link on the left sidebar to see posts on this site that reference this case; sometimes people listen to rumors or what other people state as fact-I suggest that the case makes fascinating reading and that any opinions will only be informed by reading the information for oneself.  Reminder as well that the men who testified against Ogletree were adults in 2004, and not minors.

I offer up today the closing argument of Ogletree's attorney at the Administrative Law Judge hearing.Here's the PDF-if you have a slow link, best to right click this link and save target as to your computer. In the actual transcript, the closing arguments begins on p 586 and goes to the end, I will reference specific sections according to the pages from my scan.

Before I call out some specifics from this, remember that the Judge in this case also had the benefit of video, audio, previous depositions and transcripts, and a spate of witnesses that came forth. For some reason, the TEA attorney only called one witness, Matt B; his second witness, Chayce W didn't show up as he had said he would. What conclusion did the Judge arrive at? That Ms Ogletree did not engage in the alleged conduct and that both Matt B and Chayce W were not credible. The ALJ therefore recommended to the TEA board that Ms Ogletree's teaching license be reinstated; and that's what the TEA board unanimously did. (Before this, of course, I assume everyone knows that, after the aborted criminal trial of Ogletree in 2004, all charges were dropped, with jeopardy. )

Some items of interest in the closing arguments.

p. 1. For some reason, unlike Ogletree's attorney who called a number of witnesses, the TEA attorneys called only ONE (and the second, Chayce, by deposition.)

TEA has the burdon of proof to show that Ms Ogletree is unfit based on the preponderance of evidence from the witness chair and the other evidence admitted into the proceeding. They have to show that they had a better case than us. Let's first examine who did they call. They called only one witness, and that was Matt. And then they called Chayce by video deposition.

They didn't call any students that could have collaborated the word of Matt or Chayce by video. They didn't call any students to talk about his character, his truthfulness, about his change in demeanor. They didn't call any administrators who could testify about write ups and problems that Ms Ogletree had, about her deception, about her lack of character, about her lack of truthfulness. They didn't call any teachers to support the allegations to cast dispersions on Ms Ogletree. They didn't call any police or district attorney or law enforcement that could show there was evidence that incriminated Ms Ogletree.

They just called one live witness. And they reduced to calling the other witness by deposition because he couldn't come. He was not available.

We instead called 14 witnesses, one by deposition, Sam. And we called seven students-seven students that took time out of their lives to come down here to tell you-to tell you what kind of teacher Ms Ogletree is, to directly and consistently contradict the allegations that Matt and Chayce were making that Ms Ogletree dressed inappropriatealy, that she used profane language and that she was a bad teacher. ...

And then we called Sam by video. And Sam is important because he casts doubt on the word and credibiity of Matt. He also casts doubt about the process that was used to investigate the allegations. He also talked about how he recanted and how he only gave lies because that's what the adults wanted to hear. They called him ten or 20 times. He is a poster child that even good kids can make 0 allegations. But Sam told the truth and his truth can be proven by independent evidence from his word.

p 4. The attorney counted over 15 times that Matt's testimoney was impeached.

And then we heard and we reviewed the deposition of Chayce. And you can draw an inference for the reason why he didn't come. You heard evidence that he had indicated that he could come. And all of a sudden, he decided to leave. You can draw an inference. Because had he come, he would have been cross-examined in the same manner as I did with Matt. He was deposed. And by reviewing the deposition, he was asked in discovery format trying to find out what he said. But there was no impeachment and there was very little cross-examination. And he realized that if he had come down here he would be confronted. For the first time he would be confronted on cross-examination. He chose not to come here. ....

When he read over his statements his response was... and you can look at it, I'm not quoting it. But he said, wow, this is different. It wasn't about adding things on. It was about being different. Anyhow, in his deposition he admits about lying. He admits about dishonesty. He states impossibilities, unbelievable circumstances.

p 7. Talks about the TEA attorney trying to bring in allegations about Ogletree because of her marriage. (He had earlier, not in this part, called it "sleazy".

But in the end, the TEA case came down to arguing that Ms Ogletree is guilty because she married her teacher 13 months after she graduated. It's irrelevant. And they have no facts. They have no evidence to show that that is... has any value. .. And there's absolutely no evidence that she did anything improper. .. And it's just outrageous that the State would reduce itself to that.

p 10. The discrepancies in Matt's testimony about kissing.p 11. discrepancies about baby in car, also about where he took migraine injection, discrepancy about whether he was or wasn't at the "I Never" game. p 13, admitted that the cryptic notes from Ogletree didn't have explicit sexual terms but that it was his interpretation.

He testified he didn't want to talk about it. But he talked about it in poems that he gave out to other students.. he talked about it with his friends. You heard other students about him talking about. You also saw in the newspaper that he made references about advising incoming students they better get a lawyer to watch them teachers. And everybody in the community knew what that meant.

p 14.

On Chayce, as I said, where is Chayce. His initial statements to the district and the police made no mention of sexual activities with Ms Ogletree, even though he admitted that they wanted to have that information, that was the focus of their inquiry. ... He admitted that he had not been truthful because he left out the most serious allegations... he also claims that he failed to provide the complete truth and he did not affirmedly give 0 statements. But he said, I'm just leaving stuff out. ....He says he was not changing anything. But when we looked at the details in his October 2nd 2002 sworn statement he says that there was... no sex occurred in the spring of 2002. Nothing else between us the rest of the year. That was on page 1 the last sentence, second paragraph. In that statement he talked about Ms Ogletree putting her hand on his crotch and saying wow. But then later, he brings in all of this other-he brings up three or four other allegations. That's not about adding more information. He said affirmatively nothing else happene, and he changes his testimony.

He also---we asked him about the CPS video, was he truthful, was he accurate in it. And he said, well, I have to look at it first; I have to look at it first. What kind of reliable witness when you ask him did you tell the truth, I need to check first.

He also admitted that he had caught-that he committed deception by skipping school and lying to his teacher to get out of class. We also have that he denied that he plagiarized. And we have testimony from a disinterested witness.

He admitted that he told his friends and others that the allegations against Ms Ogletree were not 1. But he says he lied about lying becuase he wanted to project a certain image. It was important. And we'll go back and look at the video because he liked those girls and he wanted to make sure that they didn't view him in a negative light. And it was more important for him to say how he was viewed by people he was talking to than to tell the truth. He could have easily said I don't want to talk about it. Instead he said... That's important to him.

He claims that his.. his whole allegations in the spring of 2002 center around dressing and Ms Ogletree being a flag sponsor... She dd not have color guard in the spring of 2002....

He said the did not believe Matt's claims of sex with Ms Ogletree early on because Matt has a tendency to exaggerate. Yet, according to his own testimony, he was saying that he was having sex. ...

Chayce testified that he was aware way before the criminal trial that Sam was saying they were not 1 and he didn't make any effort to bring that forward. And did you see his reaction, did I have to do that, am I legally obligated. That's the kind of person Chayce is. He'll do not what the right thing is but what he has to do.. what thinks he has to do under the penalty of perjury under the penalty of punishment. And Chayce admitted that the criminal case was dropped because it was weak.

p 19. (on Sam) And we have provided evidence as we did in the deposition that the date that this allegation had to happen was September 23rd 2002 because that was the only date that Sam and Chayce skipped school together. And on that date Ms Ogletree and you heard from her and you have exhibits and you have a doctor's record showing that she was not in Glen Rose on the 23rd. And Sam admitted that this evidence was independent from his word. And he admitted that he did not see Ms Ogletree, that he gave the lab book to Mr. Ogletree. And Mr Ogletree also testified that that was the case.

He also confirmed, as I said, Matt's reputation for untruthfulness, that he exaggerates and he embellishes. ... He also said he never saw Ms Ogletree engaged in any sexual acts or inappropriate touching, including Chayce and Matt. And he did apologize for his immaturity and misjudgement in lying about Ms Ogletree. At least he apologized on the record. And he did admit that he caused great harm. As I said, he's a clear example that even good kids can be pushed to lying. The hardest part is to admit that you're lying. And I will give Sam that credit.

p 20, about all the other witness testimony.

p 23. about the TEA attorneys

They talked about wanting to call Michelle Warren---that they were going to call her. And I told you in opening statement that she would be our witness. She didn't testify. They didn't want her because she became our witness.

p 24. Ogletree's testimony

p 30 is pretty interesting. The TEA attorney tries to justify why it was okay for him to try to impugn Ogletree's reputation because she married, long after high school graduation, her teacher. (The testimony in the ALJ hearing incidentally shows clearly that she was dating someone else until at least July after high school ended and that they probably broke up because they were going to different colleges. ). The attorney said.

At no point did I ever accuse them of having an inappropriate sexual relationship.....if you would consider potential allegations that Doug and Joelle Ogletree's relationship was inappropriate..

my comment here-that's really unbelievable, isn't it? potential allegations! One can have potential allegations about just about everything, eh? All of that is why the ALJ said that stuff wasn't relevant. p 64 of the ALJ 80 page summary says

The ALJ was not persuaded that the age difference of the Ogletrees or the timing of their courtship and marriage bore any significant relevance to the disputed issues of this case. That Ms Ogletree's ex-colleagues had never questioned the nature of their relationship was not significant in the ALJ's judgement of their credibility.