Antihero eagle full#
Antihero eagle trial#
Antihero eagle series#

There's a count that is no longer for your consideration with regard to. Nonetheless, respondent returned to this theme only minutes later. They are matters of law and of no concern to the jury. And please do not make further comments to the jury as to why they were disposed of. The Court told the jury that the cases have been disposed of. Īt this juncture the court itself interrupted. But as long as he says something happened the Judge has no choice, he has to submit it to you for decision. Since there were still no objections, respondent forged forward: A witness can come in. No objection was made, and respondent opined that the detective must have lied to the grand jury, because 'there's not one scintilla of evidence before the jury And the Judge, as a matter of law, says there is not even an issue here.' (1T20-24 to 21-1). He then told the jury: 'The Judge dismissed the count.' (1T20-19 to 20). The detective had been the sole witness to appear before the grand jury, which had indicted his client for bribery. The first time respondent commented on the dismissal of these counts was during his review of the testimony of the investigating detective.

Antihero eagle series#

In an effort to end the matter, the court told respondent to 'comment on the evidence in the case and not comment on the Court's procedures.' (1T28-11 to 13).Ī series of comments made by respondent throughout his summation about the court's dismissal of two bribery counts at the conclusion of the State's case forms the basis for the third instance upon which contempt charges were based. : Judge - The Court: It is a matter of court procedure, and the Court made a certain ruling in the State's case that did not make the opportunity available for the Prosecutor to move them. Respondent continued: It has D numbers on the back. Īt this point the assistant prosecutor objected, because the State had been precluded from moving the same transcripts into evidence by a ruling of the court at the conclusion of a pretrial hearing, during which defense counsel had sought the court to find all transcripts inadmissibile. Most of it because I moved it in evidence, because I wanted you to see it. You are going to have this, all of this in evidence. 1 Rather, respondent suggested it had been the investigating detective who had not been candid.Ī second comment made by respondent during his summation was that he, as defense counsel, was responsible for introducing important transcripts of municipal court hearings into evidence. After the State's objection, however, respondent acknowledged the State 'didn't keep anythin from me that I know of, and I would be surprised if did.' (1T18-16 to 18). He then suggested to the jury that the State had withheld evidence. While reviewing the testimony of one of the officers who had guarded the municipal court clerk's office after the paperwork had been impounded, respondent suggested that another municipal court clerk, not his client, was responsible for the case fixing. During his summation before the jury on March 10, 1982, defendant made several comments that subsequently became the basis for contempt charges. In March 1982, respondent represented a Paterson municipal court clerk, who had been charged with ten counts of official misconduct, ten counts of bribery and nine counts of extortion in connection with solicitation or acceptance of cash payments to fix ten drunk driving cases. This matter is before the Board based on a presentment filed by the District XI (Passaic County) Ethics Committee. APPENDIX Decision and Recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board GEIST reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs. GEIST as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey and it is further

Antihero eagle full#

ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board, together with this order and the full record of the matter, be added as a permanent part of the file of said KALMAN H. It is ORDERED that the findings of the Disciplinary Review Board are hereby adopted and respondent is publicly reprimanded and it is further

Antihero eagle trial#

GEIST, of PATERSON, who was admitted to the Bar of this State in 1966, be publicly reprimanded for trial conduct that resulted in his being held for contempt, which conduct the Disciplinary Review Board found to be in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) and (5), and DR 7-106(C)(1), (6) and (7), and good cause appearing The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Supreme Court recommending that KALMAN H.