Saturday, January 16, 2010

Discipline Action Goes to Ohio Supreme Court

The Ohio Supreme Court's disciplinary review board has recommended Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Daniel Gaul be suspended from practicing law and, in effect, removed from the bench for one year for violating judicial codes.

But the court's Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline also recommend the yearlong suspension be stayed, which would allow Gaul to continue working. His case now goes before the full Supreme Court, which will later determine whether to accept the board's recommendation or come up with a sanction, if any, of its own.

Gaul is being penalized for threatening to jail a defendant in an assault case if the 83-year-old victim did not show up to testify in a 2007 case. Gaul had feared that the elderly victim, Emma Ingram, had been intimidated to not appear in court to testify against her attackers.

The disciplinary board, however, said Gaul's threat violated the state's Code of Judicial Conduct and Rules of Professional Conduct. In particular, the board said Gaul violated canons that require judges to promote public confidence in the judicial system and requires them to be unbiased and not make public comments that might impact the fairness of a case.

Gaul, who did not deny threatening to jail the defendant, Jeffrey Robinson, has said that he was acting in the best interest of the public and the justice system by attempting to prevent witness intimidation. He also alleged that he was being tried by the board because of a personal vendetta against him by the Supreme Court's disciplinary counsel, Jonathan Coughlan. Coughlan denied the accusation.

Full Article and Source:
Disciplinary Board Recommends One-Year Suspension for Cleveland Judge, but Penalty Would be Stayed

See Also:
Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Daniel Gaul Faces Disciplinary Hearing for Threatening Defendant With Jail After Witness Went Missing

5 comments:

  1. I tend to believe the "personal vendetta" thing - for sure!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I do too!

    Especially after the Lokuta set up.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, but if he really threatened the woman, then he deserves discipline - personal vendetta or not.

    ReplyDelete
  4. But what discipline is there if they discipline him and then stay that discipline? Why even go through the motions?

    ReplyDelete
  5. THis is one to watch. It could go either way.

    ReplyDelete