Opinion ID: 2191641
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Admission of testimony of Mr. Brecka

Text: Kerpelman claims error in [t]he admission of evidence of a collateral issue, that is the Brecka episode, and the admission of any of [Brecka's] testimony.... Kerpelman testified as part of his case: A. When you have performed a child snatch, as any number of my clients on my advice have done, this also coming into play in showing that these statements are not, I believe, really inconsistent. First of all, the use of the word child snatch was perhaps an unfortunate choice of words. I have for a long time regularly had occasion to advise fathers in the throes of a marital dispute, that in the absence of a court order, they can have an equal right to possession of the child and to obtain possession of the child. And this is a very vexed subject which is directly discussed in the meetings and legal clinics of Fathers United for Equal Rights. And in the course of these many discussions at these legal clinics, the term child snatch has apparently come to be used to describe getting your child under circumstances which certainly can be valid circumstances. I never advised, never to the best of my recollection, advised a client to do that if there is a court order. [Emphasis added.] This exception is based upon the fact that Bar Counsel later produced William Brecka as a witness. He testified relative to conversations with Kerpelman prior to the incident with which we are here involved: A. The second conversation I had with him on the telephone when he asked  when he told me that I have to have a check for $950.00 or $850.00 and I have to be willing to do anything that was necessary to get custody of the children and I asked him what he meant by that and he kept avoiding the answer well, just whatever is necessary, and he went on in that vein for a couple of more times and I decided well, I guess I am not going to get an answer here. It was at then the next time I met him was at a Father's United Meeting. After the meeting, outside the meeting room I got him alone at the top of the stairway and I said, Now, what exactly do you mean by anything necessary to get the children and he said, Look, he said, I will deny it if I am asked, but you have to get the children and keep the children and go as far away as possible and stay away as long as possible. That was the end of that conversation. In his opinion, which we have reproduced in the appendix, Judge Levin dealt at some length with the admissibility of this testimony. He concluded by stating: The Brecka testimony was admitted solely for the purpose of credibility and has not been considered substantively. Finally, the evidence against Respondent is so overwhelming otherwise, that even if the Brecka testimony were inadmissible, it would make no difference at all. We have heretofore pointed out the wide discretion with which a trial judge is vested in the matter of admission of evidence. Even if there were error here, which we certainly do not hold, the concluding statement by Judge Levin makes plain that such error would not be a basis for our rejecting his findings.