|
|
| Wed Aug 20 2008 3:06 PM | |
|
|
|
Newspaper Subscriptions
By Dave O'Brien
Record-Courier staff writer
Portage County's top public defender will be in court Friday to defend one of his employees on a contempt of court charge leveled by Portage County Municipal Court Judge John Plough.
Controversy continues to brew over Plough charging Assistant Public Defender Brian Jones with contempt for refusing to go forward with representing a defendant in a misdemeanor assault case on less than 24 hours notice.
Portage County Public Defender Dennis Lager said his office is "very comfortable in the manner in which we are conducting ourselves and that we are appropriate and correct in our legal and ethical obligations" to clients, and will continue to provide legal counsel to defendants per their Sixth Amendment rights.
"Judge Plough is absolutely wrong. There was no contempt of court by Mr. Jones," Lager said Tuesday, adding his office "relishes the opportunity" to prove it in court.
Lager said his office has been having problems with Plough ever since the judge, a former Portage County prosecutor and Ravenna attorney, was elected to the bench in November 2005. In June 2006, Lager said, Plough attempted to appoint the public defender's office to a misdemeanor drunk driving case and ordered it to trial only two days after
"I advised him then that we wouldn't and couldn't comply with that order. That was the first threat of contempt we had from Judge Plough, and I advised him that perhaps he was at liberty to find me or any of my assistants in contempt," Lager said.
Plough backed down, Lager said, but later threatened Associate Public Defender Mark Carfolo with contempt and held Assistant Public Defender Robin Bostick in contempt in later cases because of matters of trial preparation time.
In a letter dated Aug. 7, 2006 that Lager said he personally delivered to Plough's bailiff to be forwarded to Plough, Lager outlined his office's policy of not taking cases to trial when a public defender has been appointed less than seven days prior.
Plough denied receiving the letter last week after Jones brought it up in court, and would not accept a copy of the letter from Jones.
Lager insists he delivered the first letter personally.
"To say (Plough) hasn't (received the letter), that means it was either purposely withheld by the court bailiff or his bailiff was negligent in giving it to the judge or, having provided it to (Plough), the judge either failed to read it, refused to read it or has forgotten it," he said.
Lager also said he has case law, in particular two similar misdemeanor cases in Montgomery County from 1987 and Hamilton County from 1976, that will be "persuasive" in court.
After holding Jones in contempt, Plough scolded Jordan Scott, the 20-year-old defendant in the assault case, for failing to secure legal representation earlier than the day before his scheduled trial. Plough then re-set Scott's assault trial for 1:30 p.m. Friday.
Scott, 20, could have applied for a public defender at the Portage County Jail upon his arrest or any time between June 18, when he was arraigned, and Aug. 16, his trial date. Arrested Aug. 9 on an unrelated felony charge, Scott again appeared before Plough at the Kent courthouse, where Plough performed a marriage ceremony and signed off on Scott's marriage license.
Asked about Scott not getting an attorney before trial, Lager said he agreed with Plough "in a limited regard" when it comes to the defendant's responsibility to get representation.
"It is the accused's responsibility, if he or she is indigent, to seek appointment of counsel and they should do that as precipitously as possible. If he (delayed seeking counsel) in that case, that's Mr. Scott's problem," Lager said.
Jones' contempt hearing is scheduled for 3:30 p.m. Friday at the Kent courthouse. Lager said he will show Plough "is absolutely wrong" and "not on firm ground" legally.
"Whereas we are officers of the court, we are not pawns of the court," Lager said. "You can't just have counsel sit there like a potted plant and presume to follow the Sixth Amendment."
Plough declined to comment Tuesday, saying he can't talk about a pending case.
Login above or Register to comment.
6 Total Comments
|
6.
|
Posted by FreeToBe44 August 24, 2007
|
|
|
Judge John Plough is at it once again, I hope the Supreme Court Gets Word of this once he is served his ass on a platter.
Does he want to be removed from the bench, so he can go and argue about that damn oak tree some more? |
||
|
5.
|
Posted by specialed August 22, 2007
|
|
|
people need to look at the facts.it is not the prosecutors job to get a defendant an attorney. nor is it the p.d.'s job to find a client. in a major case such as murder the judge may appoint an atty but in a case like this it is the defendants job to fill out the affidavit for counsel, pay $25 and if approved contact the atty. the p.d. was applied for on 8-15-07 not any other time( read the docket). the p.d. often gets a bad rap for rushing clients thru the system of being unprepared. i call tell you with certainty that mr. lager and his assistants do a better job than half the atty's you could retain in po co. i i were to be in troublei would not mind having them on my side. they need to be commended for not taking this rush job to trial. |
||
|
4.
|
Posted by hangemhigh August 22, 2007
|
|
|
judge Pittman should being handed this one !!!!
|
||
|
3.
|
Posted by rdc August 22, 2007
|
|
|
Sounds kind of like Judge Roy Bean, Ohio law east of the Pacos.
|
||
|
2.
|
Posted by hangemhigh August 22, 2007
|
|
|
i sure hope that Lager can go after this fool and hit him in his FAT wallet where it will really hurt.
|
||
|
1.
|
Posted by Rageman August 22, 2007
|
|
|
Hey Dave, you omitted telling us who the Judge is that will be hearing this matter in the Kent court. Seems pretty relevant to the story, don't you think?
|
||
| Terms of Service |
Copyright Record Publishing Co, LLC. 1995-2008. All Rights Reserved. Content may not be republished without the expressed written consent of the publisher. |
 Dix Communications
|