Perry sees courtroom from the other side

Oberlin lawyer is charged with falsification

Kirk Perry, the attorney representing Delucas Lucas, has pleaded not guilty to three counts of falsification in Oberlin Municipal Court. The charges stem from a suit against the College in 1996 in which Perry represented former Neuroscience Professor David Holtzman, who claimed that College officials treated him with racial discrimination. According to Perry, that suit has been settled out of court, but the judge presiding in the case placed a gag order on the details of the resolution.

Camillo Court Reporters of Elyria claim to have worked for two days on the case, taking depositions. The reporters' firm then sent Perry a bill for $1,757. "It's as if the College charged a professor for pencils," he said.

According to Perry, just prior to receiving the bill, he joined a different law firm, which he would not name. "I don't want to get them in trouble," he said. Perry claims he referred the court reporters to his new firm for payment. The court reporters then sued Perry in Small Claims Court and he was ordered to pay the bill.

According to Perry, he was questioned at a debtor's hearing only this February when local attorney Barry Eckstein asked him how he was employed at the time, to which responded that he was then working at "Brooks and Perry," Inc. As the matter is still pending trial, Eckstein refused to comment on it.

Attorney Robert Brooks II of Cleveland was then asked to testify and said that "Brooks and Perry" was not a company. According to Perry, at the hearing, he claimed it was a partnership. The three counts of falsification are based on this claim, one oral and two written.

Perry explained that the difference between falsification and perjury was that the falsification charge referred to lying about subjects immaterial to the matter at hand. He also claimed that, given the circumstances, it was of no use to bring such small claims against him. "I'm poor. I'll always be poor. I've got no reason to acquire assets," he said. "I'm judgment proof."

Perry claims that the charges laid against him were only falsification and not perjury because his employment at the time of the court reporters' bill was not material to the debtor's hearing. Perry also says that he suspects that the only reason that the charges were brought against him at all was in order to discredit him as a witness in another high profile case. "They're using personal favors to put pressure on another attorney," he said. If Perry is convicted, he could have his license revoked.

In irregular procedure, Perry was set to testify on Tuesday, Feb. 12, in the matter of the State of Ohio vs. Derrick English. English, former Oberlin basketball coach and director of the community outreach organization Athletes For a Better Education, was charged with engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. Perry is also defending English in the matter, whose case he believes was spurred by ulterior motives. "[English] was charged with being anything other than the ordinary, patriotic ... citizen," he said.

Perry said that the case had taken on considerable scandal, as English was a well known community figure. Perry believes that he was accused of falsification in order to derail his testimony in English's defense. The irregularity of Perry's decision to call himself as a witness caused the judge to order a continuance of the trial for a week, said Perry.

The day before Perry was scheduled to testify, the charges against him were laid. Perry feels so confident about the matter that he has waved his right to trial by jury.

"The sudden and mysterious surfacing with [the accusations] causes someone to question the motive behind it," he told the Oberlin News-Tribune last week. "If I'm a falsifier, what kind of witness does that make me?"