On Sun, 09 May 1999 in aus.legal <mhamill@donet.com> wrote:
LAWYER SENTENCED TO ONE YEAR
Affidavit falsely put man in jail
By Dan Horn
The Cincinnati Enquirer
A Walnut Hills lawyer was sentenced to one year in prison Tuesday for filing a false
affidavit that resulted in the arrest of an innocent man.
Calling her conduct "reprehensible", Judge Steven Martin told Doris Houser
Allen that her actions warranted a prison sentence.
Ms. Allen was convicted last month in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court on charges of
perjury, tampering with records and tampering with evidence. She faced a maximum possible
sentence of two years.
Prosecutors say Ms. Allen filed an affidavit on behalf of client Sylvia Huff that
included false charges of domestic violence against Ms. Huff's boyfriend.
They say Ms. Allen told her client that the accusations would help her win custody of
her children.
As a result of the affidavit, Ms. Huff's estranged boy friend spent a night in jail.
The charges against Ms. Allen were filed last year after the Ohio Supreme Court
rejected a recommendation from the Cincinnati Bar Association to suspend her law license.
At Ms. Allen's sentencing Tuesday, Ms. Huff said Ms. Allen misled her and snared her in
a legal mess.
"I want the court to know the great pain she has caused me," Ms. Huff told
the judge. "I can understand an honest mistake, but not once did I see any remorse.
Not once did I get an apology."
Ms. Allen's attorney, Bernard Wong, urged the judge to consider probation. He
said his client was not a threat to the community and had already suffered the loss of her
law practice.
The judge, however, said the sentence is necessary because she broke a cardinal rule
for lawyers and sent an innocent man to jail.
Source: Cincinnati Enquirer, April 28, 1999
-----------------
Submitter's note: In all likelihood, the practice for which Ms. Houser-Allen was convicted
has occurred thousands of times here in the U.S.; she was a rare one who got caught.
A generation ago, police and prosecutors didn't want to get involved at all in domestic
violence scenes. Now the legal system in many places has moved to overzealous enforcement.
In family law courts, the thing to do for a long time has been to go into court on an
"emergency" hearing (where the purported offender is not present), allege abuses
or threats, then have the other spouse (read: husband or boyfriend) removed from the home
because of the imminent threat. Naturally, few if any judges will admit they goofed in
issuing the original order at the required follow-up hearing later on, where the alleged
offender gets to be present and represented.
Things are pretty dismal in regards to criminal law enforcement, too: many local
prosecutors often bring charges (against men, of course) based on nothing more than
allegations. Typically these weak charges are later dismissed. But it gives many a chance
to be vicious.
The goal in all this is not protection from violence; it is to get a guy thrown out of
his home and/or neutralized in any possible child custody dispute. All the while trying to
seem like a victim.
Mike
My note: It will be interesting to see how much of her sentence Ms. Doris
Houser Allen will actually serve, if any time at all. --WHS
