People v. Janiszewski, 95SA195
| Decision Date | 28 August 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 95SA195,95SA195 |
| Citation | 901 P.2d 476 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Complainant, v. Steven Carl JANISZEWSKI, Attorney-Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Linda Donnelly, Disciplinary Counsel, John S. Gleason, Asst. Disciplinary Counsel, Denver, for complainant.
Steven Carl Janiszewski, Glendale, pro se.
The respondent in this lawyer discipline proceeding, and the assistant disciplinary counsel, entered into a stipulation, agreement, and conditional admission of misconduct. C.R.C.P. 241.18. An inquiry panel of the Supreme Court Grievance Committee approved the conditional admission and recommended that the respondent receive a public censure for contumacious conduct during the course of a jury trial. We accept the conditional admission and the inquiry panel's recommendation.
The respondent was admitted to practice law in Colorado in 1985. The respondent represented the alleged father in a paternity action filed in Denver County Juvenile Court. Before trial, the judge ruled certain testimony by a particular witness inadmissible because it was not relevant. Nevertheless, during trial, the respondent asked the witness a specific question designed to elicit testimony previously ruled inadmissible. The judge determined that the respondent's conduct was "in absolute and direct violation of a very specific court order."
The respondent then called his client to testify and asked him a question that also required an answer regarding inadmissible evidence. The trial judge admonished respondent outside the presence of the jury and rejected the respondent's explanation as to whether the testimony should be admitted. The trial judge determined that it was not possible that respondent understood he could introduce through his own client the very same evidence previously ruled inadmissible.
Moreover, during closing argument respondent made references to evidence ruled inadmissible. The trial judge determined that the respondent's reference during closing argument to certain documents that had been ruled inadmissible was "a deliberate violation ... of the Court's order." Finally, the respondent, apparently inadvertently, mixed proposed jury instructions that had been denied by the trial court with the approved instructions. Those instructions were returned by the jury before deliberations.
The trial judge found the respondent in contempt for his actions during trial, and fined him $2,000. The respondent stipulated that his conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (); DR 1-102(A)(5) (); DR 7-102(A)(2) (); DR 7-106(C)(1) (); DR 7-106(C)(2) (); and DR 7-106(C)(7) ().
In approving the stipulation, the inquiry panel recommended...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People of The State of Colo. v. BRENNAN, No. 08PDJ052.
...and commented on the same when the evidence showed the conduct was an aberration from the lawyer's normal conduct. People v. Janiszewski, 901 P.2d 476, 477 (Colo.1995). However, as we find above, Respondent acted intentionally in disobeying the Court's orders and such actions were not an ab......
-
People v. Cohan, 96SA61
...also assert that had the respondent's misconduct occurred in Colorado, a public censure would have been appropriate. In People v. Janiszewski, 901 P.2d 476 (Colo.1995), we publicly censured the attorney-respondent for contumacious conduct during trial consisting of the violation of a specif......
-
Chapter 17 - § 17.5 ARGUING THE EVIDENCE AND THE REASONABLE INFERENCES
...dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation or conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). People v. Janiszewski, 901 P.2d 476 (Colo. 1995). Prejudicial violations of in limine orders can cause reversal. Halliburton v. Pub. Serv. Co., 804 P.2d 213, 218 (Colo. App. 199......
-
Chapter 17 - § 17.5 • ARGUING THE EVIDENCE AND THE REASONABLE INFERENCES
...dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation or conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). People v. Janiszewski, 901 P.2d 476 (Colo. 1995). Prejudicial violations of in limine orders can cause reversal. Halliburton v. Pub. Serv. Co., 804 P.2d 213, 218 (Colo. App. 199......
-
Departments Judges' Corner How to Lose a Bench Trial
...Wake (Faber and Faber, 1939). [7] My Cousin Vinny (Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 1992). [8] See generally People v. Janiszewski, 901 P.2d 476, 477 (Colo. 1995) (holding that the attorney’s conduct in direct violation of a court order was grounds for discipline); People v. Clough, 74 P.3......