Continued from page 2

On Feb. 14, a three-member trial board decided to fire Ms. Bishop for maintaining a “close personal relationship” with Bowman after his indictment, disclosing the name of a complainant and providing untruthful testimony during the hearing, according to Ms. Bishop’s termination notice.

In the appeal, Mr. Pressler said it was “not reasonably possible” for the chief to decide the matter “in an unbiased and impartial manner.”

“It is hard to deny that a close relationship exists between you and Ms. Whiting when she repeatedly calls you ‘Kat’ and ‘Kathy,’” he said in the appeal, referring to her interview. He also cited numerous due process concerns, including what he called “special treatment” afforded to Ms. Whiting by Metropolitan Police.

The appeal said a hearing officer attempted to allow Ms. Whiting to testify anonymously and her name was redacted from interview transcripts — unusual measures for an administrative matter. During the hearing, a police official insisted that witnesses leave the area when it was time for Ms. Whiting to testify, according to the appeal, prompting two witnesses to formally complain that they had been intimidated and humiliated.

Mr. Pressler also said in the appeal that it was “highly unusual if not unprecedented” for an assistant police chief to personally conduct the interview of a complainant “let alone the person who was in charge of the investigation,” referring to Chief Anzallo. At one point, Chief Anzallo provided information to Ms. Whiting to correct an answer she had given, according to a hearing transcript.

In the appeal, Mr. Pressler also said the three original panel members were in possession of the notice of proposed charges and the final investigative report in advance of the hearing, which he claimed is prejudicial to his client. When he requested a new panel, those members received the report in advance of the hearing as well, the appeal states.

Then, after the panel issued a ruling, the appeal said the final notice of adverse action contained an “entirely new charge” that had not been presented at the hearing: making an untruthful statement with regard to Ms. Bishop’s denial of a romantic relationship with Bowman after she learned he had been indicted.

Ms. Bishop “had never received notice of any kind regarding this added charge prior to Feb. 14,” Mr. Pressler wrote.

Contrasting the addition of a new charge were “omissions of certain material facts from the hearing,” the appeal said, referring to Ms. Whiting’s prior felony convictions that went unmentioned in the factual findings.

After the panel reached a decision, the members were told of additional evidence that had not been introduced at the hearing and persuaded to change their original decision, according to the appeal. The appeal said the director of the disciplinary branch, Inspector Michael Eldridge “led and/or participated in this discussion … after the close of the hearing.”

Mr. Eldridge said he was “unable to comment.”

Asked whether Ms. Bishop received a fair hearing, another hearing officer, Cmdr. George Kucik, said, “Yes, I thought it was fair.” He declined to elaborate. Another panel member, Capt. Will Goodwin, said, “I have no comment.” The third panel member, Capt. Michelle Williams, did not return calls for comment.

An MPD sergeant, who asked not to be named for fear of reprisal, said a hearing officer told colleagues Ms. Bishop originally was not going to be fired, but the disciplinary branch called panel members and showed them new evidence to support a charge of lying.

Ted Williams, a former legal counsel to the police union, said the addition of evidence and a new charge without notice and a hearing is “highly inappropriate.”

A veteran lawyer who has handled numerous trial boards, Mr. Williams said it was “wholly unfair to face a new charge without receiving due process.” He said if there are outside influences on the process, “it brings down morale throughout the department.”