disciplinary handbook: volume v - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

Case Summaries- 156
defendant pleads guilty.‖ Further, the court agreed with respondent that she did not violate DR 7-
102(A)(3) because under Ruiz, respondent has no obligation to disclose the Dorsey and Cooper
reports. The court also rejected the finding that her conduct was prejudicial to the administration of
justice. The court noted that ―[o]ur decision today should not be construed as an endorsement of
respondent‘s nondisclosure of the reports.‖ The court quoted United State v. Agurs: ―Because we are
dealing with an inevitably imprecise standard, and because the significance of an item of evidence can
seldom be predicted accurately until the entire record is complete, the prudent prosecutor will resolve
doubtful questions in favor of disclosure.‖ The court also agreed with respondent that she did not violate
DR 1-102(A)(4) by her statement in the bill of particulars or in her statement in open court at the plea
hearing. The court noted that respondent‘s statements were not representations about what the Dorsey
report said, but were representations about what the victim said to Dorsey on June 12, 2002. The court
noted that the Dorsey report is not the only version of what the victim told Dorsey on that date, there was
the ―Family Risk Assessment Matrix‖ form and the victims other statements which point to her being
12 when she was raped. The court dismissed the disciplinary complaint. Chief Justice dissented and
disagreed with the proposition that DR 7-103(B) is, or should be, limited by Crim.R. 16(B)(1)(f) and the
corresponding constitutional analysis and disagreed with the reweight of the evidence to reject the
finding of a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) and would have adopted the board‘s recommended sanction.
Rules Violated: None
Aggravation: None
Mitigation: None
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: YES Sanction: Case Dismissed