LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) – When University of Louisville professor John Gilderbloom, who also is a landlord, had a dispute with some tenants in 2021, he contacted someone he knew for help – Jefferson County Attorney Mike O'Connell.
After talking with Gilderbloom, O'Connell, who was on vacation at the time, emailed some of his top staffers about the situation, saying he knew Gilberbloom "personally" and "I want to help John."
The Oct. 14, 2021, email from O'Connell pointed out that he already had an administrative assistant look into the case and, among other things, noted that the tenant's wife worked for Hobby Lobby.
"That seems weird," O'Connell wrote of the woman's job, and proposed prosecutors have Gilderbloom or his attorney, John Valentine, come in and talk about the situation. He also noted that these kind of tenant/landlord issues traditionally are handled in civil court.
The next day, Oct. 15, 2021, O'Connell's office wrote a criminal complaint against the tenant, Richard Hardacre, according to court records. The complaint accused Hardacre of demanding money, threatening to hurt Gilderbloom and to "smear" the professor's "good name" in social media posts.
After receiving the complaint, Louisville Metro Police officers eventually charged Hardacre with felony extortion.
The case has dragged on for nearly two years now, resulting in allegations of prosecutorial misconduct against O'Connell and his staff and motions to dismiss the criminal charge against Hardacre. O'Connell is in his fourth term in the elected position.
On Monday, a judge disqualified O'Connell's entire office, ruling prosecutors could not be "independent and impartial" and the email to staffers showed an "irrefutable conflict of interest."
"The normal protocol was sidestepped, and a number of O'Connell's staff acted upon his expressed intention that he 'wanted to help Gilderbloom,'" Jefferson District Court Judge Stephanie Pearce Burke ruled. "O'Connell's comment about the Defendant's wife working at 'Hobby Lobby' being weird shows he had formed a negative opinion of the couple."
The judge argued that the process that led to Hardacre’s charges, O’Connell’s office deviated from normal criminal procedure. Typically, the prosecutor’s office gets involved after police investigate and charge someone with a crime, and it’s the victim of the crime who files a complaint.
The complaint O’Connell’s office produced against Hardacre was not signed by Gilderbloom, as would be customary, but the allegations contained the same information he had told O'Connell, according to her order.
In her ruling, Burke said "it is unclear how LMPD became involved."
But in a statement Monday afternoon, a spokesman for O'Connell said "the judge’s order includes multiple factual errors that are not supported by the evidence. This includes but is not limited to the fact that there was no criminal complaint written in this case by the County Attorney’s Office.
"In fact, no criminal complaint was ever issued. Our office referred Dr. Gilderbloom to file a police report, which ultimately resulted in police serving the defendant with a criminal citation. The normal criminal process was followed throughout this case."
The spokesman, Josh Abner, said the county attorney's office "will file a proper response in the case record in which these facts, and more, will be fully described and proven. We encourage the public to review that response."
John Leubsdorf, a law professor at Rutgers Law School in Newark who reviewed the case at the request of WDRB News, said the appropriate action would be for the county attorney to refer the person to the investigative agency.
"When you say this guy is a friend of mine," you're telling prosecutors "don't exercise your professional judgement," said Leubsdorf. "That's not the kind of thing he should be saying to people who are supposed to be following the law based on facts."
But Professor Ken Katkin at the Chase College of Law at Northern Kentucky University said O'Connell did not commit an ethical lapse because he had nothing to gain or lose, and followed the law as long as there was probable cause for a charge.
Katkin also said Judge Burke did not do anything wrong, as she must look at "appearances of impropriety in the administration to justice."
"Even if the prosecutor did nothing wrong, his apparent zealousness to help a friend might" seem unreasonable to observers, Katkin wrote in an email to WDRB.
In April, Hardacre's public defender Steven Harris asked Burke to dismiss the case because of “prosecutorial vindictiveness.” He noted that Gilderbloom had talked by phone and emailed O’Connell asking for help and argued there was no proof a crime had been committed.
“The Jefferson County Attorney, Mike O'Connell, had decided to take it upon himself to assist someone he knew personally before any criminal action had been initiated," Harris wrote. "The only reason this case has continued for over 19 months is because of O'Connell's connection to the victim in the case."
In addition, Harris argues the evidence – including Facebook posts – is weak and argues that Gilderbloom harassed Hardacre and his wife about their dog.
Harris said the evidence shows "the basis of Dr. Gilderbloom's Criminal Complaint is not only false, but also there is no evidence that supports any allegations that Mr. Hardacre was attempting to extort anything from Dr. Gilderbloom."
The police citation says Gilderbloom wanted Hardacre to move out early and offered to pay him. Hardacre allegedly asked for more money and made threats, including that he would tell UofL that Gilderbloom was a bad landlord and go to authorities "about alleged crimes that were committed."
In an interview, Harris acknowledged that "this is an unusual case."
"Based on what has been filed in discovery in this case, this should be a civil matter between a landlord and tenant. I'm quite shocked that this case has continued as long as it has as a criminal matter."
Harris also confirmed that most criminal cases begin with a person calling the police, not the county attorney.
"Typically in discovery we don't receive internal emails from within the prosecutor's office, let alone emails from the County Attorney directing his staff to assist in the prosecution of a specific individual," Harris said.
In court records, Assistant County Attorney Casey Holland said there was sufficient evidence in the case but that, either way, dismissal by the judge was not permitted by state law prior to trial without the consent of the prosecution.
Burke did not address the motion to dismiss in a court hearing Monday.
She said whoever takes over the case -- either the Attorney General's office or the Commonwealth's Attorney -- would deal with the motion to dismiss.
"I would have thought your office would have recused by now based on the issues I raised in the order," Burke said to the prosecution.
A new hearing on the motion to dismiss has been scheduled for July 24.
Copyright 2023 WDRB Media. All Rights Reserved.
Editor's note: This story has been updated to reflect the position of the Jefferson County Attorney's office, which disagrees with the facts presented in Judge Burke's order.
