Judge Tracie Hunter's Complaint Against Katie Pridemore 1-5-16

8/19/2019 Judge Tracie Hunter's Complaint Against Katie Pridemore 1-5-16

1/5

Tracie M. Hunter, Judge

PO Box 11007

Cincinnati, Ohio 45211

January 8, 2016

Richard A. Dove, Secretary

Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline

65 South Front Street, 5th Floor

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3431

RE: Complaint against Katherine Pridemore, Esq.

Dear Mr. Dove:

After multiple public records requests, it has come to my attention that Assistant HamiltonCounty Prosecutor Katie Pridemore violated rules: 1.0; 3.4, 3.5 and 8.4 o t!e "!io #ules oProessional Conduct $!en s!e a%ricated evidence durin& a 'ury trial and alsely testiied t!at

s!e $as commissioned %y t!e "!io (u)reme Court *!ereater "(C+ to conduct an investi&ation

o ud&e -racie . Hunter. /ot only !as t!e "(C denied aut!oriin& any suc! investi&ation, am una$are o any la$s or rules t!at $ould !ave aut!oried suc! investi&ation $it!out ud&e

Hunter2s Kno$led&e and a%ility to res)ond. t is u)on &ood inormation and %elie t!at in

conductin& suc! unaut!oried investi&ation, s. Pridemore &ained unaut!oried access to casesa))earin& %eore ud&e Hunter t!at s!e $as )ro!i%ited %y la$ to access, due to t!e )rosecutor2s

direct interest in all suc! cases. s. Pridemore testiied as t!e (tate2s ey $itness a&ainst ud&e

Hunter, no$in& suc! evidence $as alse, %ut did so $it! )ur)ose to unla$ully inluence a 'ury.

-!e "!io #ules o Proessional Conduct deines raud in (ection 1.0 *d+. raud or raudulent6

denotes conduct t!at !as an intent to deceive and is eit!er o t!e ollo$in&: *1+ an actual or

im)lied misre)resentation o a material act t!at is made eit!er $it! no$led&e o its alsity or$it! suc! utter disre&ard and reclessness a%out its alsity t!at no$led&e may %e inerred; *7+ a

no$in& concealment o a material act $!ere t!ere is a duty to disclose t!e material act.

urin& a 'ury trial %et$een (e)tem%er9"cto%er 7014 in $!ic! ud&e -racie Hunter $as named

as a eendant ollo$in& accusations %y em)loyees o Hamilton County Prosecutor oe eters,

s. Pridemore testiied re)eatedly t!at t!e "!io (u)reme Court instructed !er to s)y on ud&e-racie . Hunter and to )re)are a re)ort t!at t!e "!io (u)reme Court could use to %uild a case

a&ainst ud&e Hunter to remove !er rom oice. n !er testimony, s. Pridemore re)eatedlyreerenced a 509)a&e re)ort t!at s!e $as commissioned to )re)are at t!e direction o t!e "(C,

%ut never )roduced t!e re)ort t!at s!e used to inluence a 'ury in violation o t!e #ules ovidence, #ules o Proessional Conduct and, more si&niicantly, t!e la$. s. Pridemore made

inaccurate assertions a%out ud&e Hunter2s cases and inlammatory statements a%out ud&e

Hunter2s c!aracter $it! no evidence to su))ort !er statements in violation o #ule 1*d+*1+*7+.


2/5

s. Pridemore re)eatedly invoed t!e "(C as !er aut!ority to $atc! ud&e Hunter. t!e "(C

!ad undertaen an inde)endent investi&ation o ud&e Hunter, t!e rules o (u)erintendence,

"#C and t!e "!io and t!e nited (tates Constitution $ould !ave entitled ud&e Hunter to %enotiied in order to res)ond or $ould im)licate serious constitutional concerns o due )rocess.

uest $it! t!e "!io (u)reme Court to secure a co)y o t!e re)ort and all

communications associated $it! t!e re)ort t!at Katie reerenced durin& !er testimony. -!e "!io

(u)reme Court res)onded t!at no suc! re)orts or communications e?isted and t!at t!ey did notre>uest Katie to do t!e re)ort t!at s!e alle&ed to !ave %een aut!oried %y t!e "(C. ?. A. ud&e

Hunter su%se>uently iled a records re>uest or a co)y all communications and records rom t!e

"!io (u)reme Court aut!oriin& s. Pridemore to conduct an investi&ation o ud&e Hunter

%ased on !er re)eated testimony indicatin& s!e )re)ared a re)ort at t!eir re>uest. -!e C!ieCounsel and Administrative irector sent corres)ondence denyin& suc! communication e?isted.

Ex. B

t!e "(C res)onded trut!ully, s. Pridemore2s testimony, %ased on t!e "(C2s res)onse, $asraudulent in t!at s!e re)resented !ersel as an a&ent o t!e "(C, )erormin& an investi&ation o

ud&e Hunter at t!eir direction. s. Pridemore ne$ at t!e time s!e testiied a&ainst ud&eHunter t!at suc! statement $as alse, and t!ereore raudulent, as deined a%ove and $as only

made $it! one )ur)ose, to im)ro)erly inluence a 'ury. -!e Cincinnati n>uirer identiied s.

Pridemore as one o t!e state2s most com)ellin& and critical star $itnesses a&ainst ud&e Hunter,demonstratin& !o$ muc! $ei&!t $as &iven !er alse testimony. Ex. C

Katie en&a&ed in all suc! conduct deined as raudulent in !er accusations a&ainst ud&e -racie

. Hunter, in violation o t!e la$ and t!e rules o et!ics &overnin& la$yers.

RULE 3.4: FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL

A la$yer s!all not do any o t!e ollo$in&: *%+ alsiy evidence, counsel or assist a $itness totestiy alsely, or oer an inducement to a $itness t!at is )ro!i%ited %y la$; *e+ in trial, allude to

any matter t!at t!e la$yer does not reasona%ly %elieve is relevant or t!at $ill not %e su))orted %y

admissi%le evidence or %y a &ood 9ait! %elie t!at suc! evidence may e?ist, assert )ersonalno$led&e o acts in issue e?ce)t $!en testiyin& as a $itness, or state a )ersonal o)inion as to

t!e 'ustness o a cause, t!e credi%ility o a $itness, t!e cul)a%ility o a civil liti&ant , or t!e &uilt

or innocence o an accused;

Katie violated #ule 3. 4*%+ $!en s!e )resented alse testimony to a )etit 'ury re&ardin& !er %ein&

commissioned %y t!e "(C to investi&ate ud&e Hunter and )re)are a re)ort.

Katie violated #ule 3.4*e+ $!en s!e testiied a%out a re)ort t!at s!e ne$ $ould not %e

su))orted %y admissi%le evidence as it $as alse and never )resented in violation o t!e rules.

Katie made %rou&!t s$ee)in& statements a%out ud&e Hunter $it! no evidence to su))ort !er

statements, accusin& !er o !atin& )rosecutors and runnin& 'uvenile cases into t!e &round. -!ose

comments $ere unet!ical, %aseless, alse and made in recless disre&ard or t!e trut!.


3/5

Katie testiied t!at ud&e Hunter disres)ected and !eld )rosecutors in contem)t or no reason.

s. Pridemore did not )roduce any s)eciic e?am)les eit!er %y videota)e or audiota)e or any

ot!er tan&i%le evidence o ud&e Hunter disres)ectin& any )rosecutor. All o ud&e Hunter2s!earin&s $ere videota)ed $it! sound. n act, ud&e Hunter only t!reatened one assistant

)rosecutor $it! contem)t in !er courtroom, C!arles @i))ert, $!en !e %latantly reused to ollo$

a court order to turn over discovery or an in camera ins)ection as t!e la$ re>uired. s.Pridemore ailed to also testiy t!at in t!at one case, ud&e Hunter $it!dre$ !er contem)t action

a&ainst C!arles. s. Pridemore testiied t!at t!ere $ere multi)le )rosecutors !eld in contem)t, a

statement s!e ne$ $as alse $!en it $as made in o)en court $it! t!e intent to inluence a 'ury.s. Pridemore2s testimony )roved, !o$ever, t!at contrary to s. Pridemore2s testimony,

)rosecutors in Hamilton County uvenile Court disres)ected and disre&arded ud&e Hunter2s

aut!ority, t!e same as all ot!er ud&es, to e?ercise contem)t )o$ers $!en la$yers %latantly

ailed to ollo$ la$s, rules o )rocedure or 'udicial orders in !er courtroom. s. Pridemore alsoailed to trut!ully testiy t!at ud&e Hunter !eld multi)le deense la$yers in contem)t or ailin&

to s!o$ u) durin& sc!eduled !earin&s on several occasions, in com)arison to a sin&le )rosecutor,

$!en s!e alsely testiied t!at ud&e Hunter treated )rosecutors dierently in !er courtroom.

s. Pridemore2s statements $ere not only alse, %ut also irrelevant to t!e c!ar&es and violated

rule 3.4*e+. (!e said t!at t!e irst istrict overturned ud&e Hunter all t!e time, im)lyin& t!atot!er Hamilton County ud&es !ad never %een overturned, includin& t!ose on t!e irst istrict

Court o A))eals, Common Pleas Court and ot!er courts, intentionally misleadin& t!e 'ury to

conclude t!at ud&e Hunter laced 'udicial aut!ority to rule inde)endently o t!e )rosecutors.s. Pridemore %asically testiied t!at ud&e Hunter $as &uilty o crime or %ein& overruled. s.

Pridemore ailed to testiy o t!e times t!at ud&e Hunter2s decisions and rulin&s $ere airmed.

Ms. Pridemore testifed to persuade a jury that the Ohio Supreme Courtbacked up her allegations against Judge Hunter. I a complaint is made to the

OSC about a Judge! per the disciplinary process! the Judge "ould be notifedand allo"ed to respond to any complaints made by a third party. JudgeHunter "as ne#er notifed by the OSC that $atie had fled a complaint andthat $atie "as in#estigating Judge Hunter at the direction o the OSC. I thathad occurred! Judge Hunter "ould ha#e been legally entitled to respond.

%ased on $atie&s testimony! Judge Hunter contacted the OSC and re'uestedall records associated "ith $atie&s testimony. (dditionally! Judge Huntersecured a response by the Ohio Supreme Court to an independent mediaoutlet that re'uested more e)hausti#e inormation regarding Ms. Pridemore&stestimony. *he Ohio Supreme Court denied that it conducted! authori+ed or

re'uested any in#estigation o Judge Hunter by $atie. ( copy o both recordsre'uests and the corresponding responses rom the OSC are enclosed.

RULE 3.5: IMPARTIALITY AND DECORUM OF THE TRIBUNAL

*a+ A la$yer s!all not do any o t!e ollo$in&: *1+ see to inluence a 'udicial oicer, 'uror,

)ros)ective 'uror, or ot!er oicial %y means )ro!i%ited %y la$; *%+ A la$yer s!all reveal )rom)tly to t!e tri%unal im)ro)er conduct %y a 'uror or )ros)ective 'uror, or %y anot!er


4/5

to$ard a 'uror, )ros)ective 'uror, or amily mem%er o a 'uror or )ros)ective 'uror, o

$!ic! t!e la$yer !as no$led&e.

-!e trial transcri)t and t!e enclosed documents $ill evidence t!at Katie alsely testiied durin&

an oicial le&al )roceedin& $it! intent to im)ro)erly and ille&ally inluence a 'ud&e *'udicial

oicer+, 'ury and )ros)ective 'urors a&ainst ud&e Hunter, to rely on !er alse testimony. Ex. C

.

Rule 8.2 JUDICIAL OFFICIALS

*a+ A la$yer s!all not mae a statement t!at t!e la$yer no$s to %e alse or $it! recless

disre&ard as to its trut! or alsity concernin& t!e >ualiications or inte&rity o a 'udicial

oicer, or candidate or election or a))ointment to 'udicial oice.

Katie made innumera%le statements a%out ud&e Hunter t!at s!e ne$ to %e alse or $it!

recless disre&ard as to trut! or alsity in violation o t!e la$ and rules o et!ics. Her %road

s$ee)in& statements $ere neit!er su))orted %y acts, la$ or tan&i%le evidence $!en made.

RULE 8.4: MISCONDUCT

t is )roessional misconduct or a la$yer to do any o t!e ollo$in&: *a+ violate or attem)t to

violate t!e "!io #ules o Proessional Conduct, no$in&ly assist or induce anot!er to do so, or

do so t!rou&! t!e acts o anot!er; *%+ commit an ille&al act t!at relects adversely on t!e la$yer2s!onesty or trust$ort!iness; *c+ en&a&e in conduct involvin& dis!onesty, raud, deceit, or

misre)resentation; *d+ en&a&e in conduct t!at is )re'udicial to t!e a administration o 'ustice; *e+

state or im)ly an a%ility to inluence im)ro)erly a &overnment a&ency or oicial or to ac!ieve

results %y means t!at violate t!e "!io #ules o Proessional Conduct or ot!er la$; *+no$in&ly assist a 'ud&e or 'udicial oicer in conduct t!at is a violation o t!e "!io #ules o

Proessional Conduct, t!e a))lica%le rules o 'udicial conduct, or ot!er la$; *&+ en&a&e, in a

)roessional ca)acity, in conduct involvin& discrimination )ro!i%ited %y la$ %ecause o race,color, reli&ion, a&e, &ender, se?ual orientation, national ori&in, marital status, or disa%ility;

*!+ en&a&e in any ot!er conduct t!at adversely relects on t!e la$yer2s itness to )ractice la$.

Pursuant to a su%)oena duces tecum issued %y ud&e Hunter2s attorneys, s. Pridemore

)roduced a document on ecem%er 77, 7015 alle&ed to %e t!e re)ort s!e created at t!e direction

o t!e "(C. s. Pridemore in act $ent t!rou&! t!e t!ousands o cases assi&ned to ud&e

Hunter, o $!ic! s!e $as not t!e )rosecutin& attorney o record, suc! conduct $as unet!ical andviolated conidentiality and )rivacy la$s &overnin& 'uvenile cases. s. Pridemore only

su)ervised delin>uency cases in !er courtroom. An inde)endent revie$ o any ud&e2s cases, %y

an assistant )rosecutor $!ose oice !as a direct interest in t!e outcome o t!ose cases, violatesnumerous ederal and state la$s and $ould result in an e&re&ious violation o t!e )u%lic2s trust.

s. Pridemore untrut!ully testiied and misstated t!e la$ $!en s!e re)orted t!at ud&e Hunterailed to rule on all o !er cases $it!in 170 days. As t!e su)ervisin& )rosecutor in uvenile Court

in delin>uency, Katie must !ave no$n t!at uvenile Court 'ud&es, includin& ud&e Hunter

ollo$ed t!e orm re)ort, $!ic! )rovided varyin& time rames or dierent ty)es o cases on

"%'ection. ud&e Hunter ollo$ed t!e orm , )rovided %y t!e "(C, $!ic! $as conirmed as


5/5

t!e )ro)er &uideline on timerames %y t!e "!io (u)reme Court $!en ud&e Hunter2s oice

called t!e "!io (u)reme Court or veriication. ud&e Hunter2s cases $ere not untimely,

)ursuant to t!e orm &uidelines. s. Pridemore conveniently ailed to testiy t!at transcri)tsordered %y )rosecutors on "%'ection !earin&s and otions to (et Aside $ere as a )ractice rarely

ever )re)ared and iled $it! t!e court $it!in 30 days as t!e la$ re>uired. ud&e Hunter !ad cases

t!at transcri)ts too years to )re)are and !ad %een on "%'ection or years %eore )rior ud&es$!en ud&e Hunter in!erited t!e %aclo&, $!ic! $as common no$led&e at t!e Prosecutor2s

"ice and uvenile Court. -!is %aclo& and ailure to )re)are and ile timely transcri)ts $it! t!e

court $as a )ro%lem t!at e?isted %eore ud&e Hunter arrived and $as not due to any ault oud&e Hunter2s. s. Pridemore, as t!e su)ervisin& attorney in delin>uency, even i only or one

mont!, $!en s!e accused ud&e Hunter o !atin& )rosecutors, !avin& it in or )rosecutors,

!oldin& )rosecutors in contem)t and %acdatin& documents )re)ared %y uvenile Court sta and

case mana&ers at t!e direction o Connie urdoc, and not ud&e Hunter, s!ould !ave no$nt!at #ule 40 re>uired !er to inde)endently read all transcri)ts %eore rulin& on su%stantive issues.

s. Pridemore testiied t!at ud&e Hunter !ad it in or t!e )rosecutor2s oice6 and t!at s!e

a%solutely !ated t!e )rosecutor2s oice at every turn.6 ?. uests t!is Commission to !ave s.

Pridemore )roduce evidence t!at ud&e Hunter !ated )rosecutors, !ad it in or )rosecutors and

re>uired )rotection rom ud&e Hunter and needed to sae&uard !erB cases... and )rosecutors.6

All o t!e conduct e?ercised %y Assistant Prosecutor Katie Pridemore, as indicated in t!e

enclosed com)laint, $it! t!e attac!ed e?!i%its, evidences t!at Katie violated #ules 1.0; 3.4, 3.5

and 8.4 *a9!+ o t!e "!io #ules o Proessional Conduct and s!ould %e sanctioned accordin&ly.

(incerely,

-racie . Hunter, ud&e

Documents

Judge Tracie Hunter's Complaint Against Katie Pridemore 1-5-16