Board, has the advantage of a three dimensional view of facts, including not just the black and white of what was said, but also witness demeanor and tone. On appeal, we are limited to a two-dimensional review of the facts as revealed in the written transcript of what was said, without the benefit of visually and audibly observing the witness’ demeanor and tone. As such, I believe it is more appropri ate to remand this matter to the Grievance Board for the determination of the appropriate sentence in light of our determination that the discipline previously imposed was a grossly inadequate punishment in light of the severity of the offense committed. See, e.g., State v. Richardson, 214 W.Va. 410, 416, 589 S.E.2d 552, 558 (2003) (Davis, J., concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from my
recognizing that determination of appropriate sentence to be imposed should ordinarily be determined by the trial court on remand rather than at the appellate level holding that the constitutional level of punitive damages is not a finding of fact that must be determined by the jury it may be determined de novo by the court holding that the decision of the appellate court establishes the law of the case and it must be followed by the trial court on remand recognizing constitutional right to be present when sentence is imposed recognizing that the sentence imposed should be consistent with the protection of the public