Lead attorneys for former DeRidder Mayor Misty Roberts — accused of having sex with a 16-year-old boy and furnishing minors with alcohol — have filed a supervisory writ with the Louisiana 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal, arguing a pair of judges overseeing the case should be recused.

The writ was  filed on March 21.

Adam Johnson and Todd Clemons previously filed a motion on Feb. 12 seeking to recuse Beauregard’s 36th Judicial District Court Judges Martha O’Neal and C. Kerry Anderson from the case “due to their clear bias, prejudice and personal interest in the case making them unable to conduct a fair and impartial trial.”

The attorneys state that during a Jan. 9 meeting between themselves and Calcasieu Assistant District Attorney Charles Robinson in O’Neal’s chambers, O’Neal asked them if they were going to try to recuse her. After confirming the likelihood of a recusal, the attorneys stated that O’Neal “lamented that she had been proud to have (Roberts) as a representative of the city, particularly as a woman elected to the position of mayor, that she had ‘liked her’ and that ‘we don’t love getting these cases.’ ”

After taking the bench after the meeting, O’Neal stated the recusal would be sent to the Louisiana Supreme Court, allowing an ad hoc judge to be assigned to hear the motion to recuse before a March 24 deadline.

Both judges are also accused of authorizing onerous bond conditions for Roberts. O’Neal, the presiding judge, also oversees the child custody case between Roberts and her ex-husband, Duncan Clanton. Prior to Clanton filing a motion to modify the custody arrangement, O’Neal emailed the new terms of Roberts’ bond conditions to Clanton. After denying Roberts’ request to continue the custody case, an agreement was reached that $2,700 in child support to Roberts was done away with.

Anderson, who has been working in tandem with O’Neal throughout the criminal matter, has cosigned letters to counsel, been the subject of records requests and subpoenas, is being represented by the same private attorney as O’Neal in relation to these proceedings, and has signed arrest warrants pertaining to Roberts.

A 14-page motion that included 44 pages of exhibits to recuse the judges was filed by Johnson and Clemons on Feb. 12. It was denied by O’Neal and Anderson on Feb. 19, with the judges refusing to request an ad hoc judge be appointed and also stating the motion was filed untimely and without any grounds warranting recusal.

In their writ to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal, Johnson and Clemons claim O’Neal and Anderson’s denial of the motion to recuse “was improper and a clear abuse of discretion.” The attorneys argue the request was filed timely with the trial court’s consent and pursuant to the trial court’s instructions.

“It is clear that numerous grounds exist for both judges to self-recuse, or at a minimum, request the appointment of an ad hoc judge to oversee the hearing,” Johnson and Clemons wrote in their writ. “Despite their own words, the trial court has refused to request an ad hoc judge be appointed to hear recusal action.

The attorneys also claim that a week prior to their filing of a motion to recuse on Feb. 12, they were informed that in lieu of producing any records from their public records request to the Beauregard Parish Police Jury and the judges of the 36th Judicial District Court separately, private counsel for the judges forwarded a letter to the Louisiana State Attorney General’s Office seeking an opinion as to whether they were required to produce any such records.

The letter was dated Jan. 27, was received by counsel Feb. 6, and the attorneys filed their motion to recuse application Feb. 12.

Johnson and Clemons claim the behavior exhibited by the judges throughout the course of the criminal matter included “communication relating to both the criminal matter and a separate civil matter concerning Roberts, a letter co-signed by both judges wherein they admit to ex parte communications with Roberts’ ex-husband, and transcripts and minutes from prior hearing dates held in both the pending criminal matter and the separate civil proceedings.”

The pair state the judges have “personally involved themselves within Roberts’ custodial arrangement, ensuring that either through bond conditions or through their providing tools to her ex-husband to utilize within his civil case for custody, that Roberts’ relationship with her children would forever be altered.”

The attorneys claim Anderson is a friend of Clanton’s, has gone duck hunting with him, his wife is a third cousin of Clanton’s, and he has conducted business with Clanton in his role as an insurance agent for Allstate Insurance Company.

The attorney cite Anderson’s multiple heavy involvement in the proceedings so far with him being aware Clanton has remained in frequent contact with the Beauregard Parish District Attorney’s Office, has been interviewed by that office and has been subpoenaed to appear in pretrial motions.

Johnson and Clemons also cite O’Neal’s use of the word “dread” in her written reason denying the motion to recuse. The word “denotes extreme emotion” and means “to fear greatly or to feel extreme reluctance to meet or face.”

“A judge who openly expresses that they ‘fear greatly’ and/or ‘feel extreme reluctance to meet or face’ the criminal matter before them is not a judge capable of acting impartially and without bias,” the attorneys wrote.

Johnson and Clemons state in their writ filing that “the judges of the 36th Judicial District Court have made up their mind so as to the guilt of Roberts despite the fact that their entire job, and the basis for our criminal system within the United States of America, is that individuals such as Roberts are to be deemed innocent until proven guilty.”

Roberts is scheduled to stand trial May 19.