Opinion ID: 1382143
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Cutrell Matter

Text: John David Cutrell (John) was ticketed for driving under the influence (DUI) on August 14, 1997, with the court date set for August 26. Shortly thereafter, John's father (Mr. Cutrell) called a city councilman friend to ask whom Mr. Cutrell could call to ask for a continuance. The city councilman told him to call the respondent. Mr. Cutrell did so, and testified that the respondent suggested that he and John come to the respondent's business office that day. The respondent lectured John, then told Mr. Cutrell he could have a continuance. There is no contention that there was any discussion of the merits of John's case during the meeting. The next day, the respondent called the municipal clerk at work, asked her to hold the ticket out (i.e. continue it past August 26), and to set it for trial before him rather than before the other municipal judge. According to the unchallenged panel findings, when John's case appeared on the September 9 docket, the respondent instructed the clerk to mark it off. After court that day, the clerk asked the respondent what he wanted done with John's DUI charge, and the respondent told her to dismiss it. The respondent had indicated on his copy of the docket that John was NG, that is, not guilty, and the clerk proceeded to process the ticket as if John had been acquitted after a trial. In mid-October, John appeared before the respondent on a separate shoplifting charge. The arresting officer on the August DUI charge was present, and inquired about disposing of that charge, too. He was told, for the first time, that the DUI charge had been dismissed in September. Subsequently, an Ishmell [2] order was signed October 28, 1997, recalling the DUI ticket. John eventually pleaded guilty to the DUI charge in February 1998. When the shoplifting ticket was called before the respondent on October 14, 1997, John pleaded guilty and was sentenced to thirty days in jail or payment of a $845 fine, plus thirty hours of community service. After court that day, Mr. Cutrell, John, and the respondent met in a conference room at the courthouse. As a result of this private meeting, the respondent altered John's sentence and placed him in an alternative program, with his sentence suspended upon completion of participation in a substance abuse program. Neither the prosecutor nor the arresting officer was told of the meeting, nor of the decision to change the sentence.