Bad Prosecutor

An attorney who engaged in multiple acts of prosecutorial misconduct as an assistant district attorney has been disbarred by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

In one of the matters

The convictions concerning “J.L.” and “T.C” were reversed because of Respondent’s misconduct in closing arguments, including “utilizing intemperate language and making an [obscene] hand gesture.”

From the Disciplinary Board’s report

Respondent was an Assistant District Attorney in Venango County during the time frame of the misconduct. In three separate cases, he engaged in various forms of prosecutorial misconduct. During the prosecution of Anderson, Respondent violated a court order by interviewing one of the alleged victims without the presence of a responsible person from the Polk Center. He then misrepresented to the court his contact with that alleged victim. Respondent utilized intemperate language and made a profane hand gesture during the closing argument in the second trial of Anderson, resulting in reversal of Anderson’s conviction. Respondent’s conduct was particularly harmful for the Commonwealth and for two alleged victims, as the charges against Anderson as to those alleged victims were dismissed on the basis of double jeopardy.

During the prosecution of Culver, Respondent made misrepresentations during his opening statement as to the evidence, including evidence that did not exist. During closing argument, Respondent mischaracterized the existence of expert witnesses. Respondent attempted to intimidate the defendant and his counsel by repeatedly yelling, menacing, and pointing in their faces.

In the Sundol prosecution, Respondent discussed Sundol’s case with her, without the knowledge or consent of Sundol’s counsel, resulting in the Court disqualifying Respondent as counsel for the matter.

Having concluded that Respondent violated the Rules, this matter is ripe for the determination of discipline. Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the Hearing Committee have recommended that Respondent be disbarred. After considering the nature and gravity of the misconduct as well as the presence of aggravating or mitigating factors, Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Gwendolyn Harmon, 72 Pa. D. & C. 4th 115 (2004), we recommend that Respondent be disbarred.

Respondent’s actions constitute serious misconduct. While there is no per se discipline in Pennsylvania, prior similar cases are instructive and are suggestive of the most severe sanction when, as here, an attorney engages in repeated dishonest conduct, misrepresentation to the court and lack of respect for the court in his capacity as a prosecutor.

He defaulted on the charges.

The Pittsburgh Post – Gazette reported that he was “involuntarily terminated” as an ADA in 2012. (Mike Frisch)