As to that exception, that the assaultive behavior occurred in a courtroom outside the presence of a judge or jury, the parties placed a stipulation on the record. Respondent conceded that the proffered testimony had been presented to Magistrate Carlson in the federal assault proceeding. That testimony was also excluded by the panel on the grounds that it was inadmissible in light of the conclusive nature of the judgment of conviction. We do not necessarily fault the panel for its view that allowing the testimony concerning the conduct which resulted in the assault conviction would impermissibly open the door to a relitigation of the criminal proceeding. At the Board review hearing, the Grievance Administrator's counsel was asked whether respondent should have the right to present mitigating evidence in the form of an account by respondent or any other eye witnesses to the assault.
Example comes to mind.
Lawyer is convicted of assault. You've got the conviction. Now we go to the mitigating phase of the process. Well, he said something real ugly about my mother. Because you are attacking collaterally the underlying conviction.