Second Quarter 2014
Ohio Courthouse News
Courthouse Dogs
Meet Camry! Camry recently joined Hon. Robert D. Fragale and Hon. Deborah
A. Alspach at the Marion County Family Court as a facility dog. Camry was trained by
Canine Companions for Independence in Delaware, Ohio. Camry will be used primarily to
comfort individuals that are involved in court proceedings. Camry and handler Kathleen
Clark will be in attendance at the Ohio Judicial Conference Annual Meeting on August 28,
2014 along with the two other Ohio Courthouse Dogs: Nanook (Green County) and Avery
(Summit County Prosecutor’s Office).
Ellen O’Neill Stephens, J.D. and Celeste Walsen, DVM, will present “Courthouse
Dogs: Promoting Justice with Compassion” on August 28, 2014, and “Courthouse Dogs
Facilitate the Fact Finding Process” on August 29, 2014, at the Ohio Judicial Conference
Annual Meeting.
Montgomery County Opens Women’s
Therapeutic Docket
Hon. Gregory F. Singer, Montgomery County Common Pleas, welcomed judges
and distinguished guests to the inaugural ceremony of the Montgomery County Women’s
Therapeutic Docket on June 17, 2014.
Judge Singer said, women often enter the criminal justice system for much different
reasons than men and that the Court will try to treat addiction, mental health, prostitution,
sex trafficking and other gender-specific issues in order to reduce recidivism rates.
In This Issue...
Ohio Judicial Conference News...................................2
2014 Annual Meeting Reminder........................2
Order In The Court....................................................3
Senate Bill 143..................................................7
Ohio Judicial Conference Website...............................8
Evidence Suppression Checklist...........................9
2014 Judicial College Schedule................................10
Ohio Judicial Conference Staff..........................13
Ohio Judicial Conference News
Farewell Jennie I. Long, Program Specialist
Jennie Long, who has been with the Judicial Conference since
November 2006 as our Program Specialist, has joined the staff of the
Ohio Constitutional Modernization Commission.
We thank Jennie for her hard work during her tenure with the
Judicial Conference, and wish her much success in her new endeavor.
Ohio Judicial Conference
2014 Annual Meeting
August 28 - 29
Hilton Columbus at Easton
Register Now!
Ohio Judicial Conference
For the Record | Second Quarter 2014
2
Order
in the
Court
The Judicial Duty to Prevent Violent and
Improper Behavior in the Courtroom
Judge Diane V. Grendell
11th District Court of Appeals
Violence, inappropriate behavior, and other unruly conduct occur in courtrooms in both Ohio and across the
country. One example of this happened recently, during the sentencing of T.J. Lane, who was convicted in the Chardon
High School shootings. At his sentencing hearing, Lane wore a white t-shirt with the word “killer” handwritten on
the front in black marker.1 Lane also directed an obscene gesture and profane language toward the victims’ families.
Unfortunately, such reprehensible behavior is not entirely uncommon.
Judges are placed in the difficult position of having to defuse situations in which a defendant or other individual
acts in such an inappropriate or disruptive manner. Judges are tasked with regulating activity that takes place in the
courtroom and preserving the decorum of the court. This article will examine the occurrence of violent and improper
courtroom behavior, the steps that can be taken by judges to respond to this conduct, and rules governing that
response.
Violent and Inappropriate Behavior in Courtrooms
There have been many incidents involving outbursts and inappropriate behavior in Ohio courtrooms. Recently,
according to the Akron Beacon Journal, a woman seeking a protection order against her former boyfriend was attacked
by him in a Summit County Domestic Relations courtroom. The victim, who stated that she was in fear for her life,
was left alone with the man after the magistrate stepped out of the room during the hearing. The former boyfriend
took several swings at the victim before he was stopped by a deputy, who ran into the courtroom. The parties’ prior
volatile relationship, and the woman’s need to seek a protection order, demonstrated the possibility of such a violent
attack occurring.
While violent attacks sometimes occur in court, verbal outbursts can also be problematic. For example, during a
recent sentencing hearing in a Youngstown courtroom, two defendants were disruptive and yelled at the judge. The judge
warned one defendant to stop, while the other defendant continued to be disruptive and was removed by police.2
A study performed by the Center for Judicial and Executive Security, entitled “Disorder in the Court: Incidents
of Courthouse Violence,” documented 238 incidents of courtroom-related security and violence issues that occurred
across the country from 2005 to 2011. These incidents included assaults by defendants reacting to a verdict or a sentence,
many being attacks on officers or attempts to escape. The study also included examples of defendants’ family members
and victims fighting in the courtroom.
The United States Supreme Court has recognized the importance of preventing this type of conduct in the
courtroom. “It is essential to the proper administration of criminal justice that dignity, order, and decorum be the
hallmarks of all court proceedings in our country. The flagrant disregard in the courtroom of elementary standards of
proper conduct should not and cannot be tolerated.” Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 343 (1970). The Ohio Rules of
Superintendence, which apply to Ohio courts, also recognize that “[p]roper decorum in the court is necessary to the
1
. Rachel Dissell, T.J. Lane Appeals Life Sentence Without Possibility of Parole, Cleveland Plain Dealer, http://www.cleveland.com/
metro/index.ssf/2013/04/tj_lane_appeals_life_sentence.html. This shirt was similar to the one he wore on the date of the shooting.
2
. Danielle Cotterman, Courtroom Outburst During Sentencing of Two Youngstown Women, http://www.wfmj.com/story/19074221/
courtroom-outburst-during-sentencing-of-two-youngstown-women.
Ohio Judicial Conference
For the Record | Second Quarter 2014
3
Continued from previous page...
administration of the court’s function.” The Rules further provide that “conduct that interferes or tends to
interfere with the proper administration of the court’s business is prohibited.” Sup.R. 54(A).
Handling Courtroom Disruptions
Given the dangers that violence and misbehavior in the courtroom present and the Supreme Court’s mandate that
such behavior must be prevented, it is important to consider the steps that can be taken to respond to this problem. Central
in addressing these incidents are judges, who play an integral role in handling all issues that occur in the courtroom.
The Ohio Supreme Court has held that “a trial judge possesses inherent power to control any proceeding before him”
and “is obliged to insist upon the orderly conduct of the public business.” State ex rel. Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v.
Phillips, 46 Ohio St.2d 457, 488 (1976); State v. Hensley, 75 Ohio St. 255, 265 (1906). The Ohio Code of Judicial
Conduct also mandates that a judge “shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the court.” Rule 2.8(A).
While the judge has both the power and responsibility to control his courtroom, rules and case law create
some restrictions, although the judge retains great discretion. In fact, there is no clear legal standard of how to control
the courtroom in every scenario. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “trial judges confronted with disruptive,
contumacious, stubbornly defiant defendants must be given sufficient discretion to meet the circumstances of each
case. No one formula for maintaining the appropriate courtroom atmosphere will be best in all situations.” Allen at
343. A judge, “in enforcing orders directing proper and necessary decorum in the courtroom, while the court is in
session, must see to it that the rules enforced are reasonable and necessary for that purpose.” (Citation omitted.) State
v. Clifford, 162 Ohio St. 370, 372 (1954).
A judge should first take preventative steps to prohibit courtroom misconduct. By implementing such procedures,
many courtroom disruptions may be avoided entirely. First, law enforcement should be made aware of court rules and
procedures for handling individuals present in the courtroom, especially criminal defendants. Specifically, they should
be informed of expected courtroom attire, in order to ensure that inappropriate or offensive clothing is not worn. They
should also be knowledgeable about the court’s policy on the usage of restraints on defendants, including if they are
necessary during all stages of the proceedings, when a jury is present, and when the defendant is potentially violent,
an issue that will be further discussed.
Second, law enforcement should examine defendants and ensure they are in compliance with such rules before
escorting them into the courtroom. This can play an important role in preventing judges from having to address these
issues in open court and in stopping possible disruptions.
Finally, courtroom rules should be provided to parties prior to proceedings, which can be posted outside of the
courtroom, and also made available on the court’s website. This serves as a preventive measure, precluding problems
or misunderstandings that may occur while the court is in session.
Steps must also be taken by judges to react to inappropriate and disruptive behavior if it does occur. While
no specific procedure will be effective in every situation, it is instructive to have a set of guidelines to follow when
courtroom problems arise. This is often the case when a criminal defendant is involved, since criminal trials are among
the most likely to incite improper courtroom behavior. Before following these steps, however, the misconduct must
be discovered. Attorneys and law enforcement can be required to inform the judge of disruptions or noncompliance
with the rules. This will provide the judge support and may help catch violations that the judge may not observe, due
to his other important responsibilities while presiding over court proceedings.
Once a defendant acts in an unruly or disruptive manner, the first step is to address the improper conduct
directly with the defendant. Reassurances by the judge regarding the defendant’s rights may prevent further outbursts,
Continued on next page...
Ohio Judicial Conference
For the Record | Second Quarter 2014
4
Continued from previous page...
if he is upset due to his lack of knowledge of the legal process and the justification for certain decisions or rulings.1
As has been discovered in interviews with defendants who have carried out violence in the courtroom, they often “felt
they were being treated unfairly and were not provided an opportunity to be heard during the court proceedings.”2
If a discussion does not provide resolution, the defendant must be warned that further inappropriate conduct
will lead to negative consequences, with a specific explanation of the punishment that will follow, up to and including
exclusion from the courtroom. It is important that this warning be given in order to preserve the defendant’s rights,
although the judge must make it clear that improper conduct will not be tolerated. As was demonstrated in the Youngstown
case above, a judge can and should give a stern warning regarding the inappropriate nature of a defendant’s conduct
prior to his ultimate removal.
If the warning fails to end the disruptive conduct, the next step is to find the defendant in contempt of court,
which would subject him to the risk of serving additional jail time. The Ohio Supreme Court has emphasized that one
of the purposes of contempt “is to secure the dignity of the courts and the uninterrupted and unimpeded administration
of justice.” Windham Bank v. Tomaszczyk, 27 Ohio St.2d 55, 58 (1971). Contempt provides an important tool for
judges to enforce their power to regulate conduct that occurs in the courtroom. Without this power, individuals in
the courtroom may feel free to act as they please, facing limited consequences. Similarly, a judge may also consider
whether additional criminal charges against the defendant would act as a deterrent to further disruption, especially if
threats are made or violence occurs.
One related example of a judge exercising his power to maintain decorum and protect victims occurred in
Toledo. In that case, the defendant was originally sentenced to serve six years for Aggravated Burglary. According to
Mark Reiter of the Toledo Blade, after the sentence was given, however, the defendant stated, “I should’ve killed [the
victim].” The judge held another sentencing hearing and ordered the defendant to serve a nine-year prison term, noting
that his statement indicated he was a greater risk to society than the judge had realized. In a subsequent appeal, State
v. Fought, 6th Dist. No. L-10-1348, 2011-Ohio-4047, the appellate court upheld the resentencing, since the original
sentence was pronounced in court but not journalized and was subject to being altered. While the trial court judge
indicated that the second sentence was not a punishment for the outburst, it exemplified that a judge must be aware of
a defendant’s behavior at all times and not allow poor behavior or outbursts to go unnoticed.
The third step that may be taken to address an unruly criminal defendant’s behavior involves physically restraining
him to prevent his dangerous or disruptive conduct. Different methods of restraint may be used, including handcuffs or
shackles. This allows the defendant to remain in the courtroom, thereby preserving his right to be present at the trial.
The Supreme Court in Allen noted that a constitutionally permissible way to handle such behavior includes to “bind
and gag” the defendant. Id. at 344. However, the Allen court also emphasized that “no person should be tried while
shackled and gagged except as a last resort.” Id. at 344. The Ohio Supreme Court has also followed this principle,
and found that restraint of a defendant during a trial should occur only in “unusual circumstances.” State v. McKnight,
107 Ohio St.3d 101, 2005-Ohio-6046, ¶ 219. These concerns are based on the necessity of protecting a defendant’s
right to a fair trial and to prevent prejudice. It is important to emphasize that the judge’s right to control his courtroom
must always be balanced with the parties’ rights, especially those of criminal defendants.
The final step that may be taken is to exclude the defendant from the courtroom. Regarding removal of the
defendant, the Ohio Supreme Court in State ex rel. Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. Phillips, 46 Ohio St.2d 457, 497 (1976),
has held that “[a] judge, in the exercise of his complete control of a criminal proceeding, may exclude those whose
conduct is of a disturbing nature, or whose presence is likely to interfere with the administration of justice, and may
1
. Sarah Podmaniczky, Order in the Court: Decorum, Rambunctious Defendants, and the Right to be Present at Trial, 14 U.Pa.J.Const.L.
1283, 1303 (2012).
2
. John F. Muffler and Hon. James R. Brandlin, Judicial Security: Implementing Sound Protective Intelligence Methods, National Judicial College: Case In Point (2011).
Continued on next page...
Ohio Judicial Conference
For the Record | Second Quarter 2014
5
Continued from previous page...
also make such orders of exclusion as will protect public health, morals and safety; but within these limitations,
it is his duty to afford both the state and the defendant a public trial in open court.”
Ohio Criminal Rule 43(B) provides that, “[w]here a defendant’s conduct in the courtroom is so disruptive that
the hearing or trial cannot reasonably be conducted with the defendant’s continued physical presence, the hearing or
trial may proceed in the defendant’s absence or by remote contemporaneous video, and judgment and sentence may
be pronounced as if the defendant were present.” Given the defendant’s right to be present and participate in his trial,
this should be reserved only for cases where the defendant is so disruptive that the trial cannot proceed.
Removal of a defendant during sentencing is less troublesome than during trial, since the jury has already
rendered its verdict and will not be prejudiced against the defendant based on his absence from the courtroom. This
does not mean, however, that the court is not still required to balance the importance of a defendant’s right to be present
at sentencing against the necessity of controlling the courtroom.
In addition to the removal of a disorderly criminal defendant, courts may also exclude spectators who cause a
courtroom disruption. In ejecting a spectator from the courtroom, the court has different considerations to take into
account. There is no absolute right for a spectator to be present in the courtroom, but the court should balance “the
requirement that the actions of the courts be open to public scrutiny and the need to have the trial proceed in an orderly
manner.” State v. Sowell, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-443, 2008-Ohio-3285, ¶ 39. Ejection of a spectator may be ordered to
protect the parties, witnesses, and victims, and to maintain courtroom security. Such an order should be made only to
those who are disruptive, to allow free access to a public trial to the greatest extent possible.
In addition to these instructions for dealing with defendants and spectators, parties to other cases should also
be required to act in compliance with court rules. Importantly, volatile parties should not be left alone without security
officers to prevent situations like those discussed above. A judge should be especially cautious during divorce and
custody proceedings or when a restraining order is in effect.
Finally, in addition to following these steps for responding to unruly defendants, spectators, and other parties,
the court should also take measures to either prevent or prepare for future court-wide security challenges. The Ohio
Supreme Court provides specific guidance to judges on how to address security concerns in courthouses across the
state. Pursuant to the Supreme Court, the Office of Court Security can aid county and local courts in “conducting court
security surveys,” provide training for court security personnel, and can provide assistance in coordinating for high-risk
trials. All of these services potentially decrease the likelihood of an attack escalating into a dangerous situation.
The Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Court Security has also made recommendations as to minimum
Court Security Standards, which the Ohio Supreme Court states “should be reviewed by each court.” These standards
recommend that each court should appoint a court security committee to implement the necessary procedures. Standard
Two states that “each court shall adopt a written security policy and procedures manual governing security of the court
and the court facility to ensure consistent, appropriate, and adequate security procedures.” Such standards, like the ones
outlined above, can help the court become aware of potential security threats and prepare the best possible response.
Judges play a critical role in maintaining order and decorum in the courtroom. To prevent defendants and other
parties from acting in a violent and disruptive manner, judges are responsible for maintaining control of the courtroom
by enforcing the rules and laws regulating this process, as well as employing other potential solutions as needed to be
effective. The failure to do so can result in dangerous consequences, including potential physical and emotional harm
to individuals in the courtroom.
Ohio Judicial Conference
For the Record | Second Quarter 2014
6
Senate Bill 143
Marta Mudri - Deputy Legislative Counsel
The Ohio Judicial Conference
The Governor signed Senate Bill 143 on June 20, 2014 in the historical Ceremonial Office in the Statehouse.
The Office is virtually unchanged from the time that Abraham Lincoln saw it in 1861, when he sat at the desk across
from then-Governor of Ohio William Dennison, Jr., to discuss the impending Civil War and was informed that he
been elected President of the United States.
Present at the signing on June 20 were: Governor John Kasich, Senator Bill Seitz, the bill’s co-sponsor; Senator
John Eklund, the Chairman of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee; Representative Margaret Conditt, the author
of the Prison Nursery Program provision of the bill; Ohio Judicial Conference staff and various other stakeholders.
Senate Bill 143 is an expansive bill that will generally revise criminal and traffic law across several topics,
including:
• Authorizing municipal corporations to establish Community Alternative Sentencing Centers
• Removing the judicial veto over transitional control in cases where the aggregate sentence is longer than two
years and adopting the same penalty for commission of a felony on transitional control as on post-release
control
• Allowing the sealing of a single traffic conviction if it is in connection with criminal non-convictions that
could otherwise be sealed
• Removing the cap of 40 hours per month for and giving the court discretion in setting the amount of credit
for community service ordered for failure to pay a cost judgment
• Requiring the court, if ordering an HIV test, to ensure the test is administered within 48 hours after the
indictment, information, or complaint is presented; allowing the court, if it reasonably believes that another
person had contact with the accused and could have contracted HIV, to inform that person that the test was
performed
• Authorizing a court that receives a petition for a Certificate of Qualification for Employment to direct the
clerk of the court to process and record all required notices
• Removing the requirement that warning notices are mailed to an offender before a court can notify the
Registrar of Motor Vehicles to block the registration or transfer of registration of motor vehicles of a criminal
defendant who fails to appear in court or to pay fines or costs when due
• Requiring the court to demand proof of financial responsibility for persons driving under suspension; allowing
the court to order restitution if a person fails to provide such proof
• Allowing a court to order an alleged or adjudicated delinquent child who is at least 18 but younger than 21
to an adult detention facility; allowing a court to commit a child to the Department of Youth Services (DYS)
for a violation of supervised release for a period of time determined by the court (at least 90 days)
The bill will become effective on September 19, 2014. More information about this and other recently enacted
bills is available in Enactment News on the OJC website.
Ohio Judicial Conference
For the Record | Second Quarter 2014
7
Visit The Ohio Judicial Conference Website
www.ohiojudges.org
Contact Jeff Jablonka at the Judicial Conference
[email protected]
Ohio Judicial Conference
for login assistance
For the Record | Second Quarter 2014
8
OVI Evidence Suppression Checklist
for
Municipal/County Judges
Hon. K.J. Montgomery
Shaker Heights Municipal Court
The majority of motions to suppress filed in municipal/county courts challenge the admissibility of evidence
gathered by police in the investigation of O.V.I. cases. Such a motion will allege that a defendant was subjected to an
unreasonable search and that the evidence gathered pursuant to that search should be suppressed. From the evidence
presented at the suppression hearing, the court determines if the motion or some part of it should be granted or
denied.
An O.V.I. case typically has three stages of detention and each stage may be challenged in the suppression motion.
The first stage is the probable cause required for a law enforcement officer to stop a vehicle or to become engaged
with the driver of a vehicle. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administrative DWI Detection & Standardized
Field Sobriety Testing Participant Guide (the “NHTSA Manual) calls this stage the “vehicle in motion” and “stopping
sequence.”
The second stage expands the scope of the investigation by the officer and occurs when the officer has “personal
contact” with the driver. During this time, the officer claims to develop a reasonable suspicion that the driver’s ability
to operate a motor vehicle may be impaired. The driver may be asked to perform preliminary tests like reciting the
alphabet. The NHTSA Manual calls this second stage the “personal contact” and “exit sequence.”
Finally, the officer conducts what NHTSA calls “pre-arrest screening.” These are the standard field sobriety tests.
The trained officer instructs, demonstrates and observes the driver perform these tests watching for specific “clues.” If
the officer conducts the tests in substantial compliance with the NHTSA procedures, the officer’s testimony about the
test results will be admissible at trial. Without substantial compliance, the results are inadmissible.
All three stages of detention are outlined in the NHTSA Manual. Conduct that suggests a reason to stop a
vehicle are set forth. More guidelines recommend observations that may be made during personal contact with the
driver suggesting impairment. Finally, specific procedures and clues are in the manual’s discussion of standardized
field sobriety tests. The data is lengthy and detailed.
In order to recall the various observations that might occur during the three stages of detention, I created a
“checklist” for each stage of detention. As evidence is heard from the law enforcement officer or observed by video,
factors the judge finds existed are “checked off” on the check list document. A fresh document is used for every
suppression hearing. Post-hearing, the exact justifications for each stage are contained on the document. This has helped
me to determine whether from the totality of the circumstances there was reason for the law enforcement officer to
further detain a driver and to ultimately arrest that person for an O.V.I. offence. Helpful references to case law and the
NHTSA Manual are included in the Checklist.
The check list is available at http://ohiojudges.org/Resources/tools-and-bench-aids
Ohio Judicial Conference
For the Record | Second Quarter 2014
9
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Relations/Juvenile Judges Summer Conference
Page 1 of 7
18 - 20
Wed - Fri
Ohio Common Pleas Judges Association (OCPJA)
Judges*
Summer
Conference COURT OF OHIO JUDICIAL
SUPREME
24
Tue
Guardian ad Litem Pre Service
Course (5 of 9)SCHEDULE
Guardians ad Litem
COURSE
26 - 27
Thu - Fri
DATE
July 2014
January
2014
9
Wed
Juvenile Court Clerks Conference
COURSE
Juvenile Court Clerks
FOR
Guardian ad Litem Continuing Education Course (1 Guardians ad Litem
4:30
p.m.)
Guardian
ad
Litem
Continuing
Education
Course
(1
Guardians
ad Litem
Wed
4:30 p.m.)
9 - 11
CMP 2017 Class
Wed - Fri Court Management Program (CMP) 2017 Level II:
15 - 16 Wed - Thu CourtEssential
ExecutiveComponents
Team Seminar Part I
Judges & Court Personnel
29
10
Thu
Thu
Guardian ad Litem Continuing Education Course
(8:30ad
- noon)
Guardian
Litem Continuing Education (8:30 - noon)
14 - 16 Mon - Wed Association of Municipal & County Judges of Ohio
(AMCJO)
Summer
Conference
Guardian
ad Litem
Pre Service
Course (1 of 9)
Wed
16
Guardians ad Litem
Guardians ad Litem
Judges*
Guardians ad Litem
Leadership Series (1 of 2)
Wed
Hilton Garden Perrysburg Toledo
(for Judges, Magistrates, Acting Judges, Court Personnel, Judicial Candidates)
15
16
Dayton Marriott
COLLEGE
Court Personnel
February 2014
Leadership
Series (2&ofCounty
2) Judges of Ohio
3 - 5 17 Mon Thu
of Municipal
- Wed Association
(AMCJO) Winter Conference
Court Personnel
Judges*
Embassy Suites Airport Columbus
LOCATION
Ohio University Inn - Athens
Quest Conference Center Columbus
Embassy Suites Dublin Columbus
Embassy
Suites Airport Columbus
Ohio University Inn - Athens
Quest Conference Center Columbus
Sawmill Creek - Huron
Quest Conference Center Columbus
Quest Conference Center Columbus
QuestSuites
Conference
Embassy
Dublin -Center Columbus
Columbus
4
29 Tue Tue
Guardian
ad Litem
Continuing
Education
Course
Guardians
ad Litem
Guardian
ad Litem
Continuing
Education
Course
(1 - (1 - Guardians
ad Litem
4:30
p.m.)
4:30 p.m.)
Holiday
Inn Boardman
Holiday
Inn Fairborn
- Dayton
Youngstown
5
30 Wed Wed
Guardian
ad Litem
Continuing
Education
Course
Guardian
ad Litem
Continuing
Education
Course
(8:30
noon)
(8:30 - noon)
Guardians
ad Litem
Guardians
ad Litem
Holiday
Inn Boardman
Holiday
Inn Fairborn
- Dayton
Youngstown
5
Judicial Candidates Seminar (1:30 - 3:30 p.m.)
Wed 2014
August
Judicial Candidates
Holiday Inn Fairborn - Dayton
Guardians
ad Litem
Guardians
ad Litem
Quest
Center Holiday
Inn Conference
Fairborn - Dayton
Columbus
Holiday Inn - Strongsville
Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial
Embassy
Suites
Airport Center
- Columbus
Columbus
Columbus
Video Teleconference
Video Teleconference
Ashland University - Ashland
Quest Conference Center Columbus
Hilton Polaris - Columbus
Quest Conference Center Ashland
University - Ashland
Columbus
July 2014
19 6
Wed Wed
19
Wed
14
Thu
19 - 21 Wed - Fri
21
26
27
27
15
15
20
21
Fri
Wed
Thu
Thu
Fri
Fri
Wed
Thu
22
Fri
27 - 28 Thu - Fri
Guardian
ad Litem
Pre Service
Course
Guardian
ad Litem
Pre Service
Course
(2 of (6
9) of 9)
Judicial Candidates Seminar (1:30 - 3:30 p.m.)
Judicial Candidates
Judicial Candidates Seminar (1:30 - 3:30 p.m.)
Judicial Candidates
Court Management Program (CMP) 2014B Gray
CMP Class of 2014 B
Class: Purposes
2014 Probate Course
Judges & Magistrates
Municipal/Common Pleas (1 - 3:45 p.m.)
Judges & Magistrates
Delinquency Course (1 - 3:45 p.m.)
Judges & Magistrates
Guardian ad Litem Continuing Education (1 - 4:30
Guardians ad Litem
Guardians ad Litem
p.m.)Guardian ad Litem Continuing Education Course (1 4:30 p.m.)
Appellate Judges Seminar
Judges
Guardian ad Litem Continuing Education Course
Guardians ad Litem
Judicial College
Schedule
on Next
Guardian
Litem Continuing
Education
Course Continued
Guardians
ad Page...
Litem
(8:30ad
- noon)
(8:30 - noon)
Computer Lab
Judges & Magistrates
Intercourt Conference
Juvenile Court Personnel
Want
Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial
Embassy
Suites
Airport Center
- Columbus
Columbus
Hilton Easton - Columbus
to contributeJudges*
to the next
March 2014
edition
of
Fp.m.)or the
RecordThomas
?HiltonJ. Moyer
Ohio
Judicial Conference
Annual
Meeting
Judges*
EastonOhio
- Columbus
6 28 - 29
Candidates
Seminar (1:30
- 3:30
Judicial
Candidates
Judicial
Thu Thu - FriJudicial
27
Wed
Ohio Courts of Appeals Judges Association (OCAJA)
Fall Conference
Center - Columbus
Court Reporter Course
Court Personnel
Columbus
OJC
always Program
needs(CMP)
timely
to Embassy
publish
. Airport Court Management
2014A and
Scarlet relevant
CMP Classarticles
of 2014 A
Suites
Columbus
September Class:
2014Technology
29
Fri
12 - 14 Wed - Fri
9
Tue
ontact
JeffJablonka
at9)the Judicial
Conference
Guardian adCLitem
Pre Service
Course (7 of
Guardians
ad Litem
[email protected]
10 - 12
Wed - Fri
Ohio Judicial Conference
12
Fri
Court Management Program (CMP) 2014 Scarlet
Class: Purposes
CMP Class of 2014 A
Abuse, Neglect & Dependency (1 - 3:45 p.m.)
Judges & Magistrates
For the Record | Second Quarter 2014
Holiday Inn Strongsville Cleveland
Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial
Center - Columbus
Video Teleconference
10
30
15
15
Wed
Fri
Fri
20
20
Wed
Wed
6
21
21
Wed
Thu
Thu
Pre ServiceEducation
Course (6Course
of 9)
Guardian
Guardian ad
ad Litem
Litem Continuing
Continuing
Education
Course
(8:30
noon)
(8:30 - noon)
Guardians
Guardians ad
ad Litem
Litem
Quest
Quest Conference
Conference Center
Center -Columbus
Columbus
14
22
22
Thu
Fri
Fri
Judicial Candidates
Seminar (1:30 - 3:30 p.m.)
Computer
Lab
Computer
Lab
Judicial &
Judges
Magistrates
Judges
&Candidates
Magistrates
Thomas
Thomas J.
J. Moyer
Moyer Ohio
Ohio Judicial
Judicial
Center
Columbus
Center - Columbus
15
27
27
Fri
Wed
Wed
Judges & Magistrates
Judges*
Judges*
Columbus
Hilton
Easton
Hilton
Easton -- Columbus
Columbus
15
28
- 29
28
20 - 29
29
29
Fri
Thu
- Fri
Thu
Wed- Fri
Fri
Fri
2014 Courts
Probateof
Ohio
Appeals
Ohio
Courts
ofCourse
Appeals Judges
Judges Association
Association (OCAJA)
(OCAJA)
Fall
Conference
Fall
Conference
Delinquency Course (1 - 3:45 p.m.)
Judges & Magistrates
Judges*
Judges*
Guardians ad Litem
Court
Court Personnel
Personnel
Video Teleconference
Hilton
Easton -- Columbus
Hilton
Columbus
Quest Easton
Conference
Center Columbus
Columbus
Guardians ad Litem
Quest Conference Center Columbus
Holiday
Inn
Strongsville
-Holiday
Inn
Strongsville
Thomas
J. Moyer
Ohio Judicial
Cleveland
Cleveland
Center
- Columbus
August 2014
Guardian ad Course
Litem Continuing
Education Course
Delinquency
(1 - 3:45 p.m.)
Delinquency
(8:30 - noon) Course (1 - 3:45 p.m.)
Guardian
Guardian ad
ad Litem
Litem Continuing
Continuing Education
Education Course
Course (1
(1 -4:30
p.m.)
4:30 p.m.)
Ohio
Judicial
Conference
Annual
Meeting
Ohio
Judicial
Conference
Annual
MeetingCourse (1 Guardian
ad Litem
Continuing
Education
4:30 p.m.)
Court
Reporter
Court
Reporter Course
Course
21
Guardian ad Litem Continuing Education Course
Thu
September
September 2014
2014
(8:30 - noon)
GuardiansMagistrates
ad Litem
Judges
Judges &
& Magistrates
Guardians
Guardians ad
ad Litem
Litem
99
22
Tue
Tue
Fri
Guardian
Litem Pre Service Course (7 of 9)
Guardian ad
ad
Computer
LabLitem Pre Service Course (7 of 9)
Guardians
ad
Guardians
ad Litem
Litem
Judges
& Magistrates
10
10 -- 12
12
27
Wed
Wed -- Fri
Fri
Wed
CMP
CMP Class
Class of
of 2014
2014 A
A
Judges*
12
12 - 29
28
12
12
29
Fri
Fri - Fri
Thu
Fri
Fri
Fri
Court
Management
Program
(CMP)
2014
CourtCourts
Management
Program
(CMP)
2014 Scarlet
Scarlet
Ohio
of Appeals
Judges
Association
(OCAJA)
Class:
Purposes
Class:
Purposes
Fall Conference
Abuse, Neglect
Neglect &
& Dependency
Dependency (1
(1 -- 3:45
3:45 p.m.)
p.m.)
Abuse,
Ohio
Judicial Conference
Annual Meeting
Criminal Procedure
Procedure By
By the
the Numbers:
Numbers: Part
Part IIII
Criminal
Court
Reporter Course
17
Wed
September
17
Wed
Guardian
2014
Guardian ad
ad Litem
Litem Continuing
Continuing Education
Education Course
Course (1
(1 -4:30
p.m.)
4:30
p.m.)ad Litem Pre Service Course (7 of 9)
Guardian
Court
Court Management
Management Program
Program (CMP)
(CMP) 2016
2016 Class:
Class:
Caseflow
Caseflow
Court Management Program (CMP) 2014 Scarlet
HolidayTeleconference
Inn Boardman Video
Video
Teleconference
Youngstown
Quest
Quest Conference
Conference Center
Center -Columbus
Columbus
Thomas
J.
Ohio
Thomas
J. Moyer
Moyer
Ohio Judicial
Judicial
Hilton
Easton
- Columbus
Center
Center -- Columbus
Columbus
Judges
Judges &
& Magistrates
Magistrates
Judges*
Judges &
& Magistrates
Judges
Magistrates
Court
Personnel
Video
Teleconference
Video Easton
Teleconference
Hilton
- Columbus
Embassy Suites
Embassy
Suites Airport
Airport -Columbus
Columbus
Columbus
Guardians
Guardians ad
ad Litem
Litem
Holiday
Holiday Inn
Inn Fairborn
Fairborn -- Dayton
Dayton
Guardians ad Litem
CMP
CMP 2016
2016 Class
Class
Holiday Inn Strongsville ClevelandSuites
Embassy
Embassy
Suites Airport
Airport -Columbus
Columbus
Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial
9
17
17 -- 19
19
Tue
Wed
Wed -- Fri
Fri
10 - 12
18
18
Wed - Fri
Thu
Thu
12
19
19
12
23
23
Fri
Fri
Fri
Fri
Tue
Tue
Acting
Judge
Course
of
Acting
Judge
CourseBy(2
(2the
of 4)
4)
Criminal
Procedure
Numbers: Part II
Leadership
Series
(1
of
2)
Leadership Series (1 of 2)
Judges & Magistrates
Acting
Judges
Acting
JudgesJudges
& Magistrates
Court
Personnel
Court Personnel
17
24
24
Wed
Wed
Wed
Guardian ad Litem Continuing Education Course (1 4:30 p.m.) Series
Leadership
Leadership
Series (2
(2 of
of 2)
2)
Guardians ad Litem
Court
Court Personnel
Personnel
17 - 19
Wed - Fri
Court Management Program (CMP) 2016 Class:
Caseflow
CMP 2016 Class
Quest
Quest Conference
Conference Center
Center -Columbus
Columbus
Embassy Suites Airport -
18
1-3
Thu
Wed - Fri
Guardian
ad LitemofContinuing
Course
Ohio Association
MagistratesEducation
(OAM) Fall
(8:30
- noon)
Conference
Guardians
ad Litem
Magistrates*
Holiday
Fairborn
Dayton
Crowne Inn
Plaza
North -- Columbus
19
7
Fri
Tue
Acting
Judges
Guardians
ad Litem
23
8
Tue
Wed
24
8
Wed
Wed
Acting
Judge
Course
(2 of 4) Education Course (1 Guardian
ad Litem
Continuing
4:30 p.m.)
Leadership Series (1 of 2)
Guardian ad Litem Continuing Education Course
(8:30 - noon)
Leadership Series (2 of 2)
Verbal Defensive Tactics (2 of 2)
Holiday
- Dayton
Holiday Inn
Inn Fairborn
French Quarter
Toledo
Quest Conference Center Columbus
Holiday Inn French Quarter Toledo
Quest Conference Center Columbus
Crowne Plaza North - Columbus
8 - 10
Wed - Fri
Court Management Program (CMP) 2014 Gray Class:
HR
CMP Class of 2014 B
Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial
Center - Columbus
9
Thu
Basic Defensive Tactics (2 of 2)
Probation Officers
Ohio State Highway Patrol
Academy - Columbus
9
Thu
U.S. Constitutional Law
Judges & Magistrates
Cleveland
10
Fri
Advanced Defensive Tactics (2 of 2)
Probation Officers
Ohio State Highway Patrol
Academy - Columbus
10
Fri
Judicial Conduct Seminar
Judges
Cleveland
17
Fri
Acting Judge Course (3 of 4)
Acting Judges
Holiday Inn Strongsville Cleveland
October 2014
Ohio Judicial Conference
Class: Purposes
Guardian
ad
Guardian
ad Litem
Litem Continuing
Continuing Education
Education Course
Course
(8:30
noon)
(8:30
noon)
Abuse, Neglect & Dependency (1 - 3:45 p.m.)
CMP Class of 2014 A
Guardians
Guardians ad
ad Litem
Litem
Court Personnel
Guardians ad Litem
Court Personnel
Probation Officers
For the Record | Second Quarter 2014
Center -Inn
Columbus
Holiday
Fairborn
Holiday
Inn
Fairborn -- Dayton
Dayton
Video Teleconference
Holiday
Fairborn
-- Dayton
Holiday Inn
Inn
Fairborn
Dayton
Embassy
Suites
Airport
Columbus
Quest
Conference
Center
Quest Conference Center -Columbus
Columbus
Holiday Inn Fairborn - Dayton
Columbus
11
10
10
Fri
Fri
Judicial
Conduct
Seminar
Advanced
Defensive
Tactics (2 of 2)
Judges
Probation Officers
17
1-3
10
Fri
Wed - Fri
Fri
Acting Judges
Magistrates*
Judges
17
17
7
22
17
8
24
22
Fri
Fri
Tue
Wed
Fri
Wed
Fri
Wed
Acting Judge Course (3 of 4)
Ohio Association of Magistrates (OAM) Fall
Judicial Conduct Seminar
Conference
Juvenile
Traffic
(1 - 3:45
Acting Judge
Course
(3 ofp.m.)
4)
Guardian ad Litem Continuing Education Course (1 Guardian
4:30 p.m.)ad Litem Pre Service Course (8 of 9)
Juvenile Traffic (1 - 3:45 p.m.)
Guardian ad Litem Continuing Education Course
Municipal/Common
Pleas
Course
(1 - 3:45
(8:30 - noon)
Guardian
ad Litem Pre
Service
Course
(8 ofp.m.)
9)
28
8
24
8 - 10
29
28
Tue
Wed
Fri
Wed - Fri
Wed
Tue
October 2014
Guardian
ad LitemTactics
Continuing
Course (1 Verbal Defensive
(2 of Education
2)
4:30
p.m.)
Municipal/Common Pleas Course (1 - 3:45 p.m.)
Court Management Program (CMP) 2014 Gray Class:
Guardian
ad
HR
Guardian
ad Litem
Litem Continuing
Continuing Education
Education Course
Course (1 (8:30
noon)
4:30 p.m.)
Basic Defensive Tactics (2 of 2)
Guardian ad Litem Continuing Education Course
2014
(8:30 - noon)
U.S.
Constitutional
Paternity,
Custody &Law
Child Support (1 - 3:45 p.m.)
9
Thu
29
Wed
November
97
Thu
Fri
November
10
Fri
13
Thu
7
Fri
14
Fri
10
Fri
13
Thu
17
Fri
18
Tue
14
Fri
17
18
18 - 19
22
19
18 - 19
24
19
19
28
2014
Advanced
Defensive
Acting Judge
Course Tactics
(4 of 4) (2 of 2)
Paternity, Custody & Child Support (1 - 3:45 p.m.)
Evidence
Judicial Conduct Seminar
Acting Judge Course (4 of 4)
Acting
Judge Course (3 of 4)
Guardian
Evidence ad Litem Continuing Education Course (1 4:30 p.m.)
Fri
Tue
Tue - Wed
Wed
Wed
Tue - Wed
Fri
Wed
Wed
Tue
19
Wed
December
29
Wed
2
Tue
Juvenile
Traffic (1Team
- 3:45Seminar
p.m.) Part II
Court
Executive
Guardian
ad Litem Continuing
Education Course (1 4:30
p.m.)
Guardian ad Litem Pre Service Course (8 of 9)
2014
Course
- 3:45 p.m.)
Court Probate
Executive
Team(1Seminar
Part II
Municipal/Common
Pleas Course
(1 - 3:45Course
p.m.)
Guardian ad Litem Continuing
Education
(8:30
noon)
2014 Probate
Course
(1 - 3:45 Education
p.m.)
Guardian
ad Litem
Continuing
Course (1 4:30 p.m.)
Guardian ad Litem Continuing Education Course
2014
(8:30 - noon)
Guardian
ad Litem Continuing Education Course
Guardian
ad Litem Pre Service Course (9 of 9)
(8:30
- noon)
December
December 2014
2014
2
Ohio Association of Domestic Relation Judges
Tue
2014
2November
Guardian ad Litem Pre Service Course (9 of 9)
Tue
(OADRJ) Winter Seminar
Paternity, Custody & Child Support (1 - 3:45 p.m.)
Ohio Common Pleas Judges Association (OCPJA)
Acting Judge
Course (4 of 4)
Winter
Meeting
Judges
& Magistrates
Acting Judges
Guardians ad Litem
Guardians ad Litem
Judges & Magistrates
Guardians ad Litem
Judges
& Magistrates
Guardians
ad Litem
Guardians
ad Litem
Probation Officers
Judges & Magistrates
CMP Class of 2014 B
Guardians
Guardians ad
ad Litem
Litem
Probation Officers
Guardians ad Litem
Judges
Judges &
& Magistrates
Magistrates
Ohio
State Highway Patrol
Columbus
Academy - Columbus
Video Teleconference
Embassy Suites Dublin Cleveland
Columbus
Columbus
Holiday
Inn Strongsville
Embassy
Blue Ash
Embassy Suites
Suites Dublin
- Cleveland
Cincinnati
Columbus
Judges
&
Judges
& Magistrates
Court
Personnel
Guardians
ad Litem
Video Teleconference
Embassy
- Embassy Suites
Suites Airport
Blue Ash
Columbus
Cincinnati
Holiday Inn Boardman Youngstown
Video Teleconference
Embassy
Suites Airport Columbus
Video
Teleconference
Embassy
Suites Blue Ash Cincinnati
Video
Teleconference
Holiday Inn Strongsville Cleveland
Embassy Suites Blue Ash Cincinnati
Holiday
Inn Strongsville Quest Conference Center Cleveland
Columbus
Guardians ad Litem
Judges
Judges &
& Magistrates
Court Personnel
Judges
& Magistrates
Guardians
ad Litem
Judges
&
Magistrates
Guardians ad Litem
Guardians ad Litem
Guardians ad Litem
Guardians ad Litem
Judges*
Guardians ad Litem
Judges & Magistrates
Judges*
Acting Judges
Embassy Suites Dublin Quest Conference Center Columbus
Columbus
Video
Teleconference
Embassy Suites Dublin Columbus
Columbus
Judges & Magistrates
Judges*
Embassy Suites Dublin Columbus
Columbus
Guardians
Magistratesad Litem
Embassy
Suites Blue Ash Video
Teleconference
Cincinnati
Embassy Suites Dublin Embassy
ColumbusSuites Airport Columbus
Quest Conference Center Video
Teleconference
Columbus
Fri
Wed - Fri
Thu
414- 5
Fri - Fri
Thu
18
5
8 - 12
18 - 19
Guardian adEthics
Litem(1Continuing
Education Course (1 Magistrate
- 3:45 p.m.)
4:30 p.m.)
New Judges Orientation Part I
Mon - Fri
Tue - Wed Court Executive Team Seminar Part II
16
19
Tue
Wed
Guardian ad Litem Continuing Education Course (1 2014
Probate Course (1 - 3:45 p.m.)
4:30 p.m.)
Guardians ad Litem
Judges & Magistrates
19
17
Wed
Wed
Guardian
Guardian ad
ad Litem
Litem Continuing
Continuing Education
Education Course
Course
(8:30
noon)
(8:30 - noon)
Guardians
Guardians ad
ad Litem
Litem
Tue
Fri
Video Teleconference
Holiday
Inn Strongsville Holiday Inn French Quarter Cleveland
Holiday
Toledo Inn Boardman Youngstown
Video Teleconference
Holiday Inn French Quarter Video
ToledoTeleconference
Holiday
Inn Boardman Youngstown
Holiday
Strongsville
Crowne Inn
Plaza
North - Columbus
Cleveland
Video Teleconference
Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial
Holiday
Strongsville
Center -Inn
Columbus
Holiday
Inn
Strongsville -Cleveland
Cleveland
Ohio State Highway Patrol
AcademyInn- Columbus
Holiday
Strongsville Cleveland
Cleveland
Video Teleconference
Probation
Officers
Acting Judges
Judges & Magistrates
Judges & Magistrates
Judges
Acting Judges
Acting
Judges
Guardians
ad Litem
Judges & Magistrates
7
3-5
13
Evidence
Ohio
Association of Juvenile Court Judges (OAJCJ)
Winter Meeting
Cleveland
Ohio State Highway Patrol
Academy - Columbus
Holiday Inn Strongsville Crowne Plaza North - Columbus
Cleveland
Cleveland
New Judges
Judges & Court Personnel
Embassy
Suites Blue
Ash -Quest Conference
Center
Cincinnati
Columbus
DecemberNOTE:
2014
PLEASE
2
Guardian ad Litem Pre Service Course (9 of 9)
Guardians ad Litem
Quest Conference Center Tue
To view the Judicial College homepage for course calendars and additional information, please visit Columbus
www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Boards/judCollege/default.aspx.
To register for a Judicial College course or to view a course announcement, please visit our online registration site at
www.judicialecademy.ohio.gov
Ohio Judicial Conference
For the Record | Second Quarter 2014
1. Full-time judges, part-time judges, and retired judges eligible for assignment are required to obtain 3.0 hours of instruction
in Judicial Conduct from the Judicial College. (Gov. Jud. R. IV§ 3 ©) (effective 1.1.14)
12
Ohio Judicial Conference Staff
Executive Director
Hon. Mark R. Schweikert, Retired
[email protected]
Legislative Counsel
Louis Tobin, Esq.
[email protected]
614-387-9750
614-387-9765
Judicial Services Counsel
Vacant
Administrative Assistant
Trina Bennington
[email protected]
Legislative Services Assistant
Alyssa Guthrie
[email protected]
Ohio Judicial Conference
Project Specialist
Jeff Jablonka
[email protected]
614-387-9753
Program Specialist
Vacant
Deputy Legislative Counsel
Marta Mudri, Esq.
[email protected]
614-387-9761
Deputy Legislative Counsel
John Ryan, Esq.
[email protected]
614-387-9756
Fiscal Officer
Jayma Umbstaetter
[email protected]
For the Record | Second Quarter 2014
614-387-9764
614-387-9765
614-387-9757
13