BATAVIA, Ohio (TDB) -- Some precincts in Clermont County don't have enough Democratic ballots to meet expected demand and voters reportedly were being told to wait. But some news reports suggested citizens were being turned away. Sheriff's deputies were standing by to rush ballots to the polls. The shortage clearly is a major screw up and heads should roll. WKRC-TV, Channel 12 in Cincinnati is reporting that new ballots were hurriedly being printed to cover the primary day shortfall:
"Several precincts in Clermont County have run short on Democratic ballots. Election officials were printing more and the sheriff is delivering ballots to Milford, Miami Township and Union Township."
Those are some of the most heavily populated communities in Clermont County, a suburb of Cincinnati in Ohio's 2nd Congressional District. It is the home county of Republican U.S. Rep. Jean Schmidt, who is in a GOP primary today. Clermont -- on the Ohio River east of Cincinnati -- is one of the most Republican counties in Ohio and virtually every office is held by the GOP.
Howard Wilkinson at the Enquirer reports that some voters complain they had been turned away from the polls. There were complaints that some precincts in Clermont ran out of ballots at 2:45 p.m. Also, some voters were saying they had been asked to wait at the polls until new ballots arrived. An early official theory for the shortages: Crossover voting by Republicans who are picking up Democratic ballots.
Showing posts with label Clermont County. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clermont County. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Saturday, February 09, 2008
OH-02 Dem Vic Wulsin: Asks That Today's Clermont County Straw Poll Be Cancelled
BATAVIA (TDB) -- Clermont County Democratic Chairman Dave Lane says today's OH-02 straw poll has been cancelled. It would have offered a glimpse into the pre-primary popularity of candidates Steve Black and Vic Wulsin in a key SW Ohio county. Lane said the poll was cancelled at Wulsin's request because Black has temporarily suspended campaigning while mourning the death of his father, retired Judge Robert L. Black. Lane led a gathering of Clermont County Democrats in a moment of silence for the judge, whom he described as a respected jurist and civic leader.
Josh Levin, Wulsin's campaign manager, was at the session. He said she continues to campaign, but did not think the straw poll would be appropriate. Lane, the county chair, told The Daily Bellwether the county party in suburban Cincinnati is officially neutral in the Black-Wulsin contest. It had considered convening an endorsement meeting in mid-January, but scrapped the plan. He said Wulsin -- who was the candidate in 2006 and narrowly lost to Clermont County Republican U.S. Rep. Jean Schmidt -- asked that the endorsement session be dropped. He said he did not know which way the party leaders would have voted -- Black or Wulsin. He said both candidates are running aggressive bids for the nomination.
"I can tell you, in Clermont County among the Democrats, Victoria of course has the most name recognition. She has it from her past campaigns, and she came close to beating Schmidt, so people know who she is."
He said Black, a Republican who switched party to seek the Dem nomination, faces some opposition because of his GOP past. Lane said it should be a non-issue.
"My personal view is that any time that a Republican chooses to see the light and join us, well, he is welcome. We should take all the Republicans we can get. I don't hold that against Steve Black. A person who switches parties from Republican to Democrat to run for office, I don't question that at all."
Lane said Paul Hackett -- the party's 2005 nominee who lost a special election against Schmidt -- had spent time in the GOP before leaving it permanently.
"Hackett, he had shadows of Republicanism in his history. There was some history of him switching back and forth."
Lane, in the interview, declined to say who would come out on top March 4. He said either Wulsin or Black would be strong in the November general election.
"I could see a scenario where Steven Black could sway more of the conservative swing voters in the general election. But look at the last general election. Victoria came very close."
Josh Levin, Wulsin's campaign manager, was at the session. He said she continues to campaign, but did not think the straw poll would be appropriate. Lane, the county chair, told The Daily Bellwether the county party in suburban Cincinnati is officially neutral in the Black-Wulsin contest. It had considered convening an endorsement meeting in mid-January, but scrapped the plan. He said Wulsin -- who was the candidate in 2006 and narrowly lost to Clermont County Republican U.S. Rep. Jean Schmidt -- asked that the endorsement session be dropped. He said he did not know which way the party leaders would have voted -- Black or Wulsin. He said both candidates are running aggressive bids for the nomination.
"I can tell you, in Clermont County among the Democrats, Victoria of course has the most name recognition. She has it from her past campaigns, and she came close to beating Schmidt, so people know who she is."
He said Black, a Republican who switched party to seek the Dem nomination, faces some opposition because of his GOP past. Lane said it should be a non-issue.
"My personal view is that any time that a Republican chooses to see the light and join us, well, he is welcome. We should take all the Republicans we can get. I don't hold that against Steve Black. A person who switches parties from Republican to Democrat to run for office, I don't question that at all."
Lane said Paul Hackett -- the party's 2005 nominee who lost a special election against Schmidt -- had spent time in the GOP before leaving it permanently.
"Hackett, he had shadows of Republicanism in his history. There was some history of him switching back and forth."
Lane, in the interview, declined to say who would come out on top March 4. He said either Wulsin or Black would be strong in the November general election.
"I could see a scenario where Steven Black could sway more of the conservative swing voters in the general election. But look at the last general election. Victoria came very close."
Friday, September 07, 2007
Ohio Prosecutor's Nifong Moment (III): In Cincy, Tylisha's Forgetful Foster Mom Was Convicted
CINCINNATI (TDB) -- When police and shoppers spotted three-week-old Tylisha Melendez strapped in her car seat in a locked Plymouth minivan outside a suburban Wal-Mart on an 85-degree afternoon, they hurriedly tracked down the infant's foster mom. Her first words upon reaching the vehicle, "Oh, my God, we forgot the baby."
Despite being left sleeping in her car seat, the baby survived the stifling heat. But forgetfulness was no excuse. Police in Colerain Township filed a child endangering against Kathleen Morton, a 45-year-old African American woman who had taken in eight foster children. She was convicted of a first degree misdemeanor and received probation, a six-month suspended jail sentence, a $100 fine plus court costs, and was ordered to perform 100 hours of community service.
And when Morton appealed, Hamilton County prosecutors fought her and won. The 1st District Ohio Court of Appeals case number is C-990760. It is not available on the Ohio Supreme Court's online database of legal decisions, but The Daily Bellwether has obtained a paper copy of the seven-page opinion.
It seems to undercut Clermont County Prosecutor Doug White's contention that a mother who forgets and leaves her child unattended in a blazing hot vehicle is not considered "reckless" under Ohio law. White has declined to press charges against the mother of two-year-old Cecilia Slaby, who perished Aug. 23 after being left for about eight hours in her mother's Mercedes outside a school. Cecilia's mother is white and a fairly well off suburban school administrator, and there are suggestions that the decision not to file criminal charges is a serious miscarriage of justice. It has raised questions of class and race, and there is debate over whether someone who was poor and black would be granted similar leniency. On the other hand, White contends no crime was committed because the mom forgot her daughter was in the Mercedes.
But consider what Hamilton County prosecutors told the appeals court in Cincinnati about Kathleen Morton's actions in the Wal-Mart parking lot on a hot June day in 1999 (and remember the baby did not die):
"First, the child in this case, not yet one month old, is completely dependent upon (Morton) for care and is unable to look after herself in any way. The facts demonstrate that (Morton) knew that it was likely the infant was alone in the car . . .
"Leaving a less than one-month old infant alone in a closed-up, locked vehicle on a hot, humid day creates a substantial risk of harm to the health and safety of that child. After only thirty to forty minutes, the baby's breathing was heavy and labored. She was drenched in sweat, her clothes saturated, perspiration dripping from her ears and pooled in her eye sockets. Regardless of whether Tylisha required emergency care or hospitalization, conditions such as these certainly created risk of harm to her health and safety."
The appeals court agreed, and ruled 2-1 Morton was reckless because she didn't pay close enough attention, and didn't check the minivan for Tylisha before heading into the Wal-Mart.
"The largely undisputed evidence adduced at trial was that Morton had failed to take the necessary measures to ensure that Tylisha was receiving the care that a three-week only infant requires. Morton testified she assumed (blank) or one of the older children had taken Tylisha into the store . . .
"But Morton acknowledged that the children were already out of her line of sight before she left her van and that she had not seen (blank) take Tylisha out of the van. Morton did not check the van herself to ensure that all the children were properly supervised."
And, the 1st District added:
"Construing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, and bearing in mind the absolute dependence of a three-week-old child on her parent or guardian, we hold that the trial court could have properly concluded that Morton's failure to ascertain the whereabouts of Tylisha constituted a heedless indifference to the consequences of leaving the child unattended in the vehicle."
Despite being left sleeping in her car seat, the baby survived the stifling heat. But forgetfulness was no excuse. Police in Colerain Township filed a child endangering against Kathleen Morton, a 45-year-old African American woman who had taken in eight foster children. She was convicted of a first degree misdemeanor and received probation, a six-month suspended jail sentence, a $100 fine plus court costs, and was ordered to perform 100 hours of community service.
And when Morton appealed, Hamilton County prosecutors fought her and won. The 1st District Ohio Court of Appeals case number is C-990760. It is not available on the Ohio Supreme Court's online database of legal decisions, but The Daily Bellwether has obtained a paper copy of the seven-page opinion.
It seems to undercut Clermont County Prosecutor Doug White's contention that a mother who forgets and leaves her child unattended in a blazing hot vehicle is not considered "reckless" under Ohio law. White has declined to press charges against the mother of two-year-old Cecilia Slaby, who perished Aug. 23 after being left for about eight hours in her mother's Mercedes outside a school. Cecilia's mother is white and a fairly well off suburban school administrator, and there are suggestions that the decision not to file criminal charges is a serious miscarriage of justice. It has raised questions of class and race, and there is debate over whether someone who was poor and black would be granted similar leniency. On the other hand, White contends no crime was committed because the mom forgot her daughter was in the Mercedes.
But consider what Hamilton County prosecutors told the appeals court in Cincinnati about Kathleen Morton's actions in the Wal-Mart parking lot on a hot June day in 1999 (and remember the baby did not die):
"First, the child in this case, not yet one month old, is completely dependent upon (Morton) for care and is unable to look after herself in any way. The facts demonstrate that (Morton) knew that it was likely the infant was alone in the car . . .
"Leaving a less than one-month old infant alone in a closed-up, locked vehicle on a hot, humid day creates a substantial risk of harm to the health and safety of that child. After only thirty to forty minutes, the baby's breathing was heavy and labored. She was drenched in sweat, her clothes saturated, perspiration dripping from her ears and pooled in her eye sockets. Regardless of whether Tylisha required emergency care or hospitalization, conditions such as these certainly created risk of harm to her health and safety."
The appeals court agreed, and ruled 2-1 Morton was reckless because she didn't pay close enough attention, and didn't check the minivan for Tylisha before heading into the Wal-Mart.
"The largely undisputed evidence adduced at trial was that Morton had failed to take the necessary measures to ensure that Tylisha was receiving the care that a three-week only infant requires. Morton testified she assumed (blank) or one of the older children had taken Tylisha into the store . . .
"But Morton acknowledged that the children were already out of her line of sight before she left her van and that she had not seen (blank) take Tylisha out of the van. Morton did not check the van herself to ensure that all the children were properly supervised."
And, the 1st District added:
"Construing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, and bearing in mind the absolute dependence of a three-week-old child on her parent or guardian, we hold that the trial court could have properly concluded that Morton's failure to ascertain the whereabouts of Tylisha constituted a heedless indifference to the consequences of leaving the child unattended in the vehicle."
Ohio Prosecutor's Nifong Moment (II): 'Extreme Temperatures' Are Grounds For Convictions
CINCINNATI (TDB) -- Former Cleveland Law Director Subodh Chandra and city prosecutors acted aggressively to protect Ohio's children with their legal tactics in 2003 and 2004. They went after a boozer who put a two-year-old outdoors in sub-freezing cold after a post-Thanksgiving drinking bout. The child suffered no injuries from chill and snow, but the case still concluded with a guilty verdict of child endangerment. A state appeals court said a critical issue was: Does knowingly exposing a child to extreme weather conditions create a substantial risk to health and safety?
It sided with Chandra: Extreme weather is a risk.
The efforts to seek a conviction in Cleveland are in contrast with Clermont County Prosecutor Don White's decision not to take action in the death of Cecilia Slaby. The two-year-old perished Aug. 23 while strapped into her mother's Mercedes on a blazing summer day. White's office says the mother, a school administrator, accidentally forgot about the child and didn't heedlessly disregard a known risk. The risk: Extreme temperature in a vehicle parked outdoors in the August heat.
The complete text of the 12-page decision from Cleveland is available(PDF) from the Ohio Supreme Court. Chandra's team argued that the presence of severe weather automatically creates a strong possibility of harm to a child. It also contended the man locked the door when he kicked the two-year-old out into the cold with her mother, which created a "culpable mental state" required for conviction. The 8th District Ohio Court of Appeals agreed:
"Exposure to extreme temperatures for a relatively extended period of time creates a substantial risk to the health or safety of a child. A rational trier of fact could have found that sub-freezing temperatures created a substantial risk to the health or safety of the child despite the fact that she was with her mother, and despite the fact that she was wearing a coat . . .
"The snow and low temperatures that night gave (the defendant) good reason for expectation or belief that the two-year-old child could suffer from exposure. Moreover, based on evidence that the mother and child were forced out, a rational trier of fact could reasonably conclude that (the defendant) perversely disregarded, with heedless indifference to the consequences, the known risk that the two-year-old could suffer from exposure."
Mom and daughter walked about eight blocks that night in Cleveland to a pay phone, where they dialed 911 and were rescued by police. There was no frostbite or medical damage, although the little girl urinated in the pajamas she wore under her winter coat. The conviction for child endangering led to a $150 fine, a suspended 90-day jail sentence and a year of probation with substance abuse assessment and counseling.
It sided with Chandra: Extreme weather is a risk.
The efforts to seek a conviction in Cleveland are in contrast with Clermont County Prosecutor Don White's decision not to take action in the death of Cecilia Slaby. The two-year-old perished Aug. 23 while strapped into her mother's Mercedes on a blazing summer day. White's office says the mother, a school administrator, accidentally forgot about the child and didn't heedlessly disregard a known risk. The risk: Extreme temperature in a vehicle parked outdoors in the August heat.
The complete text of the 12-page decision from Cleveland is available(PDF) from the Ohio Supreme Court. Chandra's team argued that the presence of severe weather automatically creates a strong possibility of harm to a child. It also contended the man locked the door when he kicked the two-year-old out into the cold with her mother, which created a "culpable mental state" required for conviction. The 8th District Ohio Court of Appeals agreed:
"Exposure to extreme temperatures for a relatively extended period of time creates a substantial risk to the health or safety of a child. A rational trier of fact could have found that sub-freezing temperatures created a substantial risk to the health or safety of the child despite the fact that she was with her mother, and despite the fact that she was wearing a coat . . .
"The snow and low temperatures that night gave (the defendant) good reason for expectation or belief that the two-year-old child could suffer from exposure. Moreover, based on evidence that the mother and child were forced out, a rational trier of fact could reasonably conclude that (the defendant) perversely disregarded, with heedless indifference to the consequences, the known risk that the two-year-old could suffer from exposure."
Mom and daughter walked about eight blocks that night in Cleveland to a pay phone, where they dialed 911 and were rescued by police. There was no frostbite or medical damage, although the little girl urinated in the pajamas she wore under her winter coat. The conviction for child endangering led to a $150 fine, a suspended 90-day jail sentence and a year of probation with substance abuse assessment and counseling.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Ohio Prosecutor's Nifong Moment? Parents DO Get Jail For Baked Or Frozen Kids
COLUMBUS (TDB) -- In Ohio, parents can and do go to jail for exposing their children to extreme temperatures by leaving them in cars when the sun is blazing, or locking them outdoors when the snow is falling. It even happened not so long ago on a hot afternoon in Clermont County. And there is proof from the Ohio Supreme Court.
The high court has an online portal where important legal decisions from around the state are stored for lawyers to scrutinize and study. Scholars are now poring over the the full 24-page text of State of Ohio vs. Jerry Bittner from Clermont County (PDF). Even for laymen, the case is well worth reading.
[UPDATE: 7:23 PM edt -- Nate Livingston at the Cincinnati Black Blog has been all over the Slaby story and has dug up the same court of appeals case on Lexis. Nate suspects there are issues of class and race in the way child endangering cases are handled in Ohio. And he clearly is on to something.]
[UPDATE II: 7:40 PM edt -- Nixguy has been following the trail blazed by Cincinnati Black Blog. This is turning into one of those events that crosses the political divide between left and right.]
Until today, Bitner has been an obscure Dec. 31, 2001 appeals court ruling that sent a dad to prison for a year after his 6-month-old daughter, Serena, was left in a van on a hot day and died. It's a case every bit as tragic as the death of 2-year-old Cecilia Slaby in her mom's Mercedes Aug. 23 on a broiling summer day in the same county. But there is one significant difference: Clermont County Prosecutor Don White went after Jerry Bittner, who lived in a housetrailer and worked two jobs to support his family. White gave Cecilia's mom -- a high school administrator -- a pass. He won't press charges.
Here is some of what the 12th District Court of Appeals had to say when it upheld Bittner's conviction in Clermont County:
"At 6:30 p.m., appellant came home from work before leaving for his second job. Not seeing Serena he inquired as to her whereabouts. It was then discovered that Serena had been left in the van in the driveway. The temperature that day was eighty-four degrees Fahrenheit. Except for the front passenger window which was opened one to two inches, all the other windows were closed."
The Bittner's had problems with county children's protective services officials in the past, and didn't take their daughter to a hospital immediately. They put her in a bath, cooled her off, then concocted a story that she had been on a bed and managed to wrap herself in a blanket to cause the overheating. The story unravelled when the child died. White's office managed to prove that Bittner was reckless. The appeals court said:
"Parents have a legal duty to protect their children from harm. State v. Sammons (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 460,463. The crime of child endangering under R.C. 2919.22 (A) may be committed by acts of omission: 'an inexcusable failure to act in discharge of one's duty to protect a child where such failure to act results in a substantial risk to the child's health or safety is an offense under R.C. 2929.22 (A).' State v Kamel (1984), 12 Ohio St. 3d 306,309.
"After thoroughly reviewing the record, we find that once Serena was found in the van appellant acted recklessly, and that he created a substantial risk to the health of Serena. . . By the time she was discovered in the van, she was suffering from heat exhaustion and was 'already pretty sick' . . . However, rather than call 911 or take her to the hospital appellant decided to give her a bath to cool her off. The record shows that at least 20 minutes elapsed between discovering Serena in the van and putting her in the bath."
So Prosecutor White threw the book at Bittner because he didn't seek quick medical attention for a child broiled in a van. A 911 call may have saved him from prison. But White didn't go after Cecilia's mom, who forgot that her daughter was strapped into a Mercedes and couldn't be revived by emergency workers. A 911 call, it seems, made no difference for Cecilia. It made all the difference for her mom.
Again, the appeals court:
(Bittner's) actions undoubtedly created a substantial risk to his daughter's health, which, in this unfortunate case, led to the child's death. Reviewing the evidence in a light mos favorable to the prosecution, we find that a rational trier of fact could have found that the elements of child endangering, including recklessness, were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, our review of the evidence fails to persuade us that the jury lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice. We therefore find (Bittner's) convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence."
Here is some of what the 12th District Court of Appeals had to say when it upheld Bittner's conviction in Clermont County:
"At 6:30 p.m., appellant came home from work before leaving for his second job. Not seeing Serena he inquired as to her whereabouts. It was then discovered that Serena had been left in the van in the driveway. The temperature that day was eighty-four degrees Fahrenheit. Except for the front passenger window which was opened one to two inches, all the other windows were closed."
The Bittner's had problems with county children's protective services officials in the past, and didn't take their daughter to a hospital immediately. They put her in a bath, cooled her off, then concocted a story that she had been on a bed and managed to wrap herself in a blanket to cause the overheating. The story unravelled when the child died. White's office managed to prove that Bittner was reckless. The appeals court said:
"Parents have a legal duty to protect their children from harm. State v. Sammons (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 460,463. The crime of child endangering under R.C. 2919.22 (A) may be committed by acts of omission: 'an inexcusable failure to act in discharge of one's duty to protect a child where such failure to act results in a substantial risk to the child's health or safety is an offense under R.C. 2929.22 (A).' State v Kamel (1984), 12 Ohio St. 3d 306,309.
"After thoroughly reviewing the record, we find that once Serena was found in the van appellant acted recklessly, and that he created a substantial risk to the health of Serena. . . By the time she was discovered in the van, she was suffering from heat exhaustion and was 'already pretty sick' . . . However, rather than call 911 or take her to the hospital appellant decided to give her a bath to cool her off. The record shows that at least 20 minutes elapsed between discovering Serena in the van and putting her in the bath."
So Prosecutor White threw the book at Bittner because he didn't seek quick medical attention for a child broiled in a van. A 911 call may have saved him from prison. But White didn't go after Cecilia's mom, who forgot that her daughter was strapped into a Mercedes and couldn't be revived by emergency workers. A 911 call, it seems, made no difference for Cecilia. It made all the difference for her mom.
Again, the appeals court:
(Bittner's) actions undoubtedly created a substantial risk to his daughter's health, which, in this unfortunate case, led to the child's death. Reviewing the evidence in a light mos favorable to the prosecution, we find that a rational trier of fact could have found that the elements of child endangering, including recklessness, were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, our review of the evidence fails to persuade us that the jury lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice. We therefore find (Bittner's) convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence."
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Cincinnati Enquirer's Apology: Wishy, Washy And Squishy
CINCINNATI (TDB) -- Faced with a firestorm of protest over his newspaper's bad-smelling coverage of a Clermont County murder case, Cincinnati Enquirer editor Tom Callinan has apologized for, in part, promoting a journalistic freak show. He said the publication, which is also online at Cincinnati.com, screwed up by publishing the jury's identities. He apologized and called it a "late-night, deadline decision that was wrong."
Somehow, that appears to lack the ring of complete truth.
The newspaper's employees no doubt retrieved the jurors' personal data in the fact-gathering process, then tried to figure out what to do with the information. Reporters probably were looking for the jurors and seeking out interviews. Callinan implies that there was a list that suddenly materialized and presto! it got published at the very last minute. He blamed the incident on rushing and over-aggressiveness. He admits voices were raised against publishing the juror's names, but adds those voices were ignored.
However, his apology came without a detailed explanation of the entire episode. It's a trust-us-
we-really-know-what-we're-doing apology, a pronouncement that seems issued from on high to the peons who buy the newspaper or click to its online content. It is an apology that smacks of a hierarchical era, when editors presided over the sacred rites of journalism and the hicks had to believe them.
"So how did the decision to publish the list of jurors' names happen? All I can say is that we lost our perspective. In being aggressive on a big story we rushed to a very bad decision." Callinan wrote, offering nothing else except to say that the murder of 3-year-old Marcus Fiesel was a big story.
Inquiring minds want to know: Why the rush? Aggressive on a big story? It was a trial, for heaven sake.
The Enquirer did not solve the murder, arrest the suspect, present the evidence, or even locate the victim's corpse, which is still missing. Outside of overblown headlines, prose and page display that went far beyond Yellow Journalism to the portion of the spectrum that causes skin to blister, the Cincinnati daily played no important role in determining guilt or innocence. The Enquirer was a leech at worst, a pest at best.
Callinan says it is important for the public to know about the people who serve on juries. But, again, he stumbles. There has hardly been a big push in that direction by Callinan prior to this mess on his watch.
There are jury trials every day in SW Ohio -- civil and criminal -- and about zero is ever written about the empaneled fact-finders who decide guilty or not, or what the preponderance of evidence shows. Some might even see in Callinan's apology an element of fraud when he declares. "It is interesting and not irrelevant that a power company lineman, restaurant server and psychiatric nurse are among those entrusted such an important and awesome responsibility. Certainly jurors bring those life experiences to the process. But it's not necessary to publish their names."
Every Ohio jury is comprised of everyday citizens. That might be news to the Enquirer's editor, but it has been a basic precept of the legal system since the days of the Northwest Territory and Cincinnati was settled in 1788.
As the leading newsroom executive, Callinan needs to be far more transparent and:
1) Disclose how long the newspaper had the names.
2) Disclose how the decision to publish the names was made.
3) Disclose what the arguments were against publishing.
4) Disclose where he stood at the time -- for or against.
The Enquirer's editor has not been forthcoming. He concedes the publication of juror names damaged the public's trust in his newspaper, but he won't elaborate.
Sorry, Mr. Editor. It is time for transparency. I call BS.
The full-text of the apology is HERE.
Somehow, that appears to lack the ring of complete truth.
The newspaper's employees no doubt retrieved the jurors' personal data in the fact-gathering process, then tried to figure out what to do with the information. Reporters probably were looking for the jurors and seeking out interviews. Callinan implies that there was a list that suddenly materialized and presto! it got published at the very last minute. He blamed the incident on rushing and over-aggressiveness. He admits voices were raised against publishing the juror's names, but adds those voices were ignored.
However, his apology came without a detailed explanation of the entire episode. It's a trust-us-
we-really-know-what-we're-doing apology, a pronouncement that seems issued from on high to the peons who buy the newspaper or click to its online content. It is an apology that smacks of a hierarchical era, when editors presided over the sacred rites of journalism and the hicks had to believe them.
"So how did the decision to publish the list of jurors' names happen? All I can say is that we lost our perspective. In being aggressive on a big story we rushed to a very bad decision." Callinan wrote, offering nothing else except to say that the murder of 3-year-old Marcus Fiesel was a big story.
Inquiring minds want to know: Why the rush? Aggressive on a big story? It was a trial, for heaven sake.
The Enquirer did not solve the murder, arrest the suspect, present the evidence, or even locate the victim's corpse, which is still missing. Outside of overblown headlines, prose and page display that went far beyond Yellow Journalism to the portion of the spectrum that causes skin to blister, the Cincinnati daily played no important role in determining guilt or innocence. The Enquirer was a leech at worst, a pest at best.
Callinan says it is important for the public to know about the people who serve on juries. But, again, he stumbles. There has hardly been a big push in that direction by Callinan prior to this mess on his watch.
There are jury trials every day in SW Ohio -- civil and criminal -- and about zero is ever written about the empaneled fact-finders who decide guilty or not, or what the preponderance of evidence shows. Some might even see in Callinan's apology an element of fraud when he declares. "It is interesting and not irrelevant that a power company lineman, restaurant server and psychiatric nurse are among those entrusted such an important and awesome responsibility. Certainly jurors bring those life experiences to the process. But it's not necessary to publish their names."
Every Ohio jury is comprised of everyday citizens. That might be news to the Enquirer's editor, but it has been a basic precept of the legal system since the days of the Northwest Territory and Cincinnati was settled in 1788.
As the leading newsroom executive, Callinan needs to be far more transparent and:
1) Disclose how long the newspaper had the names.
2) Disclose how the decision to publish the names was made.
3) Disclose what the arguments were against publishing.
4) Disclose where he stood at the time -- for or against.
The Enquirer's editor has not been forthcoming. He concedes the publication of juror names damaged the public's trust in his newspaper, but he won't elaborate.
Sorry, Mr. Editor. It is time for transparency. I call BS.
The full-text of the apology is HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)