Sat Jul 04 2009
Home |
Back
Legal groups praise appeals court decision Overturned contempt ruling by Plough against lawyer
January 8, 2009
Two groups have praised the 11th District Court of Appeals in Warren for its recent decision to overturn the contempt conviction of a defense attorney by Portage County Municipal Court Judge John Plough.
The Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National Legal Aid & Defender Association issued statements this week lauding the appellate court's decision in the case against Brian Jones.
On Aug. 16, 2007, Jones -- out of law school just four months -- was employed by the Portage County Public Defender's Office and was appointed to represent a defendant whose file Jones had just received one day prior. Jones was found to be in contempt of court by Plough after refusing to proceed as he felt he could not adequately represent the defendant.
Several lawyers, both locally and nationally, felt the finding by Plough was egregious and contrary to the fundamental principles of the criminal justice system. As a result, several groups offered assistance in fighting the charge.
"Poor people are entitled to lawyers who fulfill their professional obligations," said Richard Goemann, director of defender legal services for the NLADA. "Equal and fair access to our justice system is the cornerstone of our society. When judges deny the right to a fair trial, all people suffer."
Jones could not be reached for comment on the appellate decision.
Comments
By Posting to this site, you agree to our Terms of Service Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed.
Recordpub.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Login above or Register to comment.
1 Total Comments
|
1.
|
Posted by DoWhatsRight January 8, 2009
|
|
|
Well, I think that both sides are wrong here. I am not a fan of Judge Plough, but I can understand why he insisted that the defense be made. The subject would not accept or meet with an attorney to prepare his defense for weeks. I think the judge was right then to in fact tell the suspect that you made a choice not to co-operate and prepare a defense, so you will be stuck with what ever is available on you trial date. Otherwise the trial could be post phoned for ever.
The attorney should of gone ahead and attempted to defend the suspect, and then appealed the case on the fact that he was not given enough time to prepare a defense. I think the attorney should have been sanctioned for refusing to do his job. If he had done his job, then the punishment would have fell on the suspect where it should have been. Alas, the courts never punish the people responsible, they usual release the suspect which penalizes the citizens. |
||
Home | Back
AP Video
Copyright Record Publishing Co, LLC. 1995-2009. All Rights Reserved.
Content may not be republished without the expressed written consent of the publisher.
Content may not be republished without the expressed written consent of the publisher.
Dix Communications