 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplinary Counsel v. O'Neill9/7/2004
do not conform to any definition of conspirators: they are all ages, both sexes, all races, all political persuasions (Republicans, Democrats and everything in between), prosecutors, public defenders and private defense attorneys, civil plaintiff's counsel, civil defense counsel, convicted criminals, courtroom observers, law enforcement officials, law students, court employees, county employees and Judge O'Neill's former employees. The eight judges who signed this collection of grievances did not create these complaints. They provided a structure, a form in which the complaints that existed could be collected to investigate what was happening. The panel majority concludes by clear and convincing evidence that this Amended Complaint is about each individual case and is not about a political agenda.
327. Another factor in mitigation is absence of a prior disciplinary record. While the Respondent has never been sanctioned in a disciplinary proceeding, she testified that in 1996 charges against her were dismissed after a hearing under Gov. Jud. R. III by a five-judge commission.
328. The testimony about respondent's volatile and intemperate behavior raised the issue of a mental disability with the panel. However, the parties agreed and Judge O'Neill submitted to an examination by a psychiatrist chosen by Relator in May 2003. The examiner found no evidence of a mental illness as defined by R.C.5122.01. Neither Relator nor Respondent chose to submit the report to the panel or use in evidence any of the findings made in that report. The parties represented that they had fully explored the issue of mental illness and it was a non-issue in this proceeding. At the request of the panel chair confirmation of these facts appear in the Transcript at Vol. XVI -- 152-154.
329. Aggravation: For the panel majority, the most troubling aspect of this entire case affecting aggravation was the Respondent's lack of credibility and outright dishonesty. Beyond the identified misrepresentations found as violations of DR 1-102(A)(4), the panel majority concluded that Judge O'Neill's Answer to the Amended Complaint and her testimony throughout this proceeding was false and self-serving. On only two occasions -- in Burton v. Nicholson and regarding Woerner's bond forfeiture judgment - did she admit in testimony that anything she did was an error or was not appropriate. While she was technically cooperative in these proceedings and certainly her counsel conducted these hearings in a civil and professional manner, this final hearing took as long as it did because in every factual incident Judge O'Neill's version of the events, either plead in her Answer or in her final hearing testimony, contradicted the testimony of every other witness to those events. At times there were three versions of events: Respondent's pleading in the Answer, Respondent's testimony at final hearing and the testimony of the other factual witnesses. While Respondent generally claimed difficulty remembering events that had occurred years before, when it served to justify her actions her memory of events became detailed and vivid. The stipulations filed in this matter related solely to uncontested matters of dates, assignments, times, places and matters already of record (although even "the record" was contested in some incidents). Respondent called a single fact witness (Ronald Janes) and he corroborated Respondent's threat to revoke the bond of a defendant who chose trial! The testimony of the experience of court staff and judges with Respondent established that Respondent's reputation for being truthful left much to be desired. The panel majority finds Respondent's dishonesty, false statements and her refusal to acknowledge the wrongful natur
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|