Sandusky Judge Rapped For Unjustified Delays
Posted on Tuesday, 20 of May , 2008 at 7:43 pm
SANDUSKY, OHIO—The Ohio Supreme Court has publicly reprimanded Judge Harry A Sargeant Jr. of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas for “unnecessary and unjustified delay” in ruling on matters before his court. The Court’s 6-1 decision was written by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer.
In a case the Court labeled as “unique” because it involves the first-ever disciplinary sanction imposed on a judge solely for failure to meet case management time requirements, the justices adopted a consent-to-discipline agreement between Sargeant and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel that was approved by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline. In the consent agreement, Sargeant stipulated that his delays of up to two years in ruling on cases on his court’s docket violated provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct that require judges to perform the duties of their office “diligently,” and to “dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently and fairly and comply with guidelines set forth in the Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio.”
Sargeant also admitted a violation of the Judicial Canon that mandates judges to require court staff to “observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge.”
The official complaint filed against Sargeant cited excessive delays in ruling on six specific cases, which the Court reviewed in detail in its decision. The Court also took judicial notice of statistical reports compiled by the Supreme Court Case Management Section showing that, from 1998 through 2007, the percentage of cases that remained pending on Sargeant’s docket beyond time guidelines set forth in the Rules of Superintendence was significantly higher than in other courts with similar caseloads.
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Moyer noted that Appendix A of the Rules of Superintendence sets presumptive time limits of 12 months for resolving cases involving modification or enforcement of support orders, 18 months for divorces involving children, 12 months for divorces without children, 24 months for torts and 12 months for workers’ compensation appeals.
In evaluating Sargeant’s performance, the Chief Justice wrote: “We focused on one specific factor in this review, the percentage of cases on respondent’s docket that were pending beyond the time guidelines prescribed by this court … This statistic reveals that respondent frequently kept cases pending for longer than the time guidelines prescribed by the rules of superintendence and that he reported a far greater percentage of such pending cases than his peers.”
“In contested divorce cases in which the parties had children,” the Chief Justice noted, “respondent’s peers had, on average, between 2 percent and 5 percent of their cases pending beyond this court’s guidelines from 1998 to 2007. In 2001, respondent had 21 percent of such cases pending beyond the guidelines. From 2002 through 2005, respondent kept between 13 percent and 19 percent of those cases pending beyond the guidelines, though he reduced these numbers to 8 percent in 2006 and 3 percent in 2007. … Similarly, for contested divorce cases without children, respondent’s peers had, on average, between 4 percent and 11 percent of those cases pending beyond the guidelines from 1998 through 2007. Respondent reached a high of 43 percent in 2001, followed by 8 percent in 2002, 5 percent in 2003, 38 percent in 2004, 42 percent in 2005, 26 percent in 2006, and 6 percent in 2007. Although his conduct improved in 2006 and 2007, respondent has made a habit of keeping unacceptably high numbers of cases pending beyond this court’s guidelines. This conduct plainly violated Canons 3, 3(B)(8), and 3(C)(2).”
In determining the appropriate sanction for this case, the Chief Justice observed that resolving legal disputes promptly is an important part of the mission of the judicial branch of government. 5-20-08
- Add this post to
- Del.icio.us -
- Meneame -
- Digg
COPYRIGHT 2007 - NORTH COUNTRY GAZETTE All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the express written permission of the publisher.
