Judge to review old case: ; Officials sought another look at MacQueen ruling

DAILY MAIL STAFF

The 22-year-old case of former Charleston police lieutenant JohnGoff has taken yet another turn. Kanawha Circuit Judge Tod Kaufmanhas decided to reconsider last year's ruling by now-retired judgeAndrew MacQueen that gave Goff an award of more than $500,000.

Kaufman ruled that he did have jurisdiction over the suit broughtby Goff, who was fired for an Aug. 29, 1978, incident that involvedhim being parked in his cruiser on a dark street with a woman whileon duty and punching a teenage boy who tried to find out why theunmarked car was there.

MacQueen entered his final order in the Goff case in December,just before he left office, almost 22 years after it was firstfiled. He ruled that then-Mayor John Hutchinson should not havefired Goff but instead should have given him a 30-day suspension forhis infractions.

The city was ordered to give Goff eight years of back pay pluslegal costs.

In Kaufman's Monday afternoon hearing - which was attended byMacQueen, Mayor Jay Goldman and Charleston Police Chief Jerry Riffe -lawyers for the city argued that the judge had the authority todelve back into his former colleague's ruling.

Defense attorney Rudy Martin went over the Goff saga at greatlength before Kaufman asked him to wrap it up and address the issuesfacing the court, namely why another judge in the same court shouldre-examine another judge's ruling rather than sending the matter onto the state Supreme Court.

Martin told Kaufman that MacQueen had exceeded his jurisdictionby broadly reworking the findings of the 1979 Civil ServiceCommission ruling that upheld Hutchinson's decision to fire Goff. Hecalled MacQueen's ruling a "misapplication of the law" and said itwas based on "inadmissible facts" and "hearsay."

He said that these errors left the door open for reconsideration.Such a motion would have normally come before the judge that enteredthe initial ruling, but came before Kaufman because of MacQueen'sretirement. Judge Duke Bloom, MacQueen's successor, originallyagreed to reconsider the case, but removed himself because his wife,a municipal judge, is a city employee.

Goff's lawyer, Tim Barber, argued that Kaufman did not have theauthority to revisit the case.

"What (Martin is) asking you to do is to change Judge MacQueen'sdecision. That's what this really is about. And, quite frankly,judge, I don't think you can. I don't think the law allows it,"Barber said.

Also discussed were the decades of delay in the ruling. Barbersaid it was because of delay tactics and a resistance to shareinformation by Martin, his colleagues at the law firm of Jackson andKelly and the city. Barber also said the city rejected several"generous" settlement offers over the years.

Martin allowed that some of the delays were because of the cityand its lawyers, but he said that there were at least "12 years ofdelay that had nothing to do with the city."

Kaufman said he will go over the voluminous case file and readthrough the record in the case before hearing final arguments fromboth sides on what his ruling should be. He said he would move asquickly as possible but did not say when he expected to make aruling.

MacQueen declined to comment, and Goldman said only that the citywould continue pursuing the case.

Writer Chris Stirewalt can be reached at 348-4824 or by e-mail atcstire@dailymail.com.