Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Wrenn

Citation: 2003-Ohio-3288

Docket Number: 20022181

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-07-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wrenn, 99 Ohio St.3d 222, 2003-Ohio-3288.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WRENN. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wrenn, 99 Ohio St.3d 222, 2003-Ohio-3288.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with entire sanction 
stayed — Failing to disclose discoverable information in a criminal case 
as a prosecuting attorney that was relevant, exculpatory and not 
privileged, and failing to do so on more than one occasion. 
(No. 2002-2181 — Submitted March 25, 2003 — Decided July 9, 2003.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-62. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Thomas C. Wrenn of Warren, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0051952, was admitted to the practice of law in this state in May 
1991.  At all times relevant to this formal complaint, respondent was serving as an 
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney in Trumbull County, Ohio. 
{¶2} 
In June 1999, the Trumbull County Sheriff’s Department was 
informed that a 12-year-old boy had reportedly been the victim of criminal sexual 
activity.  The boy had reported that, in May 1999 and on June 5, 1999, he and 
Leonard M. Derr, a man involved in the boy’s youth baseball program, were in 
Derr’s car.  The boy alleged that sexual activity occurred in the car when Derr 
pulled it off to the side of the road.  The boy did not report the May 1999 incident 
until after the June 5, 1999 incident. 
{¶3} 
On June 9, 1999, Trumbull County Sheriff’s Detective Jane Timko 
went to the boy’s home to investigate.  She took a statement from him and 
collected evidence, which included some of the clothing he had been wearing on 
June 5, 1999.  On June 28, 1999, 11 items, including a towel, items from Derr’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
car, the boy’s shirt, and various pieces of the boy’s clothing were sent to the Ohio 
Bureau of Criminal Investigation and Identification (“BCI”) for analysis. 
{¶4} 
On June 29, 1999, the Trumbull County Grand Jury returned a 
three-count indictment against Derr.  Count I alleged gross sexual imposition with 
regard to the May 1999 incident.  Counts II and III alleged gross sexual 
imposition and rape, respectively, with regard to the June 5, 1999 incident.  
Through his attorney, Philip M. Vigorito, Derr pleaded not guilty to all three 
counts.  On June 30, 1999, Vigorito filed a request for discovery for, inter alia, 
results or reports of any scientific tests or laboratory analyses pursuant to Crim.R. 
16. 
{¶5} 
BCI confirmed the presence of semen on the boy’s shirt but did not 
reveal whose it was.  Blood samples were submitted to BCI on August 11, 1999, 
to determine the source of the semen.  Sometime prior to October 12, 1999, a 
scientist at BCI telephoned Detective Timko to inform her of the results of the 
analysis.  Timko verbally informed respondent that the victim, not Derr, was the 
source of the semen on the boy’s shirt.  Respondent asked Timko to make 
arrangements for him to interview the victim. 
{¶6} 
On October 12, 1999, the trial court conducted a pretrial in the 
Derr case.  Neither Timko nor respondent had yet received a written report from 
BCI.  The following exchange took place at the pretrial: 
{¶7} 
“MR. VIGORITO:  I believe the State is still waiting for test 
results from BCI and at this time we’d like to reset this for two weeks from today 
for another follow-up pretrial. 
{¶8} 
“[RESPONDENT]:  That’s all correct. 
{¶9} 
“* * * 
{¶10} “THE COURT:  Very well. We will reset this for two weeks.  That 
will be October 26th.  And obviously if any results come in you’ll indicate the 
nature of those results to the Defendant as soon as possible. 
January Term, 2003 
3 
{¶11} “[RESPONDENT]:  That’s correct.” 
{¶12} Later that day, respondent interviewed the victim and the boy 
changed his previous story that the semen on his shirt was Derr’s and conceded 
that it was his own.  No one else heard this interview. 
{¶13} Respondent left for vacation on Friday, October 15, 1999, and did 
not return to his office until Monday, October 25, 1999.  The court held another 
pretrial on October 26, 1999, at which Derr pled guilty to Count I of the 
indictment (gross sexual imposition) and the state dismissed the other two counts 
of the indictment.  Respondent did not inform Vigorito or the court of the verbal 
report of the DNA test results or his October 12, 1999 interview with the victim.  
Respondent did not disclose this information during the presentence investigation 
or Derr’s sentencing hearing.  Derr was sentenced to three years in prison. 
{¶14} Sometime after sentencing, Vigorito informed the court that he had 
just learned that the lab tests had been completed prior to the guilty plea and that 
the information had not been produced through discovery.  Vigorito subsequently 
filed a motion to withdraw Derr’s guilty plea.  The court granted the motion on 
January 7, 2000. 
{¶15} On April 27, 2000, the court denied Derr’s motion to dismiss the 
indictment.  On July 31, 2000, Derr pleaded guilty to the same count that he had 
pled to on October 26, 1999.  Once again, Counts II and III were dismissed.  The 
court imposed the same sentence upon Derr as it originally had with credit for 
time served. 
{¶16} On June 11, 2001, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, charged 
respondent with misconduct in violation of the Code of Professional 
Responsibility.  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline heard the cause and, based upon testimony and the parties’ stipulations, 
determined that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice), DR 7-102(A)(3) (concealing or 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
knowingly failing to disclose that which he is required by law to reveal), and DR 
7-103(B) (failing to timely disclose, as a public prosecutor in criminal litigation, 
to counsel for the defendant the existence of evidence that tends to negate guilt, 
mitigate, or reduce punishment).1  The panel further concluded that relator failed 
to prove a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). 
{¶17} The panel heard mitigating evidence that respondent, age 61, was 
also a clinical psychologist and school psychologist.  He has no previous 
disciplinary matters.  There was testimony from attorneys and other professionals 
as to his good character and reputation.  Two judges from Trumbull County 
submitted positive character letters.  Respondent fully and freely cooperated in the 
proceedings.  There was no dishonest or selfish motive and no chemical 
dependency issue.  Finally, there were no aggravating factors. 
{¶18} Two members of the panel, taking into consideration the 
substantial mitigating factors, recommended that respondent be publicly 
reprimanded.  The third panel member opined that respondent misrepresented the 
results of the DNA testing to the judge and to opposing counsel, a DR 1-
102(A)(4) violation.  The dissenting panel member recommended a six-month 
suspension and that the suspension be stayed. 
{¶19} Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(L), the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of 
the panel.  However, the board found a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) and adopted 
the dissenting panel member’s recommendation that respondent be suspended 
from the practice of law for six months with the entire six-month suspension 
stayed, costs to respondent. 
                                          
 
1. 
Respondent was also charged with violations of DR 7-102(A)(8), 7-109(A) and 5-102(B).  
Relator dismissed these charges at the hearing before the panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline. 
January Term, 2003 
5 
{¶20} Relator objects to the board’s recommended sanction and urges us 
to impose an actual six-month suspension from the practice of law due to 
respondent’s significant breach of four Disciplinary Rules.  Relator contends that 
the board improperly evaluated certain aggravating factors. 
{¶21} Respondent breached his duties as an officer of the court and his 
public responsibility as an assistant prosecutor.  He had ethical and legal 
obligations to disclose discoverable information that was relevant, exculpatory, 
and not privileged and he failed to do so on more than one occasion.  We do not 
accept respondent’s assertion that it was an innocent misrepresentation.  When the 
court inquired about the DNA test results at the pretrial, respondent failed to 
disclose that he had knowledge that testing was complete and the results were 
favorable to Derr. 
{¶22} Respondent also contends that the secondhand verbal report was 
merely hearsay.  When there is an obligation to disclose, an attorney does not 
have the discretion to determine whether the discoverable information may 
constitute admissible evidence.  He knew the DNA results at the October pretrial.  
When the court asked about those results, respondent remained silent.  He 
continued to remain silent throughout the remainder of the proceedings about the 
DNA results and the changes in the victim’s story.  This information, however, 
was material to Derr’s defense.  The fact that Derr’s eventual conviction and 
sentence were the same as the original does not diminish respondent’s 
wrongdoing.  Material information that is not made known to a defendant or 
opposing party may have significant implications on the outcome of a case. 
{¶23} Here, the respondent knew that the DNA testing had been 
completed and that it was not Derr’s semen on the victim’s shirt.  The fact that the 
information was not yet provided in the form of a written report does not negate 
respondent’s duty to disclose the information.  In addition, the respondent knew 
that the victim had changed his story about the source of that semen and neglected 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
to inform Derr’s counsel.  Whether or not the DNA test results were implicated in 
the plea actually negotiated, the credibility of the victim certainly was an issue.  
Respondent’s failure to disclose the information before the first plea was 
inexcusable and undermined the integrity of the criminal justice system.  The 
failure to disclose this information violated four Disciplinary Rules and warrants 
the imposition of sanctions. 
{¶24} Relator contends that an actual six-month suspension should be 
imposed because respondent violated multiple Disciplinary Rules and refuses to 
admit to his wrongdoing.  In other disciplinary cases where there has been 
deception or a failure to disclose information, we have imposed a six-month 
suspension from the practice of law, sometimes actual, other times stayed.  Stark 
Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 
818;  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Marsick (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 551, 692 N.E.2d 991; 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 369, 613 N.E.2d 178.  The 
appropriate sanction depends upon the particular facts of that case. 
{¶25} Here, respondent acknowledges that his professional judgment 
may have been wrong, but he maintains that the verbal report from a police 
detective was hearsay and not reliable information.  Respondent has been 
involved in no other disciplinary matters in his 12 years as an attorney.  With his 
background in child psychology, he is well suited to prosecuting child abuse 
cases.  Therefore, in light of all respondent’s mitigating factors, we believe that a 
six-month suspension with the entire period stayed is appropriate. 
{¶26} We concur with the board’s findings and recommendation.  
Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months 
with the entire six-month suspension stayed.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, FAIN and O’CONNOR, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, J., dissent. 
January Term, 2003 
7 
 
MIKE FAIN, J., of the Second Appellate District, sitting for COOK, J. 
__________________ 
 
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. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, First 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Charles L. Richards, for respondent. 
__________________