Posted on 06/18/2006 11:00:29 PM PDT by kenth
A Cuyahoga County judge threw out the charge against a man accused of raping a girl six years ago when the prosecutor in the case was 45 minutes late to trial.
Prosecutors have filed an appeal and said, if necessary, they will refile the charge against Norman Allen Craig, 22, of North Ridgeville.
The mother of the now 16-year-old Rocky River girl said her daughter feels victimized by the judge’s decision.
Common Pleas Judge Eileen Gallagher dismissed the case when Assistant County Prosecutor Mark Schneider had not shown up by 1:45 p.m. Monday, after she told both sides to be in court at 1 p.m.
Schneider was in his office preparing an appeal seeking to prevent the judge from continuing with the trial.
Earlier in the day, Schneider had asked the judge to remove herself from the case, saying the judge said last year that she thought the accuser had credibility problems.
“Nobody should be rendering opinions from the bench before trial,” Schneider said. “A child victim who’s being put through the wringer deserves a fair shake at trial.”
Gallagher said her decision to throw out the charge had nothing to do with the girl’s credibility.
“It was all about the unprofessional actions of a prosecutor,” she said. “You don’t show up — too bad. Don’t treat me like a punk and not show up in court without giving us the courtesy of notifying us where you are.”
County Prosecutor Bill Mason said calls were made to Gallagher’s office, and she should have been aware of Schneider’s pending arrival before deciding to throw out the case.
I will be interested to see what happens with this case on follow up!
Feminist judge?
Ordure in the Court! What's that stench from the bench?
Looks butch to me.
One could substitue a different vowel for U and still make the statement true.
Yes, the potential victims if this man is a rapist, the taxpayers, the police and the other cases awaiting due process all come to mind.
" Thats what everybody says until they need one."
Granted I said that somewhat tongue in cheek. Point is there are too many lawyers. And too many of those lawyers are bottom feeders. Some are also good people.
By and large the image of lawyers we see on TV of a selfless defender of the innocent is about as accurate as the police gunfights we see on tv.
Is this more "recovered memory" bunk? If so, I'm not comfortable with any charges at all.
Disbarment is verrrrry unlikely over such a mistake. It'd be one thing if the client was prejudiced, but it's not a situation where that is the case, I bet.
But see, you can't excuse not showing up to court with "I was working on a motion." The other party shows up, the court reporter shows up, the judge shows up, and often they can't proceed or even go on to another case because they assume the other attorney will be there momentarily.
The prosecutor should have shown up and said "I'm filing for your recusal," or at the least, told the judge and opposing counsel that would be the case and asked to cancel the hearing. Such a motion would have made any hearing before that judge pointless anyway.
If this judge had done the same thing with a trial lawyer who showed the same disdain for the public dollars spent on judicial and clerk time, everyone here would be applauding.
a) be at least censured ( suspended with ethics course requirements for example)
b) and lose his job as a prosecutor
You never know , mayne the prosecutor had a heart attack or got in a car accident. It happens, and we do not know yet.
"HERE A JUDGE LET HER OWN PETTY EMOTIONAL REACTIONS CONTROL THE PROCEEDINGS"
Petty emotional reactions? Pot, meet kettle. Look above. The legal minds on this thread know better than you what probably happened and what will happen.
First, this case will be refiled. It's unlikely to have been dismissed permanently (i.e., with prejudice). Every single post assuming this case is a ten-year-old girl denied justice is being suckered in by the prosecutor and by the assumption that this judge is acting liberal. The judge probably IS a lib, but that doesn't mean this is a liberal act--it's simply good work on the part of a judge who won't waste court time (and public money) on prosecutors who don't do their jobs.
Second, you reflexively assume that the prosecutor is behaving properly and the judge improperly. Sure, judges let off crooks on technicalities all the time. But why should a prosecutor get to call a judge, another lawyer, court clerk, bailiff, and other staff and not suffer some punishment for making them all wait not only in court for 45 minutes, but wait 45 minutes for even a PHONE CALL to let them know the prosecutor was running late. On top of that, to have as the reason for them running late, "Oh, I was writing a motion in my office," is crap. There was no reason to waste all these people's time and the public's money when that call could have been made before the hearing. Judges, clerks, and attorneys are all people, and judges, clerks, and public defenders are paid by your tax dollars. Was there some reason you thought their salaries should be wasted?
Sure, dismissal and default judgments are supposed to be last resorts, and are not used often in some jurisdictions, but the best judges and best jurisdictions generally use `em frequently to ensure the court calendars are taken seriously by both the parties and their counsel so that judgments issue in a timely fashion. Court calendars have to move so that the public gets resolution, and other defendants aren't let off as a result of speedy trial violations. Defaulting or dismissing cases if attorneys fail to appear is a big part of making certain that calendars progress. And nearly EVERY jurisdiction will utilize dismissal without prejudice on attorneys who entirely FTA. I would bet this was one of them.
"Agreed, the lawyer should be immediately disbarred."
If the case was dismissed with prejudice, the lawyer should certainly be sanctioned. Disbarring the prosecutor, however, is as inappropriate a remedy as dismissal with prejudice would be.
If the facts are as we surmise (i.e., not dismissed with prejudice), I would recommend something like either an intraoffice suspension if I were the chief prosecutor or a month's suspension if I were the bar committee reviewing such an infraction. You have to know with publicity this sort of thing will never happen to this lawyer again. But then, I'll never be on a bar committee for the very reason that I WOULD be harsh about it compared to other folks in the legal community and there is no way a bar committee would EVER disbar a lawyer over something like this, at least, not standing alone.
If the case was dismissed with prejudice, however, and I was the chief prosecutor, this assistant would be canned, and if I were on the bar I'd suspend him from the practice of law for at least two years. People screw up, and this screwup would deserve punishment, but it's not like because this girl was allegedly (this does seem to be a pretty 'allegedly' case, if you read between the lines) raped and the prosecutor screwed up that this one should lose their livelihood forever. Suspension would be a big enough black mark on their record to overcome. A bar committee probably wouldn't disbar an attorney over this, even with prejudice.
See message #98 ;)
Well the judge was over the top fixated, so that instead of levying a penalty on the guy who was contemptuous, she levied it on the (alleged) victim.
Thank you for pointing out that I hadn't read this carefully enough.
:)
Sorry Mad Dawg, I forgot and didn't take your name off the To:
I should have scrolled back and posted to the original, or taken your name off and left it blank.
I was just venting in general. Not at you. My fault.
:)
Ok, I didn't know this. I can calm down then. Thanks to you and others who explained this.
Rather than punish the prosecuter, punished the victim again.
The prosecutor was 6 YEARS LATE. If my math is right she was 6 and he 16 at the time. What a fiasco that trial would have been.
IMO someone's trying to make a fer bucks on this.
The impression I got from the statement:
"County Prosecutor Bill Mason said calls were made to Gallagher’s office, and she should have been aware of Schneider’s pending arrival before deciding to throw out the case."
was that the prosecutor called late to say he'd BE late. Calling after the hearing has started is of course no use at all to the folks who showed up on time.
And the difference in asking the judge to recuse herself and filing a motion to disqualify her is substantial in most jurisdictions. Asking the judge to DQ is akin to a suggestion. Moving for the judge's DQ puts the brakes on any substantial action in the case, and can even mean some previously made decisions are set aside if the facts constituting the conflict could have affected the decision.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.