Disciplinary Counsel v. Stuard
Ohio Supreme Court
901 N.E.2d 788 (2009)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Judge John Stuard and attorney Christopher Becker (plaintiffs) were the presiding judge and prosecutor in a capital murder trial. After the jury found the defendant guilty, Judge Stuard asked Becker to prepare and write the court’s sentencing opinion for the sentencing hearing. Becker drafted the opinion, Stuard reviewed it and noted corrections, and Becker made the corrections. Defense counsel was unaware of any of these communications until it became obvious at the sentencing hearing that the prosecutors had prior access to the sentencing opinion. A state disciplinary board (plaintiff) held that Stuard and Becker had violated the rules of judicial and professional conduct, and the case came before the supreme court of Ohio for determination of appropriate sanctions.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
