Growing legal fallout over Kindred resignation now includes challenge to high-profile opioid case conviction

The legal fallout surrounding the resignation of former Alaska federal judge Joshua Kindred is accelerating, with at least one Alaska criminal case overseen by the disgraced former judge headed to a new trial and the high-profile opioid conviction of a health care provider now facing a legal challenge.

Kindred resigned in July after an investigation by the 9th Circuit Judicial Council found that he created a hostile work environment, engaged in a sexualized relationship with a law clerk who worked for him and exchanged sexual texts with two attorneys who appeared before him in court — including an Alaska federal prosecutor.

The Alaska U.S. Attorney’s Office identified dozens of cases in which Kindred had at least an appearance of a conflict of interest because of those relationships.

Now, an attorney says that as the high-profile trial of an Eagle River nurse practitioner unfolded, Kindred — the judge overseeing the trial — was texting about it with the former law clerk he was having a sexual relationship with at the time.

Jessica Spayd’s 2022 trial was overseen by Kindred. During that trial, Spayd’s attorney wrote in legal filings last week, the judge’s former law clerk — who he was having a romantic relationship with at the time — sat in the courtroom and texted with the judge about the ongoing trial. By then, the former law clerk was working for the same Alaska U.S. Attorney’s Office that was prosecuting Spayd, though she was not a party to the case.

“While Kindred and the clerk-turned-(federal prosecutor) engaged in their affair, Ms. Spayd’s trial plodded along,” the filing says. “Neither the AUSA nor Kindred disclosed their relationship or sexual encounter to Ms. Spayd during the four weeks of trial. The trial concluded on October 28, 2022, with a guilty verdict.”

The texts have not been publicly disclosed.

Kindred sentenced Spayd to 30 years in prison after she was convicted of causing five deaths of her patients by overprescribing opioids. Her attorney says she should receive a new trial.

The Spayd case was a major prosecution for the Alaska U.S. Attorney’s Office: At Spayd’s 2023 sentencing, an attorney called it the deadliest known drug offense to ever happen in Alaska.

Her case is not the only one upended by the revelations about Kindred’s time on the bench.

In late September, a visiting federal judge from Oregon granted a new trial for Rolando Hernandez-Zamora, an Alaska man convicted of cyberstalking his ex-girlfriend. Bloomberg Law reported that the judge’s sealed opinion rested on judicial misconduct grounds, because of the involvement of a senior federal prosecutor who had also sent nude photos to the judge.

The unnamed senior federal prosecutor is Karen Vandergaw, who federal court dockets show was removed from multiple cases involving Kindred during the judicial council investigation. The U.S. Attorney’s Office hasn’t answered questions about Vandergaw’s involvement.

Neither the Hernandez-Zamora case nor the Spayd case were among the cases cited by the prosecutors as having potential conflicts, said Jamie McGrady, the head of the Alaska Federal Defender Agency.

“Part of the challenge is the USAO’s reluctance to cooperate with our disclosure requests,” McGrady wrote in an email. “Having seen the disclosures, I can understand why they are filing everything under seal and attempting to shield this litigation from the public docket. But the purpose of sealing court cases is to generally protect witnesses, cooperators, and for public safety; it should not be used to shield government misconduct from the public.”

As information trickles out, more defendants will likely challenge their cases based on new disclosures, McGrady said.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office did not answer questions about their own disclosures, or what had been filed under seal and away from the public eye.

In a statement, the office said it was cooperating with the courts and other investigative authorities.

”We continue to comply with our ongoing disclosure obligations. We are bound by statutory obligations with regard to confidential and personal information, and the government files motions to seal and for protective orders when documents contain confidential or private information that are legally protected from public disclosure,” the statement said.