Attorney Grievance Commission Of Maryland V Gansler

835 A.2d 548 (2003)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D served as the State's Attorney for Montgomery County since January of 1999. P filed a petition for disciplinary action, alleging that D violated MRPC 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions), MRPC 3.6 (Trial Publicity), MRPC 3.8 (Special Responsibilities, MRPC 8.2(a) (Judicial and Legal Officials), and MRPC 8.4(a) & (d) (Misconduct). P offered into evidence three videotapes of D's extrajudicial statements and the report of his expert in the case, Professor Abraham Dash. Professor Dash and Professor Lisa Lerman, Gansler's expert, testified at the hearing. D also offered his own testimony as well as that of two Deputy State's Attorneys for Montgomery. County. In the Cook case, D attended a press conference and made several statements regarding the anticipated prosecution of Cook. D described Cook's confession and the circumstances surrounding his custodial statements to police including that investigators had 'bootprint matches and that Cook provided a full and detailed account of the assault and murder of Stottsmeister. . . . Cook provided details about the murder that would only be known by the perpetrator of the crime.' In the Lucas Case, D spoke at the press conference about Lucas wearing a very unique shoe, a very unique boot, and the print of that boot matched the print that was found at the scene of the crime, and then further questioning revealed, in fact, Lucas was the person that has done it. D said there was 'a confession from the perpetrator as well as scientific and forensic evidence to corroborate that confession. . . .' 'We have found the person who committed the crime at this point' and that the case against Lucas 'will be a strong case.' 'It was a violent murder' and that Lucas 'has a criminal record which includes residential burglaries and that will be obviously something that will come out later on as well.' In the Perry case, the Washington Post ran an article describing D's discussions with family members of the victims of the 1993 murders. D had asked the family members whether Perry should be retried or offered a plea agreement. Quoted in the article was Perry's attorney, William Jordan Temple, who commented that he 'certainly would look forward' to a plea offer because 'anyone faced with the possibility of a death penalty considers an offer of life.' D also made extrajudicial statements published on April 5, 2000. D had announced that 'he has decided to offer [Perry] a plea bargain' and that, 'when the offer is formally presented, Perry would have six weeks to make a decision.' In front of television cameras, D also remarked that 'the Court of Appeals' decision to reverse the original conviction of Perry was a completely result oriented opinion.' D expressed his view that the 'four to three' opinion 'was clearly an effort to overturn the death penalty in the Perry case.' In the Bomb Threat Case D was quoted as saying, 'We try hard cases. . . . Juveniles who phone in bomb threats will be prosecuted. It's more important to prosecute someone and have them acquitted than let them commit crimes with impunity.' The judge found that, in one instance, D had violated MRPC 3.6(a). The hearing judge found a single violation of MRPC 3.6 from the statements about D's decision to offer a plea agreement in the Perry case. Both P and D appealed.