Archive
Broadcast
About
A SERVICE OF OHIO'S PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATIONS
A SERVICE OF OHIO'S PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATIONS
Program Directory
Disciplinary Counsel v. Judge Daniel Gaul, Case No. 2022-1515
Cuyahoga County
The Board of Professional Conduct recommends a one-year suspension for Judge Daniel Gaul of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. The board found 30 acts of misconduct in a five-year period by Judge Gaul. The board determined he violated the constitutional rights of several criminal defendants, incarcerated people improperly, used racially charged terms to refer to Black people, and threatened and belittled people in his courtroom.
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which investigated the allegations, recommended a two-year suspension with one year stayed. But the office supports the board's proposed discipline, stating that the term achieves the purposes of the judicial disciplinary process.
Judge Gaul, who was appointed to the court in 1991 and has been reelected six times, has objected to the board findings and suggested sanction. He acknowledges misconduct but argues for a stay of the one-year suspension. Because he objected to the board conclusions, the Supreme Court of Ohio will hear the case during oral arguments.
Cuyahoga County
The Board of Professional Conduct recommends a one-year suspension for Judge Daniel Gaul of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. The board found 30 acts of misconduct in a five-year period by Judge Gaul. The board determined he violated the constitutional rights of several criminal defendants, incarcerated people improperly, used racially charged terms to refer to Black people, and threatened and belittled people in his courtroom.
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which investigated the allegations, recommended a two-year suspension with one year stayed. But the office supports the board's proposed discipline, stating that the term achieves the purposes of the judicial disciplinary process.
Judge Gaul, who was appointed to the court in 1991 and has been reelected six times, has objected to the board findings and suggested sanction. He acknowledges misconduct but argues for a stay of the one-year suspension. Because he objected to the board conclusions, the Supreme Court of Ohio will hear the case during oral arguments.
April 18, 2023