High court reprimands judge, prosecutor

This is the first time either man has been reprimanded by the top court.

STAFF report

WARREN — The Ohio Supreme Court has given public reprimands to Judge John M. Stuard of Trumbull County Common Pleas Court and Chris Becker, an assistant county prosecutor, for what Judge Stuard said was a common practice in his courtroom.

The high court gave no other sanctions for the misconduct.

The court, in its decision, said Judge Stuard had a practice of enlisting help from the county prosecutor’s office in drafting journal entries in criminal cases.

Specifically, Judge Stuard employed the practice for the sentencing of Donna Roberts of Howland in 2003, when Judge Stuard sentenced her to death for her role in the murder of her ex-husband, Robert Fingerhut, in 2001.

Becker and the judge have said Becker prepared the 17-page sentencing entry, at Judge Stuard’s request.

The entry stated the sentence Roberts would get, some explanation of why and gave some history of the case.

The Supreme Court said Judge Stuard gave Becker two pages of notes on the aggravating circumstances and mitigating factors that he had weighed in deciding that the death sentence was appropriate for Roberts.

He asked Becker to use those notes and to use information from a previous sentencing opinion in the companion case of Nathaniel Jackson, Roberts’ co-defendant, for the history portion of the entry.

Becker delivered a draft copy of the entry to Judge Stuard the next day, and Judge Stuard asked for and received a revised copy soon thereafter, the Supreme Court said.

John Coughlan, disciplinary counsel for the Ohio Supreme Court, said the problem with the practice of having the prosecutor prepare the entry was that it constituted ex-parte (meaning one-sided) communications because it excluded defense counsel from being involved.

In this case, the defense team of John B. Juhasz and J. Gerald Ingram were not allowed to participate in the preparation of the sentencing entry because they had not seen it before it was read in court or been told the prosecution was preparing it, Coughlan said.

When Juhasz and Ingram noticed that Ken Bailey, an assistant county prosecutor also involved in the Roberts’ case, had a copy of the sentencing entry while Judge Stuard was reading his ruling during Roberts’ sentencing hearing, the defense lawyers raised an objection, which led to a complaint being filed by the Ohio Supreme Court’s Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline against Judge Stuard, Becker and Bailey.

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint against Bailey, saying he had not done anything improper.

Stuard, Becker and Bailey testified during a hearing in March before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances Discipline.

Judge Stuard said it was a common practice to have the prosecutor’s office prepare a sentencing entry. The practice had begun for practical reasons, Judge Stuard said: The prosecutor’s office was the first to have computers, and the judges do not have secretaries to handle such tasks.

But Judge Stuard said he had made his decision in the Roberts’ case on his own and discussed nothing of substance with Becker while asking him to prepare the entry.

Becker told the board there was nothing improper in him preparing the judgment entry because it didn’t involve any discussion of what lawyers call the “merits of the case,” meaning the facts that lead a judge or jury to decide a case in a particular way.

Juhasz told the board he and Ingram raised questions at the time of the sentencing because they had not been shown the entry before the sentencing took place or had been told the prosecutor’s office was preparing it.

Juhasz said he was satisfied, however, that the practice did not constitute an ethical violation.

The Supreme Court said it considered aggravating and mitigating factors in choosing its sanctions against Judge Stuard and Becker, including this being the first time either man has been disciplined by the court.

“Judge Stuard established his excellent character, distinguished service as a judge, reputation for honesty and fairness and commitment to public service,” the court said.

“With letters of recommendation or testimony from members of law enforcement, the bench and the bar, including both opposing counsel in the Roberts’ case, Becker has similarly shown his reputation for honesty, good character and professional competence,” the court said.

runyan@vindy.com