# Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wrenn

> Ohio Supreme Court · July 9, 2003 · 99 Ohio St. 3d 222

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6786198

## Case

- **Full name:** Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wrenn
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 9, 2003
- **Citations:** 99 Ohio St. 3d 222
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Moyer
- **Judges:** Connor, Cook, Fain, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Second, Stratton, Sweeney
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6786198

## Opinion text

Moyer, C.J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 27} I reject the sanction imposed by the majority in this case. Respondent violated four Disciplinary Rules, and a six-month suspension with the entire suspension stayed, is inadequate punishment for such egregious behavior.
{¶ 28} Respondent withheld discoverable information and thereby breached his duties as an officer of the court and his responsibility to the public as an assistant prosecutor. Moreover, this behavior was not a single isolated incident, as respondent failed to disclose relevant, exculpatory, nonprivileged information on several occasions.
{¶ 29} I agree with the majority that respondent’s behavior was “inexcusable and undermined the integrity of the criminal justice system.” It is for this very reason, however, that I disagree with the sanction imposed. A more stringent sanction is warranted in this case.
{¶ 30} Respondent’s lapses in ethical judgment cause me to conclude that a six-month suspension, with no portion stayed, is appropriate in this case.
Pfeifer, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
Charles L. Richards, for respondent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6786198. Public record. Not legal advice.