ROBERT J. BATCHELOR, JUDGE

COURT DESCRIPTION

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES:

The General Division of the Coshocton County Common Pleas Court is a trial court of general jurisdiction that provides prompt, fair, and just resolution of litigation in civil and criminal cases. The Judge presides over bench and jury trials involving complex civil litigation as well as criminal cases where offenders can receive imprisonment for as little as six months or up to the remainder of their lives or, in the event of a capital murder case, may even receive the death penalty.

DOMESTIC RELATIONS:

The Domestic Relations Court is the division of Common Pleas responsible for hearing all divorce, dissolution, legal separation, annulment and civil domestic violence cases for residents of Coshocton County. Parties may also return to the Court for post-decree resolution of matters including child or spousal support, allocation of parental rights and responsibilities (“custody”), parenting time (“visitation”), among other matters.  A Magistrate is appointed by the Court to assist with domestic relations cases.  The Magistrate has almost the same authority as the Judge.  The Magistrate’s decisions can be appealed directly to the Judge for review.

NEW TO THECOURT IN 2020:

  2020 posed unique challenges and opportunities with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the beginning of a Court’s Probation Department.  In each instance, the entire Court staff worked together as a team to maintain Court operations during a pandemic while transitioning into a new era of felony supervision.  This teamwork required constant inter-office communication, as well as regular contact with the Ohio Supreme Court, the Board of County Commissioners, and local health officials, as well as numerous other agencies.  In the end, we realized that there was always someone willing to help no matter the request.  The difficulties that confronted the Court were overcome by a resilient team with the help of state and local government agencies across Ohio, as well as the private citizens in Coshocton County.

  COVID-19:

  On March 23, 2020, the Court took the unprecedented step of locking the courthouse doors to general public access.  While we miss the hometown feel of unscheduled visitors looking for a view from the clock tower, the reality of the public health situation requires that general public access to the courthouse be closed for the near future. However, I am proud to say that all court proceedings remain open to the public.  Even during a pandemic, the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Ohio are held above all other concerns.  Although the doors were locked, court proceedings remain open during the pandemic to anyone who requests entrance.

  The next order of business was restarting jury trials after a delay provided by the Ohio General Assembly through a law that essentially stopped the clock from running on cases between March 9,2020, and July 30, 2020.  After meeting with members of the local bar association and sifting through the guidance from a special commission, the Court selected The Triple Locks Theater as a venue that could accommodate jury selection and trial, while adhering to social distancing requirements.  Two jury trials were conducted at the theater before a decision was made to return jury trials to the courthouse.  Both jury trials involved incredible effort and cooperation between court staff and members of the Triple Locks.  The willingness of private citizens to help the Court, and to provide service as jurors during a pandemic, speaks to the strength of our community.

  Finally, the Court utilized an emergency technology grant from the Ohio Supreme Court to jump start remote video conferencing for many Court hearings. Once again, the Court’s team responded and adapted to changing circumstances.  With the help of the County IT Department, the imperfect tool of video conferencing was continually adjusted until we could make it work for almost any court event. Video conferencing is now utilized for most court hearings unless the Judge or Magistrate determine an in person proceeding is necessary.  The public access point for remote videoconferencing is the large meeting room just inside the courthouse, where observers can watch hearings on a monitor, while also adhering to social distancing requirements.

  PROBATION DEPARTMENT:

  In the fall of 2019, the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (APA) stopped performing supervision of felony offenders for most counties, including Coshocton. The Court took advantage of a grant opportunity to develop a probation department according to local needs.  A complete transition from state to local control was completed in May.  This change to local control allows the Court to order GPS monitoring, remote alcohol monitoring, and an intensive drug testing program.  There is also greater flexibility to use inpatient drug treatment services at locations across the state.  In addition, the probation department is given the responsibility for pre-trial supervision of persons who are out on bail while awaiting trial. Changes in Ohio law allow the Court to order drug testing and drug treatment as a pretrial order.  This is a formidable tool that provides increased community safety.

  In order to launch the probation department, the Court relied on extensive cooperation from outside agencies to develop probation standards and implement actual field work that probation officers must perform.  This is another example of the help that was made available from agencies across Ohio.  Probation departments are all unique in their own way of accomplishing the same goal. There is no standard policies and procedures manual for how probation should be conducted.  After consulting with the Ohio Supreme Court and other probation departments, we were able to adopt and apply the standards and procedures that are most effective for Coshocton County.  As an example, in addition to traditional probation work, our officers are often seen out in the community working with Sheriff’s deputies to enforce the terms of felony supervision.

PROBATIONDEPARTMENT STATISTICS:

  At the end of 2020, there were136 active supervision cases with the Court’s Probation Department.

STANDARD PROBATION (Community Control):  50

INTERVENTION IN LIEU OF CONVICTION:  24

JUDICIAL RELEASE (Early Release from Prison):  13

PRETRIAL SUPERVISION:  49

  GPS or SCRAM Alcohol monitors were placed on 33 separate offenders during2020.  There were 8 active units in service at the end of the year.  Service for 9 units was suspended due to incarceration after sentencing or otherwise.  Service was suspended for 13offenders who successfully completed a term of probation or pretrial release.  3 units were terminated as unsuccessful.

Currently Active= 8

Suspended due to incarceration = 9

Successful = 13

Unsuccessful = 3

DRUG TREATMENT:

  The Court continues to maintain certification with the Ohio Supreme Court for a special docket program called Recovery Court.  Participants are generally first time low level offenders. 55 offenders participated in Recovery Court in 2020.

Recovery Court Participants = 55 Total 

Successfully Completed   = 22 

Unsuccessfully Terminated   = 10 

Neutral Exit   =3 (Placed in a separate special docket program with another court.) 

Still Participating 12/31     =20

  There are two parts to the significance of 22 successful completions. Graduates of Recovery Court are employed, law abiding, and productive members of the community, who are not likely to commit future crimes. This result adds value to our community, while making it safer at the same time.  On the other hand, incarceration of these offenders is a huge tax burden. Imposition of an average 18 month prison term per offender, at a per day cost of $60, would result in the approximate expense of $712,800 to Ohio taxpayers.  Locally, if the 22 graduates had been ordered to serve 180 days in the county jail as part of probation, the$44 per day cost of a jail stay amounts to a total of $158,400 in local tax dollars.  Our Recovery Court special docket program operates on a $30,000 state grant. 

  In addition to Recovery Court,15 offenders were placed in 6 different residential treatment facilities during2020.  All 15 residential treatments were successful.

CASESTATISTICS:

CIVIL CASESUMMARY:

  New Civil Case Filings:  176

  Civil Cases Completed:  166

CRIMINAL CASESUMMARY:

  New Indictments:  171

  Criminal Cases Completed:  177

 Prison Terms Imposed:    94

  Total Years of Prison Time Imposed:  284.3 (Not including 3 life sentences)

  (269Inmates sentenced by the Court were in the Ohio prison system as of February17, 2021.)

DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASE SUMMARY:

  New Case Filings:         169 

  DR Cases Completed:  382

 (This figure includes new cases completed, and post-decree motions concerning custody, child support modifications, etc.)

TOTAL COURT CASESCOMPLETED IN 2020 =  725

IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF COSHOCTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN RE:

COURT OPERATIONS  :  

MISC. CASE NO. 2020MISC0010

DURING THE COVID-19

PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY  :  JOURNAL ENTRY

  (EMERGENCY ORDER)

  ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

In response to the “Director’s Stay at Home Order”, issued by the Ohio Department of Health on March 22, 2020, and in consideration of Chief Justice O’Connor’s statements via “Guidance to Local Courts: COVID-19 Public Health Emergency,”March 20, 2020, the Court makes the following ORDERS:

1)  The Courthouse doors will be locked to non-essential public access, at the close of business on March 23, 2020.

2)  Essential public access means only those persons who are named litigants in a scheduled proceeding, victims of crime, attorneys of record in the proceeding, and media.  All parties to a proceeding are strongly encouraged to bring only one observer.

3)  The Court will remain open for emergency filings such as Civil Protection Orders.

4)  All persons who desire to enter the Courthouse must call the Court Security Officer at 740-295-7405 for entrance,and are subject to health screening by all authorized court personnel.

5)  The Court Security Officer shall deny entrance to all non-essential public access, and may deny entrance to essential public access to any person who refuses a health screening, exhibits common symptoms of Covid-19, or displays a fever at or above 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

6)  Persons under the supervision of the Adult Parole Authority or the County Probation Department, shall report as ordered.

7)  This temporary order shall be served upon the Supreme Court of Ohio, Ohio Judicial Conference, the Juvenile and Probate Divisions of this Court, Coshocton County Sheriff, Coshocton County Prosecuting Attorney, Coshocton County Public Defender, Coshocton County General Health District, Coshocton County Board of Commissioners, Coshocton Tribune, WTNS, and the Coshocton County Beacon.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 23, 2020    ROBERT J. BATCHELOR, JUDGE

CHANGING TIMES AT THE COURTHOUSE

  Impeachment of a President, an impending constitutional crisis, coming trade wars, climate change fears, and a drug addiction epidemic. Citizens facing their own daily challenges are also carrying a full information overload of troubling news. In the midst of the uncertainty that results from our 24 hour news cycle, the Court strives to be a rock of community stability, where justice and the rule of law are in full public view being practiced daily in your Courthouse and your Courtroom.  It is an awesome responsibility that I enjoy and wear gladly.  There is a reason that our Courthouses are imposing, impressive structures, and often in the center of every town.  The Courthouse represents a societal symbol of stability in a nation founded upon the democratic rule of law.  The Coshocton County Courthouse represents the symbol of our collective expectations. For me, it is an opportunity to deliver on your unwavering belief in our constitutional democracy, and to demonstrate judicial independence, compassion,fairness and evenhanded judgement.  The work we do here often comes with change, and that has never been more accurate than the present time as we go through changes in funding, staff, and the law.

  As background, the Court introduced Brooke Bookless in 2014.  Brooke was hired through a grant to write pre-sentence investigation reports (PSI). It was the first grant accepted by the Court, and the first position created in decades. (By the way, Brooke is now Mrs. Derek Jimenez, living in Savanah, Ga. She works as a victim’s advocate for the major crimes unit of the District Attorney for Chatham County, Ga. Derek is a Staff Sergeant with the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, and they have a one yea rold son, Gabriel.)  Brooke was hired under the premise that the job was entry level only, that there was no room for advancement, getting a raise would depend on the grant, but we would send herto training programs with the goal that she would eventually get a “real”probation officer job with the State or a larger county.  Brooke promised to give us at least two years, and I fully expected to rotate young college grads through the PSI job while they gained experience for advancement elsewhere. This new position was considered a major change for the Court at that time.  I had no idea what was on the horizon.

  That is when we found ourselves in the midst of an opioid epidemic.  Sending low level drug offenders to prison resulted in their release back into the community too quickly.  Fifth degree felonies are only punishable by up to twelve months of prison time in Ohio, with fourth degree felonies having a maximum sentence of only 18 months. The Ohio Department of Corrections tends to place these low level offenders on a quick release track through programs like boot camp (“Intensive Program Prison” or IPP) and something called Transitional Control (early release by the prison into a halfway house).  These low level offenders were coming out of prison as unreformed drug addicts and committing more crimes. Facing an increasing number of indictments every year, and given the lack of response to incarceration by low level offenders, we searched for solutions.  This was a moment of truth for Common Pleas Court Judges across Ohio.  We were unable to incarcerate our way out of this new drug epidemic.  Another tool was necessary to combat the problem.  The response came after a“suggestion” by the Ohio Supreme Court. We took steps to obtain certification for a special docket program that we call Recovery Court.  Brooke Bookless was placed in charge of the program, and we saw the beginning of a system where addicts charged with low level possession and trafficking offenses could get clean, get a job, and become law abiding and productive members of our community.  There were some epic fails that resulted in prison commitments or lengthy jail stays, but a large majority of Recovery Court graduates leave their criminal past behind and become productive members of our community.  In the end, the number one goal of Recovery Court is a safer community.

  In 2016, Heather Spinks was hired to replace Brooke.  Heather was introduced to you in the fall of 2017 along with “Targeted Community Alternatives to Prison” (TCAP).  That is when the changing times began to pickup speed.  TCAP is an effort by the State to reduce dangerous levels of prison overcrowding.  As part of TCAP, the Court received a grant of $169,480.00 over two years.  The fund were used to provide drug treatment and intensive supervision for persons convicted of a felony of the fifth degree (F-5), which is the lowest level of felony in Ohio.  I can still sentence F-5 offenders to prison if they are convicted of drug trafficking, a felony sex offense, or a felony offense of violence, or if they have a prior conviction for a felony sex offense or felony offense of violence.  Heather met the challenge of managing presentence investigations, Recovery Court, and pretrial drug testing amidst the change brought by TCAP.  Her success is due in in part to a “firm but fair” approach to the offenders she deals with on a daily basis.  (Heather’s salary is paid from the PSI grant and a Mental Health and Recovery Services grant.)

  Did TCAP work?  If the goal was to reduce the number of people heading to prison from Coshocton County, then TCAP was clearly a failure.  As noted below, prison commitments from this Court increased significantly from 2017 to 2018.

2011 = 51

2012 = 50

2013 = 62

2014 = 69

2015 = 68

2016 = 82

2017 = 85

2018 = 125*

(* The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction counted only 100 prison commitments for 2018. However, that figure does not include commitments for offenders already serving a prison term when an additional prison term for another offense was imposed by this Court.)

  We are on track for well over 100 prison commitments in 2019.  Therefore, TCAP failed if it was designed to reduce prison commitments from Coshocton County.  However, this conclusion is misleading.  I suggest that in 2018, the Court sentenced an unusually high number of mid-range to high level offenders, which resulted in more prison commitments. That result is driven by the types of drug cases brought before the Court, and you can thank the Sheriff’s Office and Prosecutor for bringing those more serious charges. Also, on a statewide basis there was some leveling off of the prison population, and the State approved funding for TCAP II in fiscal years 2019/2021.  In that sense, TCAP was successful because it provided the resources for more effective drug treatment at the local level, while leaving the Court with the ability to impose prison terms for serious offenders and repeat low level drug offenders.  TCAP also impacted the role of our citizens in the duty of jury service. There have been more jury trials in 2019 because higher level offenders are receiving lengthier prison terms, and some feel as if they have nothing to lose by going to trial.  The imposition of lengthier prison sentences for higher level offenders represents a trend toward distinguishing true “drug dealers” from the addicts who sell small fractions of drugs to each other.

  With this experience in hand, and the confidence that TCAP is here to stay, I elected to take part in the second round of TCAP grants (TCAP II).  Grant funds from both TCAP I and II are being used for intensive pretrial supervision, drug treatment, and an inmate work program.  Ross Nelson was hired in July to administer intensive pretrial supervision for low level offenders.  Ross is a 1998 graduate of Coshocton High School with post-secondary education at the University of Dayton and the Ohio Institute of Photography, and is presently in the process of obtaining hi sprobation officer certification from the Ohio Supreme Court.  His job primarily involves supervising persons under indictment who are released from jail after posting a bond.  Ross utilizes GPS monitoring and random drug testing to ensure that low level offenders comply with the terms of theirbond.  Violators have their bonds revoked and are sent back to jail.  Ross then finds an appropriate treatment center, and arranges transportation.  After treatment is completed, Heather and Ross work the offenders into Recovery Court and job placement.  Again, the goal is to get the low level offenders off of drugs and employed. This result makes the community safer.

As noted above, Ross will also administer an offender work detail.  Low level offenders on probation, and who are unemployed, will be required to pick up trash, weed sidewalks, and perform other community service related jobs around the county.  Previously, inmate work details sometimes resulted in contraband like drugs, cigarettes and cell phones getting back into the jail.  Funds from the TCAP grant will provide more extensive monitoring of the work details.  It’s a risk, but it is one I am willing totake.  I firmly believe that offender are not victims.  They chose a way of life that has harmed this community, and they can begin to pay it back by picking up the trash, and in turn begin picking up their lives.

Another major change for the Court is the State’s move to shift probation services completely to the County. Since anyone can remember, the Adult Parole Authority (APA) has provided full probation services to the Court as part of a statewide program.  This program is coming to an end in response to the murder of Reagan Tokes on February 8, 2017, in Columbus, Ohio. The perpetrator of this horrible crime was on post-release control (parole) supervision by the APA after completing a prison sentence. In an effort to avoid this type of tragic result in the future, the APA is committing all of its field officers to post-release control supervision.  This way, the APA will have more resources to supervise dangerous offenders who complete their entire prison terms and come out of prison on post-release control.  What does this mean for Coshocton County?  I elected to participate in a grant that provides $300,000.00 over two years to establish and staff a probation department.  This is an opportunity for the Court to provide more intensive and meaningful supervision for felony offenders.  Ohio law keeps me from sentencing every felony offender to prison.  Since some offenders are going to be placed on probation, we should at least provide supervision the way we see fit.  As always, the goal is a safer community.

  Finally,because the changes keep coming, I take this opportunity to introduce Jennifer(Jennie) Warden, our new Assignment Commissioner.  Jennie will replace Ann Hartsock, who retires from county service on September 30.  Jennies pent over 15 years with the Coshocton County Board of DD as a school secretary and administrative assistant, providing secretarial and payroll clerk support for the human resource director, the principal, and the superintendent.  In 2016, Jennie went to JFS where she worked as a child support case worker and fiscal officer before coming to Common Pleas Court.  As the Assignment Commissioner for the general division of the Court, she will handle scheduling for the criminal and civil dockets, the preparation of judgment entries, assignment of counsel for indigent cases, and related tasks necessary for the proper function of the Court.  We look forward to having Jennie come on board, but Ann will be greatly missed after 30 years of dedicated and loyal service to the Sheriff’s Office and Common Pleas Court.  Above all else, we will miss Ann Hartsock’s thoughtfulness, her integrity, and her desire to always do her best for the Court and the people it serves.

  In the end, for a Judge who thought hiring someone to complete presentence investigations was a big deal, the last two years have been a hurricane. There is no way around it.  Change has come to the Common Pleas Court, and we can either ignore it, or we can try and turn it into something that can be used for good.  I am blessed to be surrounded by an incredible court staff, all of whom are willing to get uncomfortable and turn problems into solutions, always knowing that change is never easy.  Also, special thanks to the Auditor’s Office, the Treasurer’s Office and the Commissioner’s Office for working with me as I stumble through the administration of the grants.  Chris Sycks, Jinnie Bowman, Kyle Lowe, Cathy Williamson and Robin Schonauer have been incredibly patient and helpful.

  Thanks again for the opportunity to serve you as part of a great team that always strives to uphold your unwavering belief in our constitutional democracy. 

Robert J. Batchelor, Judge

December, 2019

COMMON PLEAS COURTUPDATE: Heather Spinks and TCAP

  As I approach the conclusion of my seventh year on the bench, there are a few things happening at the Court that may be of interest.

  First, the Court hired Heather Spinks to replace Brooke Bookless as the Court’s Pre-Sentence Investigation Director in July, 2016. Brooke moved to Columbus, Georgia where she works as a Parental Accountability Court Coordinator.  She married Sgt. Derek Jimenez, 75th Ranger Regiment, on June 10, 2017. 

As you may remember from our previous article in Due Diligence, the job of PSI Director was designed for the simple purpose of writing presentence investigations.  However, the job soon transformed into probation officer duties, and managing a special drug court docket that we named Recovery Court. Since Heather assumed control over the Court’s intensive supervision and special docket program in July, 2016, more responsibility has been added to her many job duties. 

While her duties are officially Pre-Sentence Investigation Director, Probation Officer and Recovery Court Administrator, Heather is also called upon to provide impromptu life counseling.  For this mother of three, straight talk is not a problem.  “I can relate to their struggles when it comes to getting by. There were times in my life when the kids wanted something but I needed gas in the car to get to work, and there wasn’t enough money for both.  The gas tank got filled.  So I tell my people bluntly, that I “get it,” and then I tell them that there is a way for them to solve the problems they are facing, but it’s going to involve making sacrifices to get it done.”  Heather’s experience as a former Wal-Mart asset protection manager, with specialized training in interview and interrogation, has also helped her develop a reputation among the felony offenders she supervises.  Heather explains, “Usually at some point during their time here, I catch them lying about something, and have to ask if they really think I’m that stupid. Once they know that I can get to the truth, things go a lot easier.”

Second, Heather’s responsibilities are increasing significantly due to a new grant program from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction known as TCAP.  “Targeted Community Alternatives to Prison” is Ohio’s most recent effort to reduce dangerous levels of prison overcrowding.  As part of TCAP, the Common Pleas Court will receive a grant totaling $169,480.00 over two years.  The purpose of the grant is to keep offenders convicted of a 5th degree felony, which is the lowest level of felony offense, from entering the prison system.  The conditions of the grant do not apply to a fifth degree felony that is an offense of violence, a sex offense, a drug trafficking offense, or if an offender has previous convictions for felony offenses of violence or felony sex offenses.

How will the grant impact sentencing in the Common Pleas Court?  The number of prison sentences handed down by the Court is rising, with 47 prison commitments entered through the first six months of 2017. Compare that number with the Court’s total prison commitment numbers for prior years:

2011= 51

2012= 50

2013= 62

2014= 69

2015= 68

2016= 82

From this basic analysis, it is easy to see that our local trend is consistent with increasing state-wide incarceration rates.  Also, 17 of the 82 prison sentences in 2016 were for 5th degree felony offenses.  Therefore, TCAP will probably result in less felony offenders from Coshocton County entering the prison system in 2018.

This is where Heather steps in.  She will work closely with our local Adult Parole Authority officers, and several agencies such as Coshocton Behavioral Health Choices and AllWell to provide an intensive felony supervision environment for low level offenders.  The grant funds received from TCAP will be spent on items such as medication assisted treatment, GPS monitors, drug testing, and employment placement services.  Our experience from Recovery Court shows that if you get them clean, and get them started in the right direction, offenders want to work.  Once they get into the workforce, low level felons are not likely to reoffend.  In the end, we believe that TCAP grant money and a lot of hard work will ultimately make our community a safer place.  If we don’t see results, then we will not reapply for the grant. The only thing I can guarantee is that we will give it our best effort.

Indoors, the court docket plows forward with the exception of an annual summer lull.  This brief vacation interval usually means less court news, but I grin as the Supreme Court's recent decisions come to mind.  I eagerly defer local headlines and social media focus to the US Supreme Court.  Interestingly, I have already received requests to perform marriage ceremonies.  Regretfully, I cannot perform marriages.  I am flattered that anyone would want me to perform such a task, but the bottom line is that Ohio law does not allow Common Pleas Court General Division Judges to perform marriages.  No one has ever explained why, but I assume its because we do the divorces.  I am sure Judge France and Judge Blanchard will be available to perform official ceremonies upon request.

Just as the rain can be a curse or blessing depending on your point of view, so it is with the decisions that come from the Supreme Court.  The blessing for us is that we live in the United States of America, where you can express your opinion without fear of arrest or worse.  As ISIS attempts to cling to power by executing those who disagree, America becomes stronger through public debate and discourse that comes from our freedom of speech.  Even though you may not agree with every decision that is handed down from the high court in Washington, D.C., the fact remains that you may still vocally support your point of view.  That is freedom, and it is something that we should keep in mind as we weather a new series of SCOTUS decisions ranging from gay marriage to health care and the death penalty.  Once again, in an era of fear and intolerance exemplified by organizations such as ISIS, America stands as a beacon of freedom and hope for all.  We are still "The People" and there is still "Justice for All."

If you get tired of voicing your opinion and arguing about Supreme Court decisions, please mark your calendar to come and visit during our open house on August 1, 2015 from 4-7.  Music, food and tours of the courthouse are on the docket!  More information will be coming.  Have a great summer!!!!

In an era of constant change and concern, the Courthouse remains an anchor of tradition in our community.  A walk along the courthouse lawn, among the autumn hues, provides a sense of peace and strength. Along the same line of thinking, perhaps the best cure for a case of Ebola hysteria is a trip to the apple butter stir, or the Warsaw chili cook off.  Maybe even a hayride and a haunted house.  The more things change out there, the more we need to strengthen our sense of pride and tradition.  That's another reason why the Grand Lady is worth saving.   Bids for the renovation of the courtroom ceiling and balcony have been opened.  The contracts will soon be signed, and we will be embarking on the construction phase.  Please feel free to stop by.  I plan on providing hard hat tours whenever possible.  You might want to call first.  May God bless you and keep you, as you enjoy the remainder of 2014.

-Robert J. Batchelor, Judge 

Read More at......

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/11/21/number-of-inmates-in-ohio-is-on-increase.html

Phrases such as “We the People” and “Justice for All” signify a society of equality that commands an open government, a government that is subjected to the will of its citizens. Although the openness of our government and its continued success may be the subject of much debate, the public debate itself is proof that the great experiment of our founding fathers is still alive and well as we celebrate our 237th birthday.

The spirit of open government is the basis of this website.  The singular purpose of the website is to make the court more accessible to the people it serves.  As you navigate the website, you will note several areas of explanation from jury service to divorce proceedings.  There are also forms and news on legal topics of interest.  I hope the end result is a more informative experience. 

Finally, remember that this website is also an effort to help simplify a complicated legal system. There will be mistakes and oversights, so please have patience with the growing pains as the website moves forward.

Special thanks to Lynette Dotson, our website consultant,and the County IT department, who made this project possible.

Also, please feel free to take advantage of the numerous events on the Courthouse grounds, and admire the landscaping work done by Judge France and the Rotary Club.  Have a great summer!

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.’s opinion for a six-to-two majority said that the government cannot impose a condition on receipt of government funds in a government program if that forces private groups to publicly express views on an issue that parrots the government’s views but is not what those groups themselves believe or want to say.  That, the opinion said, is a form of “leveraging” money to compel unwanted speech, and the First Amendment frowns on that.

The decision leaves no doubt that the government can tell such groups that they cannot use the federal funds they accept to cover the costs of speaking out in contradiction to the government’s views.  Such a restriction, the Chief Justice indicated, assures that the funds do not underwrite the contrary views.  But when the government seeks to control the recipient’s views on the policy issues, that pushes beyond the program’s limits and violates the First Amendment, the opinion concluded.

Here is the way the Chief Justice put that point: “By requiring recipients to profess a specific belief, the [command of what they can say] goes beyond defining the limits of the federally funded program to defining the recipient.”

It is one thing, the opinion said, for the government to refuse to underwrite opposing policy views by organizations seeking public funds.  It is something else, it added, when the government goes beyond and seeks to conscript an organization into being a policy mouthpiece for the government, even if that contradicts its own views.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing in dissent for himself and Justice Clarence Thomas, said that “the real evil” of the ruling was that it barred the government from demanding a commitment from those who get public funds to carry out the policy views that are essential to the program.  “One can expect, in the future, frequent challenges to the denial of government funding” when the government seeks to further a specific ideological program, the dissent suggested.

The ruling dealt with a federal law implementing a large government program of trying to eradicate the global scourge of AIDS.  The government provides funds to groups that carry out, overseas, specific programs to reduce the risky behavior that is believed to help spread the deadly disease.

One of the conditions the government sets for getting any funds — and this was the only condition at issue before the Court Thursday — is that any organization getting federal funds must state that the organization explicitly opposes prostitution or other forms of sex trafficking.  In other words, the mandate compels the organization to publicly oppose any move to legalize or even to tolerate prostitution.

The organizations that challenged that mandate do not themselves actually favor prostitution or any other form of sexual exploitation, but they want to publicly remain neutral on that as a policy question.  If they declare themselves opposed, they argued, that will make it harder for them to work with at-risk groups like prostitutes, because the would-be helpers will be seen as adversaries.

Because of the government mandate, though, they simply were ineligible for any federal funds unless they publicly echoed the government’s anti-prostitution policy declaration.  Lower federal courts found that would probably violate their First Amendment rights of free speech, and the Supreme Court’s ruling established that it was, indeed, an unconstitutional condition.

The Court rejected an argument that the Obama administration had made in attempting to salvage the policy view mandate — that is, that an organization could get funds while following that mandate, but then set up an affiliate organization that would not share in the funds but could express whatever views it wished.

Such a two-organization approach, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is sufficient as a First Amendment matter only if the organization is allowed to exercise its free speech rights “outside the scope of the federal program.”  But this won’t work, the Chief Justice added, when the organization getting the funds must “espouse a specific belief as its own.”  There is no alternative forum where it can state its views if they do not exactly square with the government’s, according to the ruling.

The policy declaration mandate, the opinion said, “goes beyond preventing recipients from using private funds in a way that would undermine the federal program.  It requires them to pledge allegiance to the government’s policy of eradicating prostitution.”

The Chief Justice’s opinion was supported by Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Sonia Sotomayor.  Justice Elena Kagan did not take part, presumably because she had had something to do with the case in her former post as U.S. Solicitor General.

This decision, in plain English:

In 2003, as part of a broad federal effort to try to stop the spread of the AIDS disease worldwide, and to treat those already affected, Congress created a broad program of preventive, educational, and treatment programs, providing billions of federal dollars that private organizations would use to carry out the effort in specific activities overseas.

Because Congress believed that several forms of sexual trafficking, including prostitution, contributed to the spread of the HIV/AIDS virus, the 2003 law specified that any organization getting funds under the program must declare as its own policy view that it opposed prostitution and other forms of sexual exploitation.

Some of the private groups taking part in the program, however, have believed that, if they got out in public as themselves opposed to prostitution, it would inhibit their chances of working with prostitutes and with other at-risk groups.  While they do not themselves favor prostitution, they wanted to remain neutral on the matter, but that neutrality would not satisfy the mandate of the program to have an organizational policy against such sexual activity.

They contended that the funding condition sought to control their points of view, in violation of the free-speech guarantees of the First Amendment.  The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed with that argument.  It is one thing, the Court said, for the government to forbid these organizations to use the federal funds they receive to pay for public policy expressions that contradict the government’s policy goals, but it is another to try to take control of their right to frame and express their own views.  Such a viewpoint control approach, the Court concluded, is an invalid form of coercing private speech, and that violates the First Amendment.

Posted on http://www.scotusblog.com

My day at the Court begins early. Arriving a couple hours before I have to take my seat in the courtroom allows me time to warm up with a quick sketch or two of whatever strikes me as interesting. It may be lawyers lining up to be admitted to the bar, or Justice Kagan getting her morning coffee in the cafeteria. In the next few weeks I’ll certainly be sketching the early morning line outside the building waiting for the big end-of-term decisions.

At 9:30 I take my seat in one of the alcoves to the left of the bench. From there I’ll see Clerk Suter chatting with the lawyers I sketched earlier who are now seated; I’ll see other lawyers who are standing and greeting each other; I’ll see visitors looking up at the friezes, pointing out Moses and Hammurabi. All great subjects for a sketch. But very often I’ll use this time, especially if it’s a big story, to get a head start on the “wideshot” –  the scene-setting sketch of the entire bench, columns, lawyers, press, and public. At this stage all I can do is the architecture, but as the reporters begin to file in and take their seats on the benches in front of me I add them to the wide shot. Every bit helps, because I won’t have time to pay attention to those details once things get under way.

If there are opinions I’ll usually sketch a partial bench highlighting the Justice delivering the opinion. And of course, if a Justice reads a dissent from the bench I’ll capture that as well.

The real work is covering arguments. In addition to the wide shot, or in a really big case the “wide wide shot,” I need sketches of each lawyer, sketches of certain Justices, and maybe also some partial bench shots depicting the Justices’ body language.

I used to concentrate on the lawyer at the lectern, trying to capture him or her as best I could. To do that, the best seat is in the first alcove closest to the bench. The problem with that seating, though, is that part of the bench is obstructed and you can barely see Justices Breyer, Thomas, and Scalia. Lately — and I do mean lately, I’m a very slow learner — I’ve come to realize that it’s the questions from the Justices that make the story. As a result I’ve moved to the further alcove — which, while limiting my view of the arguing attorney to three-quarters of the back of his or her head except when the questions come from the extreme left side of the bench, allows me to see all of the Justices.

Another thing I’ve learned is how much it helps to have at least a passing familiarity with the case that is going to be argued. Often I would be asked how the arguments went and I had no idea, because I was too busy drawing. I still have a hard time following most arguments, but a little reading ahead of time has helped immensely.

After the arguments are over, I still have a good two or three hours’ worth of work ahead of me to finish the drawings, adding color and making sure I got Justice Sotomayor’s silver bangles or the right jabot on Justice Ginsburg. All of the male Justices get red ties all the time; that’s artistic license.