| ► Toledo Blade – 07/21/01 – Complaints accuse judge of theft in office |
 |
 |
|
Toledo Blade – July 21, 2001 – Complaints accuse judge of theft in office Judge Yarbrough targeted by judicial critic
By JAMES DREW
BLADE STAFF WRITER
COLUMBUS-Complaining that the Franklin County prosecutor's office has not taken action, a critic of the judicial system filed four criminal complaints yesterday against visiting Judge Stephen Yarbrough.
In May, a judge dismissed felony complaints that David Palmer of Powell, Ohio, filed against nine retired visiting judges, including Judge Yarbrough and three other judges from northwest Ohio.
The Franklin County prosecutor's office agreed to work with Mr. Palmer to determine if any of the visiting judges violated state law by double-billing the state or filing bogus expense reports.
Yesterday, Mr. Palmer said he had waited long enough-so he filed four new theft-in-office complaints against Judge Yarbrough, a retired Lucas County Common Pleas Court judge and former state senator.
David Buchman, an assistant Franklin County prosecutor, said Mr. Palmer has not presented any evidence of wrongdoing by Judge Yarbrough.
"He need to find a judge who submitted for a day in which a judge did no work whatsoever, and he did not submit that bill accidentally," Mr. Buchman said.
Visiting judges bill for their services in quarter-day increments, but are not allowed to bill for more than one day's work on any given date, regardless of how many hours they've worked or whether they've handled cases in two different counties.
Mr. Buchman said visiting retired judges are paid a per diem by the Supreme Court.
Judge Yarbrough could not be reached. Mike Close, a Columbus attorney representing Yarbrough, was not available for comment.
He previously has denied any wrongdoing by Judge Yarbrough, saying there would have to be deception to trigger a theft-in-office charge.
Judge Yarbrough has repaid the high court $2,340 for some overbillings. On May 22, he wrote a check to the state totaling $1,656 for money received because of data-entry errors by court staff or computer problems.
|