FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

A Jurors right to be heard, preserving the integrity of the process

Cincinnati, OH- October 29, 2014— Juries are designed to give voice and power to ordinary citizens, through engagement in a democratic decision-making process.  This type of participation is the bedrock of our civil society. In order for this form of a deliberative democratic process to work, it is imperative that there are platforms for dissenting views to be expressed.  Oftentimes this platform is not possible in the confines of a jury room, because of differentials in power on a number of fronts.  Power differentials can take on many forms.  According to two white jurors who have spoken out on their experiences on the jury in the criminal trial of Judge Tracie M. Hunter, those power differentials came in the form of race and possibly even politics.

According to Defense Attorney, Clyde Bennett, black jurors attempted to decide on the case based on the facts that they heard during testimony. Alternatively, in a public statement made anonymously on the radio on October 20th, by one of the white jurors for the Hunter trial, when asked about the facts of the case, which enabled the jury to come to their decision, the juror said that the white jury members felt that “Hunters attorney did not prove that Hunter was not guilty”.

Given these statements by the juror, it is important to note that in the U.S. criminal justice system, a defendant is to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty. Additionally, the defense does not have the burden of proof.  Attorney Bennett repeatedly reminded the jury during jury selection and then again during closing arguments, that he and his client was not required to prove anything. Presiding Judge Nadel also reiterated the fact that the prosecution had the burden of proof during the course of the trial.

At the start of the Hunter trial, four potential jurors said that they’d already made up their minds about Hunter’s guilt, based on what they’d seen in the media.  Three of those jurors ended up on the final panel of jurors who were to determine Hunter’s fate.  The statements made by the anonymous juror calls into question, how much their preconceived notions played a part in determining Hunter’s guilt or innocence.  All things considered and heavily weighing this anonymous jurors statements and the reckless disregard of directives by Judge Nadel and Bennett, this calls into question concerns of redress for a juror who might have a differing opinion. In this case, the process of polling of the jury can certainly be seen as the opportunity to address the issue of redress.

Juries are supposed to promote a conception of reason over politics, whereby citizens should have the ability to participate on equal footing to determine the rightness of the application of law, after hearing and criticizing reasons.  Jury polling is necessary when the deliberation process breaks down.

The objective of a jury trial is to form a body of ones peers, which can decipher between varying ideologies to determine whether an act is criminal or not.  A forum must exist to mitigate differences in power and to provide for the protection of the minority opinion.  The drafters of the U.S. Constitution saw this right so fundamental to our rights as American citizens that the right to a jury trial was written into our constitution. The right to dissent is a right afforded to all citizens through the jury process of polling. Polling after the reading of a verdict provides a safe space for individuals to express their continual dissent without the pressure of jurors who don’t share their opinion.

This is what Attorney Bennett says happened in the Hunter trial.  The three jurors that had a dissenting opinion agreed that they would seek redress during open polling, after the verdict was read. Attorney Bennett asserts that the perception that he received surrounding black jurors explanations about why they felt a not guilty verdict was warranted in this case was predicated upon facts that they felt white jurors were not willing to consider.  Bennett further explained that black jurors felt pressured and even threatened in some respects to agree on the decisions of jurors who in their opinion wanted to convict, despite evidence that Hunter was not guilty of any of the crimes for which she was alleged to have committed.

Iris Marion Young, in her article entitled Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy says, that “in many formal situations the better-educated white middle-class people, often act as though they have a right to speak and that their words carry authority, whereas those of other groups often feel intimidated by the argument requirements and the formality and rules of parliamentary procedure, so they do not speak, or speak only in a way that those in charge find “disruptive”.  This dynamic often causes less privileged individuals to feel put down or frustrated. 

In the case of the two jurors that expressed disagreement in the form of affidavits in this case, they did not lack education, and decided that rather than continuing the process of heated deliberations, they would seek redress through the polling process.  However, in ignoring the rules of criminal procedure, Judge Nadel effectively eliminated their attempt at redress by not polling the jury in open court after the verdict was read. 

In the absence of any chance of agreement during jury deliberations, it would logically follow that only after the reading of the verdict aloud in open court would there seemingly be an opportune time for a juror to express their disagreement.  Prior to that point, the presiding judge has the option of sending jurors back to the deliberation room.  In situations where a juror may feel as though they aren’t being heard or even being bullied they may seek to avoid this form of badgering by agreeing to a verdict for the sake of averting the process of being continually subjected to high-pressure tactics of fellow jurors.

From public statements by the anonymous juror who served on the panel for Hunter trial, it has become obvious that the vote was divided among racial lines and that things were rather heated and confrontational in the jury room.  She admitted that she personally had a heated exchange with one of the black jurors.  Several Hunter supporters, who awaited the completion of jury deliberations in the hallway of the courthouse, say they personally witnessed a young black juror crying outside the jury room.

In an article detailing the significant problem of jury bullying, Diana Sholley, in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin writes, “Bullies — of all ages — can be scary, intimidating, mean and down right dangerous, but there seems to be a place where it’s “OK” or at least tolerated: the jury room”. There are numerous stories reported of jury room bullying where jurors have admitted that after being bullied in the jury room, despite their difference of opinion, they voted guilty to avoid continued berating by fellow jurors. While conflict among deliberating juries is to be expected, these interactions are still unpleasant, and there is a clear line between conflict and bullying. In 2012, a federal judge in Nashville, Tennessee dismissed a jury foreman when incidents of bullying were reported.

Although jury badgering is commonplace, for two jurors to feel so passionate that they would want to come forward and even sign affidavits to say that the decision to convict was not their true decision, and that they both planned to seek redress through polling is evidentiary enough that the court erred significantly in not polling this particular jury.

Protecting the right to jury polling is fundamental to American democracy, and in ensuring that innocent people don’t go to jail based upon power differentials.  Trial by jury represents a dream of an equal society. The members of our jury could easily be arranged along vertical axes of power relative to the educated versus the uneducated, male versus female, Democrat versus Republican. As jurors, these hierarchies must be leveled. The unanimity requirement means that a single dissent can destroy a verdict. It demands that no voice be glossed over, since every juror holds a final stake in the decision. This decision marks a moment when our vertically arranged society can become – if only for a moment – horizontal. Jurors must feel safe that their opinions are going to matter. The integrity of the process must be protected for all jurors.  This is why Judge Nadel should rightfully grant a new trial based on juror dissent in the Hunter case.

###

Vanessa Enoch, Ph.D. Student

Union Institute & University

For more information contact:

513-889-5355

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Prosecution rests and defense drops bombshell in Judge Tracie Hunter case

Cincinnati, OH- September 28, 2014—After two and a half weeks of testimony by only a few witnesses, the prosecution has rested its case in the trial of Judge Tracie M. Hunter.  The trial has had the grandeur of a murder trial and a plot akin to a poorly constructed Perry Mason episode or a 2014 remake of Much Ado About Nothing. 

Despite the pomp and circumstance, each of the nine felony charges against the first term judge have unraveled and the prosecution’s case has gone down the drain, along with Hamilton County taxpayers’ money. When asked about the likely cost of the case during pretrial hearings, the prosecutor’s office admitted that they had not yet negotiated a fee. It appears that prosecutor Joe Deters, handed special prosecutors Merlyn Shiverdecker and Scott Crosswell, III a blank check to bring frivolous charges against Hunter.

Defense attorney Clyde Bennett, II, who used the prosecutor’s own witnesses to skillfully dismantle the prosecution’s case, said that the charges amounted to “a personal vendetta and prosecutorial vindictiveness” towards a judge who refused to “give up her seat”.  Assistant prosecutor James T. Harper admitted that he and Joe Deters were upset when Hunter filed grievances against them with the Ohio Supreme Court. “It is the worst thing that can happen to an attorney”, Harper stated.  But, the biggest bombshell in this case comes as defense attorney Clyde Bennett put his first witness on the stand, Hunter’s case manager, Lisa Miller.

Miller testified that case management supervisor Connie Murdock, gave her directives to change the language of one of Hunter’s rulings in the courts computer system.  This is particularly disturbing, as Miller also admitted that Hunter’s ruling in the Q.O. case, one of two cases for which Hunter has been charged, is different in the court’s case management system than Judge Hunter’ s ruling in the case. For this to occur, a different judicial entry would have to have been created by someone other than Hunter, and her signature forged on that document and entered in the system; as it defies logic that Hunter would sign an entry that opposes her actual decision. Miller acknowledged that she created the entry that appears in the system, but said she did not know why the journal query which is an exact match of the judicial entry are different.   Modifying a judge’s decision could constitute a serious criminal offense.

According to Proware software executive, it was Miller’s login that was used to backdate court entries in both the A.C. and Q.O. cases, not Hunter’s. Miller testified to the same. Prosecutor Scott Crosswell became unglued and stood up and began yelling at judge Norbert Nadel, when presiding judge Nadel allowed Miller to read a note from Murdock instructing her to change Judge Hunter’s language in the system.

Crosswell indicated that the accusation that Hunter backdated court documents was the most egregious of all of the offenses of which Hunter was charged. During pre-trial hearings special prosecutor Crosswell said that if Bennett could show him “one incident where anyone else backdated documents, I will prosecute them as well”.  Attorney Bennett suggested that not only did Hunter not backdate the two entries in the D.M. and A.C. cases, but those who did might have done it to cover up a greater offense.

Katherine Pridemore, the prosecutions star witness and also an employee of the prosecutor’s office, demonstrated the strength of Bennett’s claim that the prosecutor’s office wanted Hunter off the bench by any means necessary. Pridemore became unraveled as she railed against Hunter, pointing her finger at Hunter and gnashing her teeth, “I lived and breathed your client.  Everyone in the prosecutors office knew that she stepped all over the law!” Under oath, Pridemore testified that the Ohio Supreme Court assigned her to investigate Hunter. In an email we received on Friday, John VanNorman of the Ohio Supreme Court denies that they ever conducted an investigation of Judge Hunter.

Pridemore also alleged that Hunter backdated the entries in an attempt to prevent prosecutor Joe Deters’ office from overruling her decision in the D.M. and the A.C. cases.  But, now that it is clear that Hunter did not backdate the documents and one of Hunter’s significant rulings were in fact deleted from the system, the lingering question is why was the prosecutor’s office so concerned with insuring that these particular decisions got overturned?

Anxious to appeal Hunter’s decisions in both cases, Prosecutor Deters office appealed Hunter’s rulings before they became final appealable orders. At issue in both the D.M. and A.C. cases is a child’s constitutional right to discovery evidence, prior to a bindover probable case hearing.  Hunter ordered the defense attorney to provide these forms for in-camera inspection to protect the rights of accused children, however the prosecutor’s office refused to turn over the discovery, which included the full Arrest and Investigation Report (Form 527), and the Incident Report (Form 301).

In the D.M. case, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld Hunter’s ruling that all discovery evidence must be turned over and an in-camera inspection may be conducted if prosecutors believe any information in the reports would need to be redacted.  The ruling affirming Hunter’s decision to turn over police reports is now law in all courts across Ohio.

While it appears that these charges were maliciously and vindictively brought against Hunter, it is important to note that the D.M. and A.C. cases may also be a cause for sore blood.  These cases changed Ohio law and forces prosecutors to provide information to defense that enables a child to better defend themselves.

The accusation that Hunter committed crimes may have been the perfect smoke screen to distract the public from learning of the real crimes committed by others in Juvenile Court who backdated judicial entries and changed Hunter’s judicial rulings. During Hunter’s time on the bench, she uncovered and began correcting many improprieties within the Juvenile Court. She was dedicated to rehabilitating children. Removing Hunter from the bench allowed the Juvenile Court and prosecutor’s office to cover up what Hunter exposed.

Bishop Bobby Hilton is calling for a massive protest rally and press conference on Hamilton County courthouse steps at noon on Monday, September 29th.  Prosecutor Joe Deters office handled the Hunter case and also acted as special prosecutors in handling the grand jury proceedings in the homicide of John Crawford, who was gunned down by the officer while he was holding a toy gun he intended to purchase at the Walmart store in Beavercreak, Ohio.

###   

(1121 words, incl. title)

Vanessa Enoch, Ph.D. student, Union Institute & University

You Got the Power Enterprises, Inc.

(513) 549-4622

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Prosecution rests and defense drops bombshell in Judge Tracie Hunter case

Cincinnati, OH- September 26, 2014—After two and a half weeks of testimony by only a few witnesses, the prosecution has rested its case in the trial of Judge Tracie M. Hunter.  The trial has had the grandeur of a murder trial and a plot akin to a poorly constructed Perry Mason episode or a 2014 remake of Much Ado About Nothing. 

Despite all the pomp and circumstance, each of the nine felony charges against the first term judge have unraveled and the prosecution’s case has gone down the drain, along with Hamilton County taxpayers’ money. When asked about the likely cost of the case during pretrial hearings, the prosecutor’s office admitted that they had not yet negotiated a fee. It appears that prosecutor Joe Deters, handed special prosecutors Merlyn Shiverdecker and Scott Crosswell, III a blank check to present frivolous charges against Hunter.

Defense attorney Clyde Bennett, II, who has used the prosecutor’s own witnesses to skillfully dismantle the prosecution’s case, said that the charges amounted to “a personal vendetta and prosecutorial vindictiveness” towards a judge who refused to “give up her seat”.  Assistant prosecutor James T. Harper admitted that he and Joe Deters were upset when Hunter filed grievances against them with the Ohio Supreme Court. “It is the worst thing that can happen to an attorney”, Harper stated.  But, the biggest bombshell in this case comes as defense attorney Clyde Bennett put his first witness on the stand, Hunter’s case manager Lisa Miller.

Miller’s testified that case management supervisor Connie Murdock, gave her directives to change the language of one of Hunter’s rulings in the courts computer system.  Prosecutor Scott Crosswell became unglued and stood up and began yelling at judge Norbert Nadel, when presiding judge Nadel allowed Miller to read a note from Murdock instructing her to change Judge Hunter’s language in the system.  The modification of this particular language significantly alters Hunter’s ruling.  Modifying a judge’s decision could constitute a serious criminal offense on the part of Murdock. According to Proware software executive, it was Miller’s login that was used to backdate court entries, not Hunter’s.

While questioning Miller, Bennett suggested that Hunter would never have signed a document overturning her own ruling.  So Hunter’s signature on this document gives the appearance of impropriety and lends itself to the possibility that Hunter’s signature may have been forged.  

Crosswell indicated that the accusation that Hunter backdated court documents was the most egregious of all of the offenses of which Hunter was charged. Attorney Bennett suggested that not only did Hunter not backdate the two entries in the D.M. and A.C. cases, but those who did might have done it to cover up a greater offense.

Katherine Pridemore, the prosecutions star witness and also an employee of the prosecutor’s office, demonstrated the strength of Bennett’s claim that the prosecutor’s office wanted Hunter off the bench by any means necessary. Pridemore became unraveled as she railed against Hunter, pointing her finger and gnashing her teeth, “I lived and breathed your client.  Everyone in the prosecutors office knew that Hunter stepped all over the law!” While under oath, Pridemore testified that directives to investigate Hunter came from the prosecutor and the Ohio Supreme Court. In an email we received on Friday, John VanNorman of the Ohio Supreme Court denies that they ever conducted an investigation of Judge Hunter.

Pridemore also alleged that Hunter used a non pro tunc entry to backdate the entries in an attempt to prevent prosecutor Joe Deters office from overruling her decision in the D.M. and the A.C. cases. Prosecutor William Breyer disputed this claim, stating, “A non pro tunc entry is not used to backdate, it is used only to correct an earlier entry. But now that it is clear that Hunter did not backdate the documents and one of Hunter’s significant rulings were in fact deleted from the system, the lingering question is why was the prosecutor’s office so concerned with insuring that these particular decisions got overturned?

Anxious to appeal Hunter’s decisions in both cases, Prosecutor Deters office appealed Hunter’s rulings before they became final appealable orders. At issue in both the D.M. and A.C. cases is a child’s constitutional right to discovery evidence, prior to a bindover probable case hearing.  Hunter ordered the defense attorney to provide these forms for in-camera inspection to protect the rights of accused children, however the prosecutor’s office refused to turn over the discovery, which included the full Arrest and Investigation Report (Form 527), and the Incident Report (Form 301).

In the D.M. case, The Ohio Supreme Court eventually ruled in favor of Hunter that all discovery evidence must be turned over including these reports, and an in-camera inspection can be used in certain cases to determine the relevance of the reports.  This ruling subsequently has jurisdiction in both cases and is now law in all courts across Ohio. 

While it is certainly believable that malicious and vindictive prosecution may indeed be at issue in this case, it is more important to note that the D.M. and A.C. cases would critically harm prosecutors ability to convict innocent youth, where hiding evidence and witness statements through denial of discovery are possible. 

The accusation that Hunter committed crimes may have been the perfect smoke screen to distract the public from learning of the real crimes committed by Ms. Murdock, who acting as an agent for Deters office ordered the backdating of documents and the change of Hunter’s judicial rulings.  Removing Hunter from the bench served to prevent her from digging deeper into why the prosecution refused to submit the discovery evidence, and from learning why the prosecutor was so determined to overturn these two rulings.

Bishop Bobby Hilton is calling for a massive protest rally and press conference on Hamilton County courthouse steps at noon on Monday, September 29th.  “Prosecutor Joe Deters office who brought these trumped up charges against Judge Hunter, is the same prosecution team responsible for allowing the officer to go free of charges in the homicide of John Crawford, who was holding a toy gun he intended to purchase at the Walmart store in Beavercreak, Ohio.

###
(993 words, incl. title)

Vanessa Enoch, Ph.D. student

Union Institute & University

Reporting from Cincinnati

(513) 549-4622

You Got the Power, Inc.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

First African-American and Democrat juvenile court judge can’t get a fair Trial in Cincinnati

Cincinnati, OH- September 11, 2014—Judge Tracie Hunter’s trial, supporters are questioning whether she can have a fair trial in Hamilton County, and what it means to have a jury of ones peers?  While there are differing opinions on what constitutes a fair trial, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that courts may not remove a potential juror based solely on his or her race, religion, or gender.

According to Hunter’s supporters, the potential juror pool in this case appears to have been anything but random, composing of a female employee of WCPO TV, which sued Hunter last year; an attorney from Frost, Brown & Todd, the law firm which represented WCPO in that suit; several jurors who said that they personally know juvenile court administrator Curt Kissinger, a possible witness, who has made public statements against Hunter.  Another potential witness said he knows Judge John Williams, the other juvenile court judge.  The potential juror said their children attend the same school. Williams lost the 2010 election to Hunter.  Kissinger and Williams have been opposing forces throughout Hunter’s time on the juvenile court.  Both are listed as potential witnesses in Hunters trial.

One of the alternate jurors says that her relative is a Hamilton County Drug Enforcement Agent. She is also a member of the Women’s Republican club.  Party politics are also expected to play a major role in this case.

Hunter has been charged with nine felonies.  Three charges were for using her court issued card to cover costs of court filing fees, after attorneys James Bogen and Firooz Namei, were paid $50,000 by the county to represent her office and failed to file answers to the nearly 30 lawsuits.  A county treasurers office employee was also in the jury pool.  WCPO TV, the Cincinnati Enquirer, Hamilton County Public Defenders Office, Hamilton County Prosecutors Office, and the Hamilton County Commissioners Office all filed random and frivolous suits against Hunter.

Presiding Judge Norbert Nadel dismissed several black jurors for cause, enabling the prosecutor to retain his peremptory challenges to attain a jury favorable to the prosecution. Four black potential jurors were dismissed consecutively.  The special prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to dismiss two additional potential black jurors.  One was college educated, and said that she felt she could be fair and impartial. Four white potential jurors said that they did not believe that they could be fair and impartial and had already formed an opinion, due to negative publicity on television. Nadel did not dismiss them. Hunter made a motion requesting that Nadel recuse himself. That motion was denied.

A black juror was dismissed for cause for saying, “he could not judge another human being”.  A for cause dismissal can be made by the judge in the event he believes a person cannot be fair and unbiased or is incapable of serving as a juror.  Causes can include acquaintanceship with either of the parties, one of the attorneys or a witness, or the potential juror’s expression of inability to be unbiased due to prior experience in a similar case.

Nadel dismissed a potential juror before the hearing started on Monday morning.  According to defense attorney, Clyde Bennett II, “she appeared to be black, from the answers to her questionnaire”.  Bennett complained after Nadel dismissed the potential juror before the hearing began, “Judge, I should have had the opportunity to question that juror”. 

Prosecutor Joseph Deters released a press release, just three days before the trial, accusing Judge Hunter of being responsible for the deaths of two black boys, who killed each other in mid-August. One of the boys appeared before Judge Hunter last year in September for minor charges. The most he could have served was 6 months. Deters suggested that the boy should have been locked up until he was 21.  News reports stated that the youth had come before several judges in the past for a total of 36 charges prior to getting to Hunters docket.  The other judges who handled the first 36 charges were not named. The child’s mother said Hunter ruled justly and she does not blame Hunter for her son’s death.

Bennett believes Deters statements were “a deliberate attempt to taint the potential jury”.  He re-introduced his motion to have court proceedings moved from Hamilton County for prosecutor vindictiveness.

Carol Freas, a white Hunter supporter feels this jury selection process is a violation of Hunters sixth amendment right to a fair trial. “The jury should represent the community in terms of race, gender, and national origin. With a jury that is 90% white, while in contrast 90% of youth in Hamilton County detention centers are African-American, how can Judge Hunter possibly get a fair trial? This jury pool certainly doesn’t represent the racial composition in Hamilton County, or a jury of Judge Hunter’s peers”. 

Hunter’s attorney has not received requested discovery evidence requested in April from the State of Ohio and the juvenile court. Nadel denied Bennett’s motion to suppress 800 pages submitted to him last Thursday that the prosecutor intends to use for prosecution, despite Bennett’s contention that he would not have the opportunity to properly prepare for Hunters defense given the late nature of this submission of evidence. 

This is clearly racially imbalanced with 10 white jurors and 2 blacks, leaving Hunters fate in the hands of a majority white jury in a case, which will most certainly carry religious and racial undertones in a historically racially charged city.  Police killings of 15 unarmed black men led to a subsequent boycott and several uprisings in Cincinnati in 2001.

Despite empty seats many Hunter supporters were not allowed in the courtroom throughout pre-trial hearings and on the first two days of jury selection.

The treasurers office employee accused a black juror of hugging Judge Hunter after Monday’s hearing. The accused juror publicly denied the accusation in the media. Nadel did not view courtroom tapes to confirm these accusations, considering Hunter’s nearly 25 years on the bench and her understanding of potential juror interaction.

Another potential juror said he was a distant cousin of Judge Hunter.  He was excused along with the remaining potential slate.  Judge Hunter said she doesn’t know the potential juror. Supporters are calling for a Justice Department investigation into how so many people with conflicts of interest and connections to Hamilton County came to be selected? Donate to: http://www.gofundme.com/bmgc2k.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Supporters believe the first African-American and Democrat juvenile court judge can’t get a fair Trial in Cincinnati

Cincinnati, OH- September 9, 2014—After day one of Judge Tracie Hunter’s trial, supporters are questioning whether she can have a fair trial in Hamilton County, and what it means to have a jury of one’s peers?  While there are differing opinions on what constitutes a fair trial, one thing that is for certain is that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that courts may not remove a potential juror based solely on his or her race, religion, or gender.

According to Hunter’s supporters, the potential juror pool in this case appears to have been anything but random, composing of a female employee of WCPO TV, which sued Hunter last year; an attorney from Frost, Brown & Todd, the law firm which represented WCPO in that suit; several jurors who said that they personally know juvenile court administrator Curt Kissinger, a possible witness, who has made public statements against Hunter.  Another potential witness said he knows Judge John Williams, the other juvenile court judge.  The potential juror said their children attend the same school.

Williams lost the 2010 election to Hunter.  Kissinger and Williams have been opposing forces throughout Hunter’s time on the juvenile court.  Both are listed as potential witnesses to testify in Hunters trial.

Another potential juror is an employee of Hamilton County treasurers office, which could potentially be questioned concerning credit card transactions, as Hunter has been charged with a felony for using her court issued card to cover costs of court filing fees, after attorneys James Bogen and Firooz Namei, who were paid $50,000 by Hamilton County to represent Hunter failed to file answers to the nearly 30 lawsuits filed against her.  WCPO TV, the Cincinnati Enquirer, Hamilton County Public Defenders Office, Hamilton County Prosecutors Office, and the Hamilton County Commissioners Office all filed suits.

One of the alternate jurors says her husband is a Hamilton County Drug Enforcement Agent. She is also a member of the Ski Club and the Women’s Republican club.  Party politics are also expected to play a major role in this case.

With a slate of potential jurors with a racial composition of about 10:1, it appears that the jury has been stacked in the prosecutors favor.  With help from Judge Norbert Nadel, who dismissed several black jurors for cause, the prosecutor had an added advantage in the jury selection.  Between the judge and the special prosecutor, a total of six black potential jurors were dismissed.  One black juror was dismissed for cause, when he said that he believed he could not judge another human being. 

A for cause dismissal can be made by the judge in the event he believes a person cannot be fair and unbiased or is incapable of serving as a juror. Causes can include acquaintanceship with either of the parties, one of the attorneys or a witness, or the potential juror’s expression of inability to be unbiased due to prior experience in a similar case.

A potential juror was dismissed by presiding Judge Norbert Nadel before the hearing started on Monday morning.  According to defense attorney, Clyde Bennett II, “she appeared to be black, from the answers to her questionnaire”.  Bennett complained after Nadel dismissed the potential juror before the hearing started, “Judge, I should have had the opportunity to question that juror”. 

The special prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to dismiss two additional potential black jurors.  One was college educated and said that she felt she could be fair and impartial.  The other juror was not directly questioned to the extent that other jurors were. 

The question several Hunter supporters is asking is, “how can Judge Hunter get a fair trial when the jury appears to already be stacked to the benefit of the prosecution and with all of the negative press and publicity?”. Four of the initial 12 jurors said that they did not believe that they could be fair and impartial, based upon what they’ve seen in the media.  Judge Nadal did not dismiss these jurors for cause, despite this admission.

Prior to beginning jury selection, Attorney Bennett re-entered his previous motion requesting to move the trial outside of Hamilton County, due to prosecutorial vindictiveness.  Prosecutor Joseph Deters released a press release, just three days before the trial began, accusing Judge Hunter of being responsible for the deaths of two black boys, who killed each other in mid-August. 

One of the boys appeared before Hunter in September of last year. According to juvenile court informants, the nature of his charges were minor and the most he could have served was 6 months for the infraction that came before Judge Hunter’s court.  In statements made to the press, Deters suggested that the boy should have been locked up until he was 21.  Attorney Bennett believes that this was “a deliberate attempt to taint the potential jury”.  He re-introduced his motion to have court proceedings moved from Hamilton County for prosecutor vindictiveness.

Although there is no clear definition of what a jury of ones peers means, this jury is clearly racially unbalanced with 10 white jurors and 2 blacks. Although 4 white potential jurors said that they didn’t’ feel that they could be fair and impartial and admitted they had already formed an opinion after all of the negative publicity they’ve seen on television, Judge Nadel did not dismiss them for cause.  The judge dismissed several black jurors for cause, enabling the prosecutor the advantage of retaining his peremptory challenges to attain a jury favorable to the prosecution.

Carol Freas, a white Hunter supporter feels that this jury selection process is a violation of Hunters sixth amendment right to a fair trial, which she believes exists “to balance an unfair judge”.   Ms. Freas said, “the jury should represent the community in terms of race, gender, and national origin. With a jury that is 90% white, while in contrast 90% of youth in Hamilton County detention centers are African-American, how can Judge Hunter possibly get a fair trial? This jury pool certainly doesn’t represent the racial composition in Hamilton County, or a jury of Judge Hunter’s peers”. 

Freas also noted her concern that the although defense attorney for Judge Hunter requested discovery documents from the State of Ohio and the juvenile court in April 2014, 800 pages of discovery documents were not released to the defense until September 4, only two business days before beginning the trial for Judge Hunter”.  Judge Nadel denied Bennett’s motion to suppress the 800 pages, despite Bennett’s contention that he would not have the opportunity to properly prepare for Hunters defense given the late nature of this submission of evidence.

Despite the unclear definition of what would represent a jury of one’s peers, this jury appears to be stacked in the prosecutions favor, leaving many Hunter supporters feeling that it will be impossible for Hunter to get a fair trial in Hamilton County, Ohio.  Hunters fate will rest in the hands of a majority white jury in a case where special prosecutors, Merlyn Shiverdecker and Scott Crosswell III, admit will most certainly carry religious and racial undertones. Cincinnati has historically been known to be a racially charged city, with racial unrest and an uprising, which led to the creation of a police/community collaboration in 2001.

Many Hunter supporters complained that they were not allowed in the courtroom on the first two days of jury selection. The last two rows on one side of the courtroom have been reserved for media.  Nearly 6 seats in the courtroom have remained empty the entirety of the first two days of jury selection and throughout the pre-trial hearings. 

During Tuesday’s court hearing, a white male potential juror who is an employee of the Hamilton County treasurers office accused a black juror of hugging Judge Hunter after the hearing yesterday.  Judge Hunter says she did not hug this juror and in fact has never laid eye on her in her life.  The juror was dismissed without question. Defense attorney Clyde Bennett said, “Judge Hunter did not hug any of the potential jurors.  The jury exited through a different door before Hunter left her seat.  The potential juror was dismissed without question.  She was part of the initial twelve.  Supporters complained that the entire incident was contrived, and suggested that courtroom cameras should have been viewed prior to dismissing the juror.

Another potential juror said he was a distant cousin of Judge Hunter.  He was excused along with the remaining potential slate.  Judge Hunter said she doesn’t know the potential juror, nor has she ever seen him.  The questions lingering in the minds of some supporters are, “what is the selection process, and how did so many people with conflicts of interest and connections to Hamilton County come to be selected?”

###

Vanessa Enoch, Reporting from Cincinnati

For more information contact:

You Got the Power

P.O. Box 146

Tuskegee, Alabama 36087

(334) 328-6627 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

The Cincinnati Improvement Association hosting a town hall meeting for Judge Hunter

Cincinnati, OH- September 5, 2014— The Cincinnati Improvement Association will be hosting a town hall meeting on Sunday, September 7, 3:00pm at Brethren in Christ Church, located at 2815 Robert Ave., Cincinnati, Ohio 45211.  This meeting will address local justice issues surrounding the juvenile court system and Judge Tracie Hunter’s upcoming trial on September 8th.  The meeting is open to the community.

During its 109 years of existence, the Hamilton County Ohio Juvenile Court has operated under the control of the Republican Party.  In 2012, Pastor Tracie Hunter, a public servant and attorney for over 19 years, challenged the Republican controlled Juvenile Court by running for Judge. Hunter wanted to end the court’s disproportionate minority representation. A practicing attorney for 19 years, Hunter’s proficiency within the court system included criminal and civil representation of children and adults. 

Judge Hunter’s professional life as a pastor and attorney gave her great insight on the injustices committed in the courtroom when she provided legal services, including some pro bono services to children who could not afford legal representation for minor offenses when they appeared before the judges who often handed down harsh sentences rather than seeking to rehabilitate.  Judge Hunter realized that she could not continue to be a witness to the broken juvenile justice system in Hamilton County, OH. She observed staggering numbers of youth who entered into a system now identified as the school-to-prison pipeline.

What Judge Hunter witnessed was not just an illusion, but real racial disparities that subjected Hamilton County’s African American school aged children to the school-to-prison pipeline. Startling statistics showed that in 2009, before Hunter took the bench, 92.2% of youth incarcerated in Hamilton County were black. Youth of color represent only 17% of the population in Ohio, yet had the misfortune of accounting for 76% of those bound over to the adult justice system.  Youth in adult jails and prisons face a high rate of sexual and physical assault and a tremendous risk of suicide.

Hunter is a leading voice within the Cincinnati community. She founded her own urban Gospel radio station and is the CEO of Kingdom Life Ministries, where her message of compassion reached a wide segment of the minority population impacted by a partial justice system. Judge Hunter’s background as a journalist, broadcaster, and practicing attorney, gave her the skill-set to take on the role of being a change agent for children in Hamilton county.  Her goodwill led her to run for Juvenile Court Judge. 

When Judge Hunter entered into the race to fight for the youth of Hamilton County, no one could have predicted that it would take a court battle against the Hamilton County Board of Elections to secure her victory.  Hunter’s voter suppression suit cost taxpayers $2 million dollars after numerous appeals by the Hamilton County Board of Elections and Prosecutor Joe Deters, when they attempted to stop the counting of votes from majority black precincts. In the landmark case against the Hamilton County Board of Elections, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that votes that were disqualified due to poll-worker error had to be counted. Hunter was finally declared the winner of the election and is the first elected African-American and Democrat Juvenile Court Judge in Hamilton County, Ohio.  After a victorious battle, Judge Hunter would finally be able to provide a fair, balanced courtroom, and begin her efforts to reform the broken system and rehabilitate the children who entered her courtroom. However, Judge Hunter would eventually begin fighting for her own freedom as a consequence of exposing numerous violations of civil, constitutional, and human right violations found in the Juvenile Court once she finally took her seat as Judge.

Judge Tracie Hunter became a whistle blower last year, when she began reporting inaccuracies and corruption in the juvenile court system. Judge Hunter spoke out in court a couple of weeks ago, when the prosecutors office refused to turn over discovery evidence, she said, “it has become clear that I cannot get a fair hearing in Hamilton County”. Refusing to comply with a motion for discovery is a violation of Rules 16 and 17 of the Ohio Rules for Criminal Procedure. Judge Norbert Nadel also denied her motion to have her trial moved from Hamilton County.

In a motion to dismiss the charges against Judge Hunter in a previous pretrial hearing, attorney Bennett said that attorneys Shiverdecker and Crosswell were prosecutor Joseph Deter’s personal attorney’s and were appointed by the the prosecutor and should not be allowed to bring these charges as this presents a conflict of interest in the same way that Deter’s had to recuse himself for a similar conflict of interest.  Deter’s is the same prosecutor who fought against Hunter in her landmark case against Hamilton County Board of Elections, when they attempted to suppress votes in majority black precincts to stop Hunter from attaining her seat. The special prosecutors Shiverdecker and Crosswell, and Judge Nadel, who is presiding over this case all donated to Deter’s campaign for prosecutor.

Crosswell made disparaging remarks about Judge Hunter during pre-trial discovery hearings, alleging that she had “a history of manipulating and trying to game the system”.  Hunter responded by saying “I would like to say very clearly to Mr. Croswell that before I am Judge I am a Pastor of a Church, and I take great exception to your disparagement of my name in this courtroom today.  I am not sure about what you meant when you said ‘this defendant is gaming the system’, but let’s be clear here, the only gaming that is going on in Hamilton County is by the Hamilton County Juvenile Court, Judge John Williams, Curt Kissinger, and Connie Murdock….”  Addressing Crosswell directly, Hunter stated “You were very aware and you told my previous defense council that you knew that I did not backdate those documents and you knew that I did not commit theft using my judicial credit card to take care of official court business!”.  Disparaging a judge is a violation of the attorney rules of professional conduct. Judge Nadel did not discipline the attorney’s.

Hunter’s supporters and several civil rights organizations have said that they have requested that the Department of Justice intervene, as they also believe that Judge Hunter cannot get a fair trial in Hamilton County.  So far, they say “there has been no word on whether the Department of Justice plans to get involved in what appears to be a retaliation effort against this whistleblower judge”.  Trial for Judge Hunter starts on September 8th.  Nearly 15 of Judge Hunter’s supporter were not allowed to enter the courtroom for the discovery hearing, while half the courtroom remained empty.  Supporters say they were told that there was no more room in the courtroom, and when they inquired about why half the seats in the courtroom were empty, they were told that the empty seats were reserved for media.  Only 5 media outlets signed requests for press passes.  This seems to be about average for Hunter’s previous court dates.  For a complete case study, please contact Vanessa Enoch at vanessa.enoch@email.myunion.edu or Cheri Franklin-Scott at cheri.scott@email.myunion.edu.

To learn more about Judge Hunter’s Case, please contact:

Cincinnati Improvement Association

P.O. Box 24386

Cincinnati, Ohio 45224

513-549-4622

mogletree@ciacincinnati.org

www.ciacincinnati.org

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Juvenile justice advocate and whistleblower judge can’t get a fair trial in Cincinnati, Ohio

During its 109 years of existence, the Hamilton County Ohio Juvenile Court has operated under the control of the Republican Party.  In 2012, Pastor Tracie Hunter, a public servant and attorney for over 19 years, challenged the Republican controlled Juvenile Court by running for Judge. Hunter wanted to end the court’s disproportionate minority representation. A practicing attorney for 19 years, Hunter’s proficiency within the court system included criminal and civil representation of children and adults. 

Judge Hunter’s professional life as a pastor and attorney gave her great insight on the injustices committed in the courtroom when she provided legal services, including some pro bono services to children who could not afford legal representation for minor offenses when they appeared before the judges who often handed down harsh sentences rather than seeking to rehabilitate.  Judge Hunter realized that she could not continue to be a witness to the broken juvenile justice system in Hamilton County, OH. She observed staggering numbers of youth who entered into a system now identified as the school-to-prison pipeline.

What Judge Hunter witnessed was not just an illusion, but real racial disparities that subjected Hamilton County’s African American school aged children to the school-to-prison pipeline. Startling statistics showed that in 2009, before Hunter took the bench, 92.2% of youth incarcerated in Hamilton County were black. Youth of color represent only 17% of the population in Ohio, yet had the misfortune of accounting for 76% of those bound over to the adult justice system.  Youth in adult jails and prisons face a high rate of sexual and physical assault and a tremendous risk of suicide.

Hunter is a leading voice within the Cincinnati community. She founded her own urban Gospel radio station and is the CEO of Kingdom Life Ministries, where her message of compassion reached a wide segment of the minority population impacted by a partial justice system. Judge Hunter’s background as a journalist, broadcaster, and practicing attorney, gave her the skill-set to take on the role of being a change agent for children in Hamilton county.  Her goodwill led her to run for Juvenile Court Judge. 

When Judge Hunter entered into the race to fight for the youth of Hamilton County, no one could have predicted that it would take a court battle against the Hamilton County Board of Elections to secure her victory.  Hunter’s voter suppression suit cost taxpayers $2 million dollars after numerous appeals by the Hamilton County Board of Elections and Prosecutor Joe Deters, when they attempted to stop the counting of votes from majority black precincts. In the landmark case against the Hamilton County Board of Elections, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that votes that were disqualified due to poll-worker error had to be counted. Hunter was finally declared the winner of the election and is the first elected African-American and Democrat Juvenile Court Judge in Hamilton County, Ohio.  After a victorious battle, Judge Hunter would finally be able to provide a fair, balanced courtroom, and begin her efforts to reform the broken system and rehabilitate the children who entered her courtroom. However, Judge Hunter would eventually begin fighting for her own freedom as a consequence of exposing numerous violations of civil, constitutional, and human right violations found in the Juvenile Court once she finally took her seat as Judge.

Judge Tracie Hunter became a whistle blower last year, when she began reporting inaccuracies and corruption in the juvenile court system. Judge Hunter spoke out in court a couple of weeks ago, when the prosecutors office refused to turn over discovery evidence, she said, “it has become clear that I cannot get a fair hearing in Hamilton County”. Refusing to comply with a motion for discovery is a violation of Rules 16 and 17 of the Ohio Rules for Criminal Procedure. Judge Norbert Nadel also denied her motion to have her trial moved from Hamilton County.

In a motion to dismiss the charges against Judge Hunter in a previous pretrial hearing, attorney Bennett said that attorneys Shiverdecker and Crosswell were prosecutor Joseph Deter’s personal attorney’s and were appointed by the the prosecutor and should not be allowed to bring these charges as this presents a conflict of interest in the same way that Deter’s had to recuse himself for a similar conflict of interest.  Deter’s is the same prosecutor who fought against Hunter in her landmark case against Hamilton County Board of Elections, when they attempted to suppress votes in majority black precincts to stop Hunter from attaining her seat. The special prosecutors Shiverdecker and Crosswell, and Judge Nadel, who is presiding over this case all donated to Deter’s campaign for prosecutor.

Crosswell made disparaging remarks about Judge Hunter during pre-trial discovery hearings, alleging that she had “a history of manipulating and trying to game the system”.  Hunter responded by saying “I would like to say very clearly to Mr. Croswell that before I am Judge I am a Pastor of a Church, and I take great exception to your disparagement of my name in this courtroom today.  I am not sure about what you meant when you said ‘this defendant is gaming the system’, but let’s be clear here, the only gaming that is going on in Hamilton County is by the Hamilton County Juvenile Court, Judge John Williams, Curt Kissinger, and Connie Murdock….”  Addressing Crosswell directly, Hunter stated “You were very aware and you told my previous defense council that you knew that I did not backdate those documents and you knew that I did not commit theft using my judicial credit card to take care of official court business!”.  Disparaging a judge is a violation of the attorney rules of professional conduct. Judge Nadel did not discipline the attorney’s.

Hunter’s supporters and several civil rights organizations have said that they have requested that the Department of Justice intervene, as they also believe that Judge Hunter cannot get a fair trial in Hamilton County.  So far, they say “there has been no word on whether the Department of Justice plans to get involved in what appears to be a retaliation effort against this whistleblower judge”.  Trial for Judge Hunter starts on September 8th.  Nearly 15 of Judge Hunter’s supporter were not allowed to enter the courtroom for the discovery hearing, while half the courtroom remained empty.  Supporters say they were told that there was no more room in the courtroom, and when they inquired about why half the seats in the courtroom were empty, they were told that the empty seats were reserved for media.  Only 5 media outlets signed requests for press passes.  This seems to be about average for Hunter’s previous court dates.  For a complete case study, please contact Vanessa Enoch at vanessa.enoch@email.myunion.edu or Cheri Franklin-Scott at cheri.scott@email.myunion.edu.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Juvenile justice advocate Blows Whistle on Juvie Ct.: The Statistics

During its 109 years of existence, the Hamilton County Ohio Juvenile Court has operated under the control of the Republican Party.  In 2012, Pastor Tracie Hunter, a public servant and attorney for over 19 years, challenged the Republican controlled Juvenile Court by running for Judge. Hunter wanted to challenge the court’s history of disproportionate minority representation in Hamilton County juvenile justice system. A practicing attorney for 19 years, Hunter’s proficiency within the court system included criminal and civil representation of children and adults who make up the minority population. 

Judge Hunter’s professional life as a pastor and attorney gave her great insight on the injustices committed in the courtroom when she provided legal services. Many of which were pro bono to children who could not afford legal representation for minor offenses when they appeared before the judges who often handed down harsh sentences over rehabilitation.  Judge Hunter realized that she could not continue to be a witness to the broken juvenile justice system in Hamilton County, OH. She observed staggering numbers of youth who entered into a system now identified as the school-to-prison pipeline.

What Judge Hunter witnessed was not just an illusion, but real racial disparities that subjected 80% of African American school aged children to the school-to-prison pipeline. Startling statistics showed that between 2002 and 2004, among black juveniles, 16% of the youth population had the misfortune of accounting for:

• 28% of juvenile arrest

• 30% of court referrals

• 37% of youth placed out of their home

• 34% of youth waived to adult court, and

• 58% of youth locked in adult prisons

Hunter is a pastor who is a leading voice within the Cincinnati community. She founded her own urban Gospel radio station and is the CEO of Kingdom Life Ministries, where her compassionate voice reached a wider segment of the minority population impacted by a partial justice system. Judge Hunter’s background as a journalist, broadcaster, and practicing attorney, gave her the skill-set to take on the role of being a change agent for children in Hamilton county.  Her goodwill led her to run for Juvenile Court Judge for Hamilton County, Ohio. 

As Judge Hunter entered into the race to fight for the youth of Hamilton County, Ohio, no one could have predicted that it would take a court battle against the Hamilton County Board of Elections to secure her victory.  Judge Hunter sued the Hamilton County Board of Elections for voter suppression that cost the taxpayers $2 million dollars after numerous appeals by the Hamilton County Board of Elections and Joe Deters who attempted to stop the count of votes. Judge Hunter won her landmark case against the Hamilton County Board of Election where the Sixth Circuit Court ruled that votes that were disqualified due to poll-worker error had to be counted. She was declared winner and is the first elected African-American and Democrat Juvenile Judge in Hamilton County, Ohio.  After a victorious battle, Judge Hunter would finally be able to provide a fair, balanced courtroom, and begin her efforts to reform the broken system and rehabilitate the children who entered her courtroom. However, Judge Hunter would eventually begin fighting for her own freedom as a consequence of exposing numerous violations of civil, constitutional, and human right violations found in the Juvenile Court once she finally took her seat as Judge.

Judge Tracie Hunter became a whistle blower last year, when she began reporting inaccuracies and corruption in the juvenile court system. Judge Hunter spoke out in court Thursday saying, “it has become clear that I cannot get a fair hearing in Hamilton County”. To date, the defense has only received attendance records from the prosecutors office and none of the other documents that were requested in their motion for discovery.

Thursday’s discovery hearing was requested by Hunter’s attorney, Clyde Bennett II, during a previous pretrial hearing on August 6th, after it became apparent that the prosecutor’s office did not intend to turn over discovery evidence.  Assistant prosecutor, Pamela Sears stated that “the court and Mr. Kissinger and staff has spent about 25 hours searching emails to determine which we viewed as relevant and we are done doing that”.  She further concluded that “I got three more supeona’s today, one of which I think we’ve already complied with, the second of which I think we will comply with, and the third of which I have no intention to comply with”.  Refusing to comply with a motion for discovery is a violation of Rules 16 and 17 of the Ohio Rules for Criminal Procedure. 

During the previous pre-trial hearing, on August 6th, Ms. Sears stated that the reason they would not turnover requested discovery is because “there was not enough time”.  Attorney Bennett objected to this claim stating that “these documents were requested months ago”.  According to the Hamilton County Clerk’s website, discovery evidence was first requested by the defense attorney on February 25th.  Special prosecutors filed their motion for discovery on March 20th and the defense attorney turned over documents on that same day.

Hunter’s supporters and several civil rights organizations have said that they have requested that the Department of Justice intervene, as they believe that Judge Hunter cannot get a fair trial in Hamilton County.  So far, they say “there has been no word on whether the Department of Justice plans to get involved in what appears to be a retaliation effort against this whistleblower judge”.

Prosecuting attorney R. Scott Crosswell III stated that “the Defendant in this case has established a history of trying to “manipulate and game the system”.  Crosswell expressed that he “does not believe that the defense’s request for discovery evidence is a fishing expedition”.  Co-council for the prosecution, Merlyn Shiverdecker, followed Crosswell with an explanation of why they felt Judge Hunter was trying to “manipulate and game the system”.  He explained that the defense presented them with thousands of pages of documents that were not presented in chronological order.  He requested that Judge Norbert Nadel require the defense to put the documents in order to make it easier for them to sort through the documents.  Attorney Bennett objected to the request and suggested that the special prosecutor’s “grab a cup of coffee” and roll up their sleeves and get to work the same way he had in preparing for the defense.  In a motion to dismiss the charges against Judge Hunter in a previous pretrial hearing, attorney Bennett said that attorneys Shiverdecker and Crosswell were prosecutor Joseph Deter’s personal attorney’s and were appointed by the the prosecutor and should not be allowed to bring these charges as this presents a conflict of interest in the same way that Deter’s had to recuse himself for a similar conflict of interest.

Nearing the end of the hearing Judge Nadel gave Hunter an opportunity to speak on Crosswell’s claim that she was “gaming the system”.  “I would like to say very clearly to Mr. Croswell that before I am Judge I am a Pastor of a Church, and I take great exception to your disparagement of my name in this courtroom today.  I am not sure about what you meant when you said ‘this defendant is gaming the system’, but let’s be clear here, the only gaming that is going on in Hamilton County is by the Hamilton County Juvenile Court, Judge John Williams, Curt Kissinger, and Connie Murdock….”  Addressing Crosswell directly, Hunter stated “You were very aware and you told my previous defense council that you knew that I did not backdate those documents and you knew that I did not commit theft using my judicial credit card to take care of official court business!”.

Trial for Judge Hunter starts on September 8th.  Nearly 15 of Judge Hunter’s supporter were not allowed to enter the courtroom for Thursday’s hearing, while half the courtroom remained empty.  Supporters say they were told that there was no more room in the courtroom, and when they inquired about why half the seats in the courtroom were empty, they were told that the empty seats were reserved for media.  Only 5 media outlets signed requests for press passes.  This seems to be about average for Hunter’s previous court dates.  For a complete case study, please contact Vanessa Enoch at vanessa.enoch@email.myunion.edu or Cheri Franklin-Scott at cheri.scott@email.myunion.edu.

###

Word count: 870 (including title)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Whistleblower judge can’t get a fair trial in Cincinnati, Ohio

Cincinnati, OH – August 16, 2014 – The first African-American and the first Democrat to ever become a judge in the Hamilton County court’s 109-year history, Tracie Hunter became a whistleblower last year when she began reporting inaccuracies and corruption in the juvenile court system. She has since come under fire as the defendant of over 30 lawsuits and nine felony charges. Hunter spoke out in court Thursday, saying, “It has become clear that I cannot get a fair hearing in Hamilton County.” Hunter’s supporters and several civil rights organizations have requested that the Department of Justice intervene, as they believe that Hunter cannot get a fair trial in Hamilton County. According to these supporters, there has been no word on whether the Department of Justice plans to get involved.

Judge Hunter won her seat after a $2 million heated court battle and numerous appeals by Hamilton County Prosecutor Joseph Deters. The Hamilton County Board of Elections rejected provisional ballots for more than 800 voters from majority black precincts when it was found that poll workers were responsible for disqualifying voters by sending them to the wrong booth. The rejection of provisional ballots awarded Judge Hunter’s opponent, John Williams, a 23-point lead, invoking the court battle. Judge Hunter sued the Hamilton County Board of Elections for voter suppression in the U.S. District Court, after it was revealed that poll workers caused the errors. Her landmark case, Hunter v. Hamilton County Board of Elections, later upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, paved the way for all Ohio voters to have their provisional ballots counted when rejected due to poll-workers error.

To date, the defense has only received attendance records from the prosecutor’s office and none of the other documents that were requested in their motion for discovery.
Assistant prosecutor Pamela Sears stated that “The court and Mr. Kissinger and staff have spent about 25 hours searching emails to determine which we viewed as relevant and we are done doing that.” Of the outstanding subpoenas, Sears said “one of which I think we’ve already complied with, the second of which I think we will comply with, and the third of which I have no intention to comply with.” Special prosecutor Crosswell said that he “does not believe that the defense’s request for discovery evidence is a fishing expedition.” Refusing to comply with a motion for discovery is a violation of Rules 16 and 17 of the Ohio Rules for Criminal Procedure.

During the previous pretrial hearing on August 6th, Sears stated that the reason they would not turn over requested discovery evidence is because “there was not enough time.” Bennett objected to this claim, stating, “These documents were requested months ago.” According to the Hamilton County Clerk’s website, discovery evidence was first requested by the defense attorney on February 25th. Special prosecutors filed their motion for discovery on March 20th and the defense attorney turned over documents on that same day.

Special prosecutors Merlyn Shiverdecker and R. Scott Crosswell III, appointed by Prosecutor Joseph Deters, who had to recuse himself due to conflicts of interest, made allegations that Judge Hunter was “trying to manipulate and game the system”, however these allegations are not consistent with Judge Hunter’s 25+ years of service to the Cincinnati community. As a juvenile court judge, Hunter has been an advocate for the children of Hamilton County, ensuring that the Hamilton County Juvenile Court system protected the constitutional rights of juveniles in their custody. She put an end to shackling of children in her courtroom, ordered the juvenile detention center to stop making the children share undergarments, and stopped the media from putting the names and faces of accused children in the newspaper and on television. Prior to coming to the court, in an effort to rebuild community and curb urban violence, Hunter led over 200 prayer walks in Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky’s toughest neighborhoods; and has taught over 100 churches how to organize prayer walking missions. Guidepost Magazine documented that in April 2002, a prayer walk Hunter’s team coordinated with over 1000 people was instrumental in squelching a violent uprising during civil unrest in Cincinnati.

Subsequently, Judge Hunter stated in her own defense, “I would like to say very clearly to Mr. Croswell that before I am Judge I am a Pastor of a Church, and I take great exception to your disparagement of my name in this courtroom today. I am not sure about what you meant when you said ‘this defendant is gaming the system’, but let’s be clear here, the only gaming that is going on in Hamilton County is by the Hamilton County Juvenile Court, Judge John Williams, Curt Kissinger, and Connie Murdock….”
Nearly 15 of Hunter’s supporters were not allowed to enter the courtroom for Thursday’s hearing, while half the courtroom remained empty. Supporters say that they were told that there was no more room in the courtroom, and that the empty seats were reserved for media. Only five media outlets signed requests for press passes, however, which is fairly consistent with press pass requests for Hunter’s previous court dates. Hunter returns to court for another pretrial hearing on Tuesday, August 19th, and trial starts on September 8th. For a complete case study, please contact Vanessa Enoch at vanessa.enoch@email.myunion.edu or Cheri Franklin-Scott at cheri.scott@email.myunion.edu.

#

Word count: 892 (including title)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Racial Discrimination and Politics to Blame, Pioneering Juvenile Court Judge Forced from Office

Cincinnati, OH – August 17, 2014 – As the first African-American and the first Democrat to ever become a judge in the juvenile court system of Hamilton County, Ohio, Tracie Hunter had high hopes of changing the system for the better. Unfortunately, her efforts have been sidetracked by an onslaught of personal and professional attacks designed to discredit her and undermine her authority.

Hunter won her seat after a heated court battle and numerous appeals in which voter suppression was suspected. Inevitably, the county was required to count more than 800 votes from majority black precincts when it was found that poll workers were responsible for disqualifying voters by sending them to the wrong booth. 

Hunter encountered more resistance even after she had proven herself as the rightful winner of the election. Within her first two months on the bench, Hunter became the target of vicious attacks! Soon she was facing nearly 30 lawsuits filed against her by The Cincinnati Enquirer (the city’s largest newspaper and supporter of Hunter’s opponent in the elections), the Hamilton County Prosecutor, the Hamilton County Commissioner’s Office, the Hamilton County Public Defender’s Office, and WCPO-TV. These attacks on Hunter have since culminated in nine felony charges, resulting in her removal from the bench only 18 months after taking her seat. Even those who had supported her soon found themselves on the wrong side of the law.

Vanessa Enoch and Cheri Franklin-Scott, doctoral students with Cincinnati’s Union Institute & University, have completed a case study in which they highlight the racial injustices within Hamilton County’s juvenile system. They state that over 80% of the juveniles charged within Hamilton County are African American, and that they have been subjected to a school-to-prison pipeline. These are the same injustices which Hunter had tried to eradicate until she was forced from her position.

Enoch and Franklin-Scott expose numerous violations of civil, constitutional, and human rights in their study, and present an analysis of the collusion, strategic privatization of the juvenile detention facility, and political maneuvers by Republican Party government officials. Enoch and Franklin-Scott contend that the $30 million budget associated with Hunter’s position (the second largest budget in Hamilton County) was also a motivating factor in targeting her.

Please make plans to attend Judge Hunter’s pretrial hearing on Tuesday, August 19, at 11:00am and the trial begins on September 8^th. 

For a complete case study, please contact Vanessa Enoch at vanessa.enoch@email.myunion.edu or Cheri Franklin-Scott at cheri.scott@email.myunion.edu.

Please donate to Justice For Our Children: http://www.gofundme.com/bmgc2k