Opinion ID: 2508592
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Incest Charges and Reversed Convictions

Text: Petitioner concurs with the findings set out in paragraphs 1 through 25 of the hearing panel's findings and conclusions. [9] Petitioner opines that the hearing panel was wrong to find, in paragraph 26, [10] that there is nothing in the trial record that shows Applicant was falsely accused of the incest offenses. Petitioner asserts that [t]he unanimous Kansas Supreme Court decision, the trial transcripts and motions and memoranda filed in the case are replete with evidence that clearly and convincing [sic] show [he] was innocent of all charges brought and was wrongfully tried and convicted. The Kansas Supreme Court's opinion supports Petitioner's assertion that he was wrongly convicted, but lends no support to Petitioner's statement that the case [is] replete with evidence that clearly and convincing [sic] show [he] was innocent of all charges brought and was wrongfully tried[.] The Kansas Supreme Court characterized the evidence against Petitioner as not overwhelming and noted that the credibility of the [daughters'] testimony is the State's case, but the Kansas Supreme Court did not say Petitioner was innocent or that the evidence was insufficient. Indeed, the Kansas Supreme Court remanded the case for a new trial. Petitioner does not identify any part of the trial record to support his assertion that the case [is] replete with evidence that clearly and convincing [sic] show [he] was innocent of all charges brought[.] A favorable resolution of a criminal proceeding does not preclude consideration of the criminal accusation and evidence in support of it when the Board of Examiners and this court are reviewing a bar application. On this subject, the Oregon Supreme Court said, for example: Of course, an arrest or a charge ending in dismissal does not establish that the accused committed the prohibited act.... As the United States Supreme Court has said: The mere fact that a man has been arrested has very little, if any, probative value in showing that he has engaged in any misconduct. An arrest shows nothing more than that someone probably suspected the person apprehended of an offense. ... On the other hand, dismissal does not preclude inquiry to ascertain whether an offense was committed. We recently considered a similar question in a proceeding concerning the conduct of a judge ...[.] There, criminal charges had been filed and later dismissed. The judge argued that the dismissal precluded our consideration of the charges. We rejected this contention, concluding that it was our duty to determine whether or not the accused had violated the law, regardless of whether criminal charges had been filed. Had no criminal prosecution ever been instituted in connection with the judge's conduct brought to our attention by this record, we should still inquire whether he failed to comply with the criminal law. .... Similarly, in this case, the trial court's dismissal of the charges in no way bars our examination of the underlying events. [A]cquittal in a criminal action cannot be deemed to be res judicata here upon any issue, for the purpose and scope of an inquiry to determine an applicant's character and fitness to become a member of the Bar are essentially different.    Conduct not descending to the level of guilt of the violation of a criminal statute may well present an insuperable obstacle to admission to the Bar if such conduct evinces a lack of that `character and general fitness requisite for an attorney and counselor-at-law.' In re Taylor, 293 Or. 285, 647 P.2d 462, 463-64 (1982) (citations omitted). Petitioner's convictions were vacated, but the evidence was sufficient to remand for new trial. Petitioner has not shown why the charges were dismissed, and, to that extent, Petitioner has failed to address his burden of proving good character. In any event, the record requires denial of the application on other grounds, as set out below.