1 Project Title: A Case Study – “Juvenile Court Judge Tracie Hunter and An Examination of Hamilton County’s Backlog of Cases” Case Study By: Vanessa Enoch and Cheri Scott PPS 807 Women and Leadership Dr. Nancy Boxill  2 Case Abstract This case study explores issues of power relative to the intersectionality of race and gender in the judiciary. It illuminates structural and systemic issues, that when viewed through a race and gendered lens presents an understanding of the level of resistance, obstacles, and challenges faced by African American women in particular who rise to leadership roles and seek to challenge the status quo. Judge Tracie Hunter is the first African American and the first Democrat to ever become a judge in the juvenile court in Cincinnati, Hamilton County, Ohio. Judge Hunter won her seat after a heated court battle and a series of appeals, spearheaded by Hamilton County Prosecutor, Joe Deters, who represented the Hamilton County Board of Elections, after Hunter sued the Board of Elections for voter suppression. Inevitably, the county was required to count more than 800 votes from majority black precincts, when it was found that poll-workers were responsible for sending voters to the wrong booth, which caused their votes to be disqualified. This case surrounds Hamilton County’s problem of a backlog of cases and background on the witch hunt that Judge Hunter faced in her first 18 months on the bench, and the tremendous injustices that are directed towards the children in the Hamilton County judicial system, which prompted Hunter to run for judge in the first place. Over 80% of the children served in Hamilton County are African American children who have for years been subjected to a school-to-prison pipeline. The case exposes the numerous violations of their civil, constitutional, and human rights; and presents an analysis of the collusion, strategic privatization of the juvenile detention facility, administrative policy changes, and political maneuvers on the part of Republican Party government officials in Hamilton County, to take the power of the judiciary and oversight of the $30,000,000 budget, the second largest budget in Hamilton County, out of the hands of elected Judge Hunter and putting it in the hands of the judge that she defeated in the 2010 elections.  3 Why a race and gendered lens? Few case studies have been done on women in the judiciary, and even fewer surrounding the intersectionality of race and gender in the judiciary. In fact, at the time of this study, researchers, Vanessa Enoch and Cheri Franklin-Scott were unable to locate any case studies of its kind. An analysis of gender relations relative to race can give us an understanding of the challenge of access, and illuminates problems of power and control. A race and gendered approach can provide a better understanding of why a situation has developed the way it has. It can also lead us to explore assumptions about issues such as the distribution of resources and the impact of culture. Furthermore, a race and gendered lens can inform the reader of potential entry points for measures that promote equality within a particular context. It may also assist with creating measures of equity and potential approaches to addressing disparities. This case study took as its premise that it was necessary to approach the work through the eyes of the African American female. This lens allows a full and detailed observation of the structural dynamics and an understanding of systemic issues that have historically created barriers for blacks and women. It is assumed that there was a need to listen to people, and, in particular, to the voices of women and blacks whose problems and aspirations are seldom heard. The lens that is generally presented of African American women is not always positive. It is necessary to understand if it is the processes or the outcomes that are not positive. African American women’s integration into larger markets creates changes in social relationships, a different level of care and  4 concern for children, and issues of equality. It is critical to understand these factors so that development activities become tailored to maximize creative capacities and have a new positive impact on the involved communities. The Back Story In the November 2010 midterm election, Tracie Hunter was elected as the first African-American, Juvenile Court Judge in Hamilton County, Ohio. Judge Hunter embarked upon a tedious battle to obtain her seat after the Hamilton County Board of Elections rejected provisional ballots for more than 800 voters. The rejection of provisional ballots awarded Judge Hunter’s opponent, John Williams, a 23-point lead, invoking a court battle which cost taxpayers $2,000.000.00. Judge Hunter sued the Hamilton County Board of Elections for voter suppression in the U.S. District Court (See Exhibit 1) after it was revealed that poll workers caused the errors. “Her landmark case, Hunter v. Hamilton County Board of Elections, later upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, paved the way for all Ohio voters to have their provisional ballots counted when rejected due to poll-workers error” (Hamilton County Juvenile Court, 2014, para. 2). (See Exhibit 1). Accusation of Excessive Backlog Cases On May 25th 2012, 18 months after contesting the Ohio elections Tracie Hunter was finally sworn in as judge for the Hamilton County Juvenile Court. Shortly after taking her seat as Judge, Hunter was sued by the, Public Defender’s Office for the backlog of cases, which amounted to eighteen writs filed against her (See Exhibit 2).  5 Although some of the writs were dropped, Hunter was initially accused of having 79 cases out of time. An investigation conducted by Jennifer Branch, Judge Hunter’s personal attorney, revealed that on the same document which reported Hunter’s 79 cases, Judge John Williams, the Administrative Juvenile Court Judge, had 103 cases out of time that went unchallenged. These numbers were reported August 2012 less than four months after Judge Hunter was officially seated. It was also reported by Attorney Branch that Judge John Williams had more cases out of time than Judge Hunter from January through September 2012 that also went unscathed. More than 18 writs were filed solely against Judge Hunter, although it has been documented by Attorney Jennifer Branch that case backlog has been a problem for Hamilton County Juvenile Court for at least seven years. Judge Hunter raised this concern in an email to Judge John Williams concerning the timeline of cases on her docket. In the email Judge Hunter stated, “Many cases pending beyond the timeline on my docket were pending beyond the timeline when I arrived to Juvenile Court. Some of the cases were repeatedly continued by Judges before me. In fact, you signed off on some of those cases before I arrived. I recently dismissed an Objection that the attorney alleges Judge Lipps continued for years without oral argument” (para. 2)(See Exhibit 3). A court case obtained from the First District Court of Appeals of Ohio supports Judge Hunter’s claim regarding pending cases that were beyond the timeline on her docket. The case, State of Ohio Ex Rel. Klarysa, Benge, Relator v. Tracie M. Hunter, Judge, Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Respondent is referenced as a case in point. A grandmother in a custody court case filed “preliminary  6 objections and a motion for leave to file out of time were filed by the grandmother on May 17, 2012”, a week prior to Judge Hunter being sworn in. The minor child was moved to the custody of the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (HCJFS) on February 11, 2011 by the Hamilton County Juvenile court and was upgraded from a “temporary order of custody to an order of permanent custody” (p. 1). The case also stated: On September 7, 2012, the magistrate issued detailed findings of facts regarding the grant of permanent custody. On October 30, 2012, the grandmother’s objection was dismissed for failure of petitioner or her counsel to appear. A motion for reconsideration was filed on November 5, 2012, which was granted on February 5, 2013. Judge Hunter heard oral arguments on the objection on May 2, 2013 and May 13, 2013. Klarysa Benge stated that Judge Hunter has not yet ruled on the objection or the motion for leave as required by Juv.R.40 (D)(4)(d). The claim filed against Judge Hunter stated that her delayed decision caused the child emotional harm, even though the child had been living with foster parents for several years, since she was eight months old. This is an example of a case that was pending in the system prior to Judge Hunter’s arrival that required special consideration and thorough examination. She had to review transcripts of the objected cases which usually takes longer than delinquency cases due to the sensitive issue of removing a child from the foster home. It was also discovered that some of the transcripts were as old as five years, and that the case managers’ recording and transcribing the hearings were taking six months to a year to complete due to various errors made within the reports.  7 In July 2013, Judge Hunter requested an independent audit of the Juvenile Court backlog. Despite her request, Judge John Williams would not agree to the audit. According to a letter submitted to Stephanie Hess, Esq., Director of Court Services in the Supreme Court of Ohio, Judge Hunter affirms, “I made a request to Judge Williams to join me in conducting an independent audit of all cases, including those incorrectly reported to the Supreme Court to determine the scope and depth of the flawed data. Unfortunately, to date, he hasn’t responded” (Hunter, 2013, para. 4) (See Exhibit 4). According to Hunter, “An audit will show that the majority of these cases are rarely ever heard by the magistrates within the recommended guideline and are out of time before they reach the judge's docket.” She added, “The newspaper article did not report that the dependency cases were pending years beyond the deadline before they reached my docket.” “This ongoing problem of cases being heard out of time existed long before I became a Juvenile Court Judge,’’ she said. “I question the Enquirer, Judge Williams, and the Public Defender's motivation for misrepresenting data. They all knew children were languishing in foster care for years before I ever received many of these cases, however I am being singled out for a problem that didn't begin with me and that has been a problem in Juvenile Court for years” (The Cincinnati Herald, 2013). On December 2, 2013, the Ohio Supreme Court acknowledged “the backlog has been a long- standing problem in Juvenile Court for years” (Gerhardstein & Branch, 2013, para. 5) and appointed retired Judge Lipps to help alleviate the backlogs from Judge Hunter and Judge Williams docket.  8 Systemic Problem with Backlog Cases Court briefs submitted to the Ohio Supreme Court by Jennifer Branch’s law firm estimated that the Hamilton County Juvenile Court has the heaviest caseload than any other court in the state of Ohio and represents over 14,055 cases. The problem with case backlogs result from years of inaccurate reporting and flaws in the system. Exhibit 5: State of Ohio Ex. Rel., Megan Shanan-Beck, Appellete v. Judge Tracie M. Hunter, Appellant case brief outlines an exhaustive list of problems within the Juvenile Court. The brief illustrates the results from an annual case flow report indicating respondents expressed dissatisfaction with Hamilton County Juvenile Court and “felt business was not done in a reasonable time” (p. 4-5). The brief exemplifies “the Hamilton County Juvenile Court has a long-term and continuing inability to timely manage custody and abuse, neglect, or dependency cases (p. 5). The brief goes on to describe management practices within Hamilton County Juvenile Court stating that there is a systemic problem with oversight, and discrepancies in reports issued by the courts administration that “would help alert a judge to delays”. According to the brief, “Judges appear not to have access to a “report that would permit each judge to be able to routinely monitor their assigned caseload in which objections and motions to set aside remain pending” (p. 5). Judge Hunter raised concerns regarding pending cases in an email sent to Constance Murdock, Executive Director of Case Management and Docketing on November 8, 2012: There also appear to be discrepancies in the report regarding which cases are pending beyond the date. Upon a closer inspection of the audit report, some of the cases John reported to the Supreme Court as pending had  9 actually been dismissed; or a new motion filed in the case, which means the case should have been closed. It would seem that if a new motion was later filed, that would restart the clock. (See Exhibit 6 page 2). Constance Murdock responded to Judge Hunter’s email on November 14th, 2012 by acknowledging that Judge John Williams agreed that he made errors on reports sent to the Ohio Supreme Court. She stated, “Regarding the discrepancies you found between what John was listing as pending and you were determining to be dismissed and re-filed, John agrees that he was making some errors. He was trained to do that report by my predecessor. (See Exhibit 6, page 1). This email communication provides evidence of Judge Hunter’s attempt to investigate case backlog issue prior to having the writs filed. She raised this concern with the Ohio Supreme Court, which immediately formed a committee to review Hunter and William’s cases. The court was primarily concerned about William’s inaccurate monthly reports sent to the Ohio Supreme Court. When cases involve objections, judges are required to do “more than when ruling on a mere motion” and in “the ruling on objections to a magistrate’s decision, the judge is required to undertake an independent review as to any objected matters” (See Exhibit 5). This process is extensive and cannot be expeditiously ruled on when the custody of children are involved because the judge is expected to read the entire transcript, hear oral arguments, and read and review exhibits that accompany the case. Interviews with a research respondent revealed that the court staff was incapable of performing basic court duties, such as court entries. “It is the duty of Court Administer to keep everything running smoothly”, however when Judge Hunter presided in her role as Judge she didn’t have the benefit of access to the Court Administrator. Court entries contained numerous  10 spelling errors, incorrect grammar, and inaccurate information. This is reflected in the email sent to Judge Williams (See Exhibit 3) where Judge Hunter expressed that they “conduct an independent audit of every case” as a result of: Discovering that Juvenile Court lacks consistent operating procedures and rules of practices in many areas of law. In an effort to clean up these inconsistent practices and applications of the law, I diligently work late every night, and am consistently the last to leave the building, to provide consistent and constructive application of the law, rules and procedures for the Magistrates to follow below. This will ultimately reduce the number of Objections. (para.5). Opposing Argument Regarding Backlog of Cases On March 14, 2014 Raymond T. Faller a lawyer from Hamilton County Public Defenders Office, Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, Ernest W. Lee, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appelle Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services, Kimberly A. Helfrich, for Appellee Guardian Ad Litem. and Hugh P. McCloskey Jr. for Appelle Mother requested a judgment for a reverse and cause remanded claiming that Judge Hunter “ was required by her court’s rules to review a decision made by a magistrate” ( Kimball, 2014, para. 5). According to court documents, the magistrate awarded custody to HCJFS on June 14, 2012, where the mother filed an objection. During the conclusion, Judge Hunter stated that a judgment would be entered within 60 days but that did not happen. A writ of procedendo was issued on September 18th, 2013 “ordering the trial court to enter judgment in the case by October 16th 2013. A  11 ruling came on October 18th, 2013 that agreed with the magistrate’s decision because the mother’s counsel did not present a strong enough case in her legal arguments. According to a news article: Hunter eventually ruled, two days after the appeals court ordered her to and 11 months after she held the first hearing. Her ruling, though, blasted the mother’s attorney for not presenting a better defense. More importantly, Hunter admitted in that decision that she did “not have time to rectify the shortcomings of Mother’s legal arguments” (Perry, 2014, para. 8). The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that “Judge Hunter came under fire”, which implied the decision “was a violation of juvenile court rules” due to errors of law and defects found in the case. If errors of law and defects are found, the presiding judge cannot adopt the decision of the magistrate and must review the case. Judge Hunter expressed that she was not given adequate time on the case as the case lingered in the system before Judge Hunter’s arrival. According to Sup. R. 40 (B), found in Exhibit 4: Each judge shall report to the administrative judge decisions that have not been ruled upon within the applicable time period. The administrative judge shall confer with the judge who has motions pending beyond the applicable time period and shall determine the reasons for the delay on the rulings. If the administrative judge determines that there is no just cause for the delay, the administrative judge shall seek to rectify the delay within sixty days. If the delay is not rectified within sixty days, the  12 administrative judge shall report the delay to the Case Management Section of the Supreme Court (p. 2). In Exhibit 4, Judge Hunter communicated her concerns regarding the allegations made against her by Judge Williams, the Administrative Judge, by declaring that Judge Williams commenced an independent review of her cases without notifying her or even attempting to make contact with her. She stated that she made a concerted effort to work alongside Judge Williams “to provide a more accurate picture of the entire problem” (p. 2), but he continued to ignore her request for a meeting and only communicated with her through third party affiliates. Part of Hunter’s concern is that Williams released reports to the media regarding his independent review of her cases and continued to place blame on her for the backlog cases, even after it was revealed and acknowledged by the Ohio Supreme Court that the entire system and database had been flawed for several years, prior to Hunter’s arrival. The Heart of the Matter Prior to running for juvenile court judge, Hunter had been a practicing Attorney in the juvenile justice system. She ran for Juvenile Court Judge because she saw an opportunity to effect change. As a pastor and a journalist, Hunter had dedicated her life to improving the lives of children and the local community. And, as a lawyer practicing in the juvenile court, Hunter felt that the juvenile court system was ripe for such change, and she believed that this is where she could make the biggest difference. Hunter was sensitive to the plight of children, as evidenced by the many letters she wrote and statements she made publicly (Hunter, 2013). She believed in the stated objectives of the  13 juvenile court system, which is designed to rehabilitate, yet as an attorney, she found that the Hamilton County Juvenile Court to be more punitive than policy dictated. Hunter had never been in any kind of trouble herself, in fact she’d never even seen the inside of a principal’s office or had a detention in all her years growing up (Hunter, 2013); so the problem of a disproportionate number of African American children (more than 80% of those served) in the court system was an issue that tremendously concerned Hunter; as was this tremendous attack and slew of lawsuits against her (Hunter, 2013). Judge Hunter organized nearly 200 prayer walks through Cincinnati’s toughest neighborhoods to combat crime. Guidepost Magazine documented that in April 2002, a prayer walk she coordinated with over 1000 people prevented a violent uprising during the 2001 civil unrest in Cincinnati. Before joining the court, Hunter served as a guardian ad litem with ProKids and worked as a contract attorney with the public defender's office. She had previously worked in several halfway houses for juvenile offenders. Hunter ran had also ran her own practice since 1994. As a judge, she saw the opportunity to actively engage in a process to ensure change in the lives of young people by ensuring that the constitution was applied to all children and families fairly (Hunter, 2013). Hunter became the first Democrat to be elected to her seat as judge in what had traditionally been a Republican ran court system. Traditionally, Hamilton County Judges have always been initially appointed to their seat and only required to run as an incumbent to hold their seat in subsequent elections. Not only was Hunter not appointed to her seat, but she beat Dan Donnellon, the endorsed Democratic candidate by 10,000 votes to win the Democratic primary. She was also not endorsed by The Cincinnati Enquirer, the City’s largest newspaper. They endorsed John Williams, the Republican  14 candidate in the Juvenile Court Judicial race. It is important to note that the Juvenile Court Judgeship was the second most powerful seat in Hamilton County (next to the Sheriff’s office), with oversight of a nearly $30 million budget, approximately 400 employees, the ability to hire magistrates (who sit in the seat of a judge), and decision making authority in over 14,400 juvenile cases. Hunter was trapped between competing paradigms of power and politics, especially relative to statutory law and practical application of the law. Hunter had a keen understanding of the law, but her challenges came in the form of the semantics, and not the law itself. According to the law, Hunter was should have rightfully been entitled to possess the power that the office of Judge held. However, her opponents found numerous loopholes in order to prevent Hunter from operating effectively in her role as judge. Hunter was elected by the Hamilton County citizens to be a change agent, yet her opponents appeared to be determined to prevent change by way of a strategic and organized effort and a series of attacks launched against her. While the intention of this case is to explore the issue of the backlog of cases in Hamilton County, important issues concerning significant policy changes and changes to standard operating procedures took place over the 18 months that Hunter’s Judgeship hanged in the balance. From the time Hunter was declared the real winner in the election, there were rumblings of swift changes to policy, which appeared to be aimed at disempowering Hunter in her role as judge. On May 14, 2012, approximately 11 days before Hunter was sworn in, Judge Williams, also new to the bench, received Supreme Court approval to change Rules 3 & 4 of the Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio (See Appendix C). This change modified the service date interpretation to mean  15 who was in the judicial seat first as opposed to who was elected to the office first. What this meant is that despite the fact that Judge Williams appointment came after Hunter was elected Judge, he would automatically assume the role of Administrative Judge if he and Hunter couldn’t agree on who would be Administrative Judge. The rule had always had a rotating provision saying that whichever judge was the Administrative Judge the previous year, the judges would rotate the following year. The new rules omitted the rotating clause, so that Judge Williams would always assume the role of Administrative Judge, which according to the previous rule of seniority should have rightfully belonged to Judge Hunter, since she was elected to her seat in November 2010 and Williams was appointed to the other seat in November 2011, with the sudden retirement of Judge Karla Grady; a move which ended her judgeship several months before her term was scheduled to end. Generally, a change of this nature to Rules of Superintendence would entail a public comment process. This policy change, however, did not go through the public comment process, nor was it a change made by judges at the Ohio Supreme court level. This change was made by staff members of the Supreme Court (See Rules Of Superintendence For The Courts Of Ohio). Subsequent to this change, a new employment manual was also released (Source: Research Respondent). The Juvenile court employee manual had not been updated since 1992. Of the several changes to the manual, the majority of them gave more authority to the Administrative Judge. The new manual gave the Administrative Judge and the Court Administrator complete oversight of the court and in cases of disagreement, decision making power. According to the new manual, final decision would fall in the hands of the judge with the most seniority (Source: Research Respondent). In accordance with the  16 recent articulation of the term ‘seniority’ by Supreme Court Staffers, Williams would become the Administrative Judge. In a final move to remove the power of the judgeship from the hands of Judge Hunter, Hamilton County voted to privatize Hillcrest Training Center, the Juvenile Detention Center in Hamilton County. The for-profit organization, Rite of Passage, Inc. filed to operate in Ohio on November 22, 2011, six months before Hunter was sworn in. Hamilton County Commissioners voted to privatize the Training Center on April 20th, only five days before Hunter’s swearing in. 11 months after presiding on the bench, Hunter found herself engaged in a heated battle, with numerous lawsuits filed against her by the Prosecutors Office; The Hamilton County Public Defender's Office; The Cincinnati Enquirer, the local newspaper; and the Hamilton County Commissioner. In May 2013, Hunter attempted to impact the traditional nepotistic hiring and firing practices in the county when she refused to sign off on Judge Williams Chief of Security selection. Hunter was concerned that the process had not been open to other suitable candidates. The hiring was delayed for only a short time frame. In January, 2014, immediately after the prosecutor filed nine charges against Hunter on what the respondent called, “several trumped up charges”, which included a charge for backdating cases”, Hunter was removed from the bench. Judge Williams told her to remove her things from her office and to turn in her keys; within days, the decision was made to move forward with the hiring of the sole candidate for Chief of Security (Source: Research Respondent). According to research respondent, Williams immediately went to work in an attempt to clean up Hamilton County’s messes. It was suggested by a research respondent that the water main break and concurrent flood that allegedly happened inside  17 the building might have been part of that clean-up effort, “Who knows what went on in that building on January 7, 2014 and the several days following when the court staff, including Judge Hunter was not allowed to even enter the building…wouldn’t it be convenient for certain documents to disappear…the flood mysteriously happened on the same day Judge Hunter was suspended”. There were numerous challenges to Hunters authority, within her first 5 months on the bench, Hamilton County Commissioner Greg Hartmann filed a lawsuit against Hunter on October 18, 2012, for ordering that the county hire Wende G. Cross as a Court Administrator to assist her. Hartmann told FOX19 News. "She's got no right to file that order. She's not the presiding judge. It's a shame we can't work this out like adults" (Fox19 Staff Reporter, 2012). In a statement explaining why Hamilton County had to take what he called an unprecedented act in the history of the county in suing a Hamilton County Judge, Hartman cited budgetary reasons for not hiring an Administrator. Hunter questioned the county’s willingness to spend $106,000 to hire a much needed Court Administrator to assist her, versus their willingness to spend $2,000,000 to keep her out of office (Fox19 Staff Reporter, 2012). In April 2013, Hunter also attempted to impact change by stopping the practice of shackling children in her courtroom. Shackling restarted after Hunter’s suspension. In March of 2014 The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Ohio asked the state’s Supreme Court to strike down the shackling of children in a courtroom. This request came after a 14-year-old girl charged with a non-violent drug offense was shackled in Hamilton County Juvenile Court. The ACLU requested that the court adopt the policy that already exists for adults in Hamilton County, of first holding a hearing to determine  18 if it is necessary. “This child is 5-foot-2. She has been charged with a non-violent offense, and she has no prior criminal record,” said ACLU of Ohio Senior Staff Attorney Jennifer Martinez Atzberger. “A judge should be looking at facts like these to determine whether children really need to be locked in chains to keep court personnel safe” (WCPO Staff Reporter, 2014). According to Atzberger, “the court forced the girl to appear in full body shackles despite a motion filed by her attorney requesting that she be allowed to appear unrestrained”. “Right now, courts in Ohio are doing to children what it is illegal to do to adults…These hearings are not just a formality; they are an essential part of due process under the law. As adults, we demand these rights. Children deserve no less” (WCPO Staff Reporter, 2014). Hunter’s next initiative was to stop media from printing the names and pictures of accused juvenile offenders, as the practice of printing juvenile names and faces was against the law according to the rules that were already in place in Hamilton County. In several public venues Hunter expressed her belief that not only was printing juvenile’s names and faces against the law, but by ignoring the law the media was in direct opposition to the effort to rehabilitate children. Putting the names of 12 year old children in the newspaper in this electronic age is certainly not instrumental in reforming children and does not afford them the opportunity to become productive citizens. The move on Hunter’s part to stop putting certain details concerning juvenile defendants in the paper resulted in a law suit filed against Hunter by the Cincinnati Enquirer to force her to release the juvenile’s information and to allow the media access to her courtroom. Media was subsequently allowed in the courtroom, but they were not allowed to broadcast, film, photograph, or record courtroom proceedings.  19 The major shift in the case came when Hunter discovered that there were discrepancies between her actual case statistics and what was being reported to the Supreme Court of Ohio on regular bases, via the Juvenile Courts computer software. The changes Hunter was making disrupted the status quo; however these efforts by Hunter invoked warfare tactics by her opponents on a whole new level. At first, it seems that Hunter was seen as a mere irritant, but when she began to look at this issue more closely, it seemed that significant and immediate efforts to remove her from her judicial seat began to surface (Source: Research Respondent). Hunter was clearly aware that she would confront challenges in her role, especially if she was going to make any meaningful change. She just couldn’t imagine the extent to which her opposition would stoop to ensure that her efforts would be in vain (Hunter, 2013). After discovering that there were inaccuracies in the reports that Hamilton County was sending to the Ohio Supreme Court, Hunter was faced with the decision of whether to challenge the issue or to turn a blind eye to it, as court employees suggested that she do. Motive, Means, and Opportunity What did Hamilton County stand to gain by misrepresenting the data it was reporting to the Supreme Court? The Ohio Supreme Court’s website states: By analyzing case filing patterns and trends, the Ohio Supreme Court attempts to assist in the efficient administration of justice at all levels of the judiciary. We do not, however, examine or analyze larger social and governmental trends that may contribute to or influence changes in case filing volumes. What the data can tell those who work in  20 the court system is how to better allocate their resources given the current case volume. In addition, providing reliable, transparent and accessible data on the courts assists in enhancing public trust and confidence in the judicial branch. In Hunter’s letter to Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender and former Prosecutor, on September 9, 2014, Hunter expressed her concerns about the treatment of children and families of color: Children and families of color and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals make up the majority of those impacted by the arbitrary application of systems throughout this Court. I am discovering that inconsistent application of rules and procedures coupled with a flawed reporting system, that has yet to be corrected take time, but I am committed to making necessary changes one case at a time. If it takes longer on the front end to review cases, which are often flawed with procedural defects that slow the process; it is in the best interest of justice and equality for the families and children we serve, not only to render a decision in the interest of speed, but to render a decision in the interest of justice (Perry, 2013). It would appear that in accordance with the Supreme Courts intentions in collecting the data that resources would be allocated in a way that would ensure fairness in allocating support and assistance to Judges with larger caseloads. The two primary types of data that the Supreme Court collects are clearance rates and overage rates.  21 Clearance rates measure how well a court keeps up with its incoming caseload. A clearance rate of 100 percent means a court terminated over a given time period exactly as many cases as it took in during that same time period. If a court’s clearance rate is regularly less than 100 percent over an extended period of time, the court will develop a backlog because the pace of incoming cases exceeds the pace of outgoing cases. The overage rate is a measure of the size of a court’s backlog, the extent to which a court’s pending caseload lags past applicable time standards, or, is overage. In short, this is the measure the court uses to determine efficiency and effectiveness of a courts judges and magistrates. The Hamilton County Juvenile Courts annual report states, “One of the most fundamental measures of a Court's efficiency is its ability to keep up with its incoming caseload. If cases are not disposed in a timely manner a backlog of cases will be created. Court's should aspire to clear (i.e. dispose of) at least as many cases as have been filed or reopened in a year by having a clearance rate of 100 percent or higher.” Presenting bad data to the Supreme Court can give the appearance that a judge or a court is less effective than they actually are. Over time, the Hamilton County Juvenile Court has boasted a clearance rate of 100%. In 2012, no clearance rate was reported and in 2013 the clearance rate was 99% (The Supreme Court of Ohio, 2013). The question that arises relative to Hunter’s larger caseload is to what extent there may have been the prevalence of ‘Judge Shopping’. Judge Shopping can occur in cases where parties to a case will file an appeal believing that a particular judge might be more sympathetic or rule more fairly in their case, based on the political orientation of that  22 judge. At the time of filing in juvenile court, each case is assigned a letter which determines which judge the case would be assigned to if an appeal is filed. So, if the outcome of a magistrate’s decision is unfavorable to an attorney’s client, they might be more inclined to file an appeal knowing that it would end up in the hands of a judge who might share the same race or ethnic background or one who is known to be an advocate for children and civil rights. Hunter had clearly articulated her stance on ensuring that every child and family be treated fairly and that their constitutional rights are upheld. According to Hunter, her intent in taking her time to review cases supported this effort. Upon reviewing cases, she said: “I am discovering that families are being held to a higher standard than the agencies who remove children based on defective complaints and case plans that do not purport to the law. Often times, there are so many issues I uncover on review that I have to piece together and review entire trial histories that should have taken months, but took years to adjudicate. This is a time consuming process’’ (The Cincinnati Herald Staff Reporter, 2013) In a heartfelt letter to her supporters and friends released to the media on February 3, 2014, Hunter wrote: “I did not wake up one day out of the blue and become a criminal. My crime was having faith in the people working around me in juvenile court and trusting that they shared the same goals as me; to rehabilitate children, restore families; and ensure that laws were applied equitably and justly to all...While I was literally working night and day to ensure that: All parties were treated fairly; decisions were just; children were treated humanely;  23 hiring practices were equal; and changes were implemented to reduce the school to prison pipeline, they were working just as hard, apparently harder, to get my judicial seat back, by any means necessary…As the first African-American to be in an Administrative Judgeship in Hamilton County, that determined hiring decisions; co-managed over 30 million dollar budget; and determined court contracts, that was simply too much power for one woman like me to have” (Hunter, 2014). Nepotism and Cronyism in the County Ironically, in September 2013, Hunter, who was leading the charge for an audit of all of Hamilton County Juvenile Court caseload, was charged with felony charges alleging that she or someone in her command backdated electronic court records, reportedly as attempts to keep her rulings from being overturned (Ward, 2014). In a memorandum to Joseph Deters dated September 13, 2013, concerning the Backdating of entries of final appealable orders in Juvenile Court, Bill Breyer wrote: “We have had problems in the past getting timely notice of the filing of final appealable orders from Judge Tracie Hunter’s courtroom. As a result, we have tried to appeal. During this process we have recently identified two cases in which it appears appealable orders have been backdated…..We have an affidavit from PROWARE, the software provider for Juvenile Court, that Judge Hunter’s entry of 7/23/2013 was computer generated on 8/22/2013, and backdated to July 22, 2013. The way the Juvenile Court system functions requires that in order to get the entry at issue to appear chronologically, as in this case, required a deliberate act to backdating through use of a  24 date override function on the Juvenile Court’s IT system….One final point- we have a copy of an audiotape message left by Judge Hunter’s staff on defense attorney Ravert J. “Jay” Clark’s voicemail regarding his case, In re: I.D. In it the caller attempts to deceive Mr. Clark about the date the call was made. The answering machine “time called” function exposes this act of dishonesty. At the time this letter was written, Hunter had only been on the bench for 15 months, yet the letter is written as though this problem of getting final appealable orders had been an ongoing problem with Hunter. Additionally, prior to drafting this letter to the prosecutor Breyer had already collected evidence, and collected affidavits. The problem with these charges is that numerous people have access to the courts computer system and could potentially electronically alter records. And, considering how ferociously Hunter’s adversaries have come after her, to assume that they would stop at nothing is certainly not a foregone conclusion. Hunter was also accused of using a county-issued credit card to pay court fees stemming from lawsuits against her. These felony charges came at the height of positive resolution for Hunter in the case of the previous allegations against her accusing her of having numerous cases pending beyond time. At the time of this case study (May 2014), the case is still pending in the Ohio Supreme Court, however, these charges again raise suspicion concerning the motivation of the Prosecutor in alleging wrongdoing on Hunters part. The charges stem from Hunter filing her own answers after Special Prosecutors appointed by the Prosecutor failed to represent her in her official capacity as judge. In challenging the inner-workings of the court, it appeared that Hunter had stepped on the wrong toes and soon the realization of just how much nepotism existed in  25 the court system began to come into full view. Prior to the election of Judge Hunter and the appointment of John Williams, the mother-in-law of the Prosecutor Joe Deters, Sylvia Hendon was a Juvenile Court Judge. Joe Deters, Prosecutor, is married to Melissa Hendon Deters. Sylvia Hendon sits on Ohio's 1st District Court of Appeals in Hamilton County. When Deters sues Judge Hunter, the cases go to his mother-in-law's court. Interestingly enough, when the charges were brought against Hunter by the Cincinnati Enquirer and for the backlog of cases, Joe Deters refused to allow Hunter to hire a private attorney, stating that this was a county matter and not a personal matter. Even when Attorneys stepped forward, willing to represent the judge pro bono – at no cost to the county tax payers, the First District Court of Appeals, where Deters mother-in- law is the Presiding Judge, ruled that “these attorneys could not represent Judge Hunter because the civil lawsuits were a court issue and not personal”. This begs the question as to why charges were filed against Hunter for using her court issued credit card to pay for filing fees that were technically according to this ruling was used for legitimate official Hamilton County Juvenile Court business. Additionally, The First District Court of Appeals ruled that the office staff of Prosecutor Joe Deters had to defend Judge Hunter. Judge Hunter protested this ruling based on conflict of interest. Deters was the same man who was responsible for trying to keep votes from being counted after Hunters 2010 Juvenile Court Judicial race and as Hunter stated in a letter to Hamilton County Commissioner, Todd Portune, dated October 14, 2013, “It is inherently unjust, unconstitutional, and unethical that the same individual who abruptly terminated his representation of me as Judge, without notice and in non-compliance with the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, hand-picked the attorneys that now represent me”, but there  26 appears to be a greater conflict of interest that should be noted. After Judge Hunter filed to have Joe Deters removed as council in the cases against her in her official capacity as judge, Joe Deters personally selected the two defense attorneys who would subsequently represent Judge Hunter. Neither of these attorneys have experience in the area of law that forms the basis of the lawsuits against Judge Hunter. Firooz T. Namei specializes in Immigration, Criminal, Personal Injury, Domestic Relations and Vaccine-injury litigation. James Bogen specializes in DUI and Criminal Defense litigation. The civil lawsuits against Judge Hunter necessitate attorneys that specialize in Juvenile and Constitutional Law litigation. Moreover, after the complaint to Hamilton County Commissioner Todd Portune that neither of them bothered to file answers to her cases and allowed default judgments to be automatically granted, Bishop Bobby Hilton and Cecil Thomas, representing The Greater Cincinnati Chapter of The National Action Network (GCCNAN) requested that the Hamilton County Commissioners investigate whether the Attorneys, Namei and Bogen, after charging taxpayers $50,000 to represent Hunter did indeed neglect to file answers on her behalf. Bishop Hilton confirmed, after looking into the matter, that Portune found that indeed they had not filed any responses to her cases. Hunter questioned “How do experienced, competent lawyers allow multiple complaints to lapse without filing answers or fail to seek the vacation of such writs inappropriately granted?” This situation forced Hunter to represent herself in these matters, leading to the felony charges filed by Prosecutor Joe Deters for unauthorized use of her credit card. Deters selected his own personal attorney’s, Merlyn Shiverdecker and R. Scott Croswell III, as Special Prosecutors in bringing the nine felony charges against Judge  27 Hunter in January of 2014. Shiverdecker and Croswell represented Deters in a bribery case in 2003. It was reported by the Enquirer Columbus Bureau that two of Joe Deters (while he was State Treasurer) top associates pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges involving campaign fund raising. The news media outlet reported that Deters chief-of- staff Matthew Borges “gave preferential treatment to certain brokers who made contributions to Deters' re-election campaign” and former fund-raiser Eric Sagun pleaded guilty to one count of election law violations. Court documents said he solicited a $50,000 donation from Cleveland broker Frank Gruttadauria in December 2001 for the Hamilton County Republican Party when the two intended the money to benefit Deters' re-election campaign. At the time Gruttadauria was raising money for Deters and the Hamilton County Republican Party (Siegel, 2004). He has admitted masking the donation to Deters by running it through the county party's operating fund - a secret account that can accept unlimited, undisclosed donations. He also admitted to repaying clients and employees $7,000 for donations they made to Deters' campaign. The article explains that “SG Cowen Corp. and Lehman Brothers Inc. hired Gruttadauria, and from 1999 to 2001 they did a combined $5.9 billion in investment trades with Deters' office”. Essentially what happened is that “Borges used the power of his office to gain favorable treatment for vendors that did business with the office," Sammon said (Siegel, 2004). The Role of Judge Understanding the history of a case is important in the ability of a judge to make a ruling in a case. Juvenile court judges probably have the hardest job of any judge. They are making life changing decisions on almost every case they work on. In delinquency  28 cases a judge is making decisions on cases that can impact a child for the rest of their lives. In dependency cases judges are making a decision that will impact an entire family; they have to decide whether a child will be permanently removed from their homes. Judges also have the responsibility of reviewing someone else’s (Magistrates) work. Some of the backlogged cases have been in the Hamilton County Juvenile Court over a span of twenty years. In dependency cases judges are supposed to make a determination of dependency within 90 days. There are cases where a trial has taken 4-5 years, in dependency cases there are guardian ad litem’s involved, Jobs and Family Services, both parents have a lawyer, the child has a lawyer and whenever there is a hearing Jobs and Family Services has to put together a case plan with the court. Oftentimes, these case plans aren’t filed or aren’t filed in a timely manner. There are also times when investigations aren’t done in a timely manner. These are integral to the ability of a judge to make a decision in a case. A Judge’s job does not happen in a vacuum. Court procedures requires the coordination of numerous schedules of relevant parties to a case and sometimes a case can take years to get to a Judge on appeal, and after it has reached the Judge, pages and pages of history must be reviewed; all contributing to the time it takes to decide on a case. The Public Defender’s Office represents people who are indigent and people who cannot afford to hire private legal counsel. The majority of all dependency cases are handled by a public defender. There are a very small number of lawyers assigned to dependency cases, so whenever you have a hearing it might take months to get the case before the judge. With the same small pool of Attorney’s handling dependency cases, it often took several months to coordinate their schedules and get a court date and even  29 when a court date was schedule, transcripts are often not completed in a timely manner. The law allows 90 days for the completion of a transcript, but these are rarely completed within the proper time frame. According to court officials, there are times that transcripts have taken two years or more to complete. In one instance, it was reported that a case that had been inherited from a judge who sat on the bench previously. It took so long to transcribe the case that, when the Bailiff inquired about it a year later, it still had not been completed. It had taken the court reporter so long to transcribe the case that she just stopped working on it and moved on to other cases. Hunter was a new judge and came to her seat with little to no endorsements. Having been elected to her seat, Hunter was a rarity. Like Williams, most Judges followed the path of becoming a prosecutor before being appointed to judgeship. It is rarity for a Democratic judge to be elected in Hamilton County. A Municipal Judge could win a seat with 30,000 to 40,000 votes; however Hunter had to amass 120,000 votes to win her seat as Juvenile Court Judge. She was the first African American judge to win a seat in a countywide election. Every other judge was appointed to their seat, and only had to run to hold their seat. Most Republican judges have run unopposed in Hamilton County. In fact, there was speculation when Susanna Meyer, former Republican Attorney, dropped out of the 2014 juvenile court judicial race as a Democrat against John Williams, she did so because she was either threatened, bribed, or secretly working with the Republican Party to ensure that in dropping out of the race at the late date that no other Democrat could run. Susannah Meyer had become known in the community when she spoke out against the flawed juvenile court system. Meyer said she “dropped out of the race in April because of a better position to effect positive changes in  30 the juvenile justice system” (Coolidge, 2014). Meyer didn’t say what that position was, but there was speculation that switching parties and running for Juvenile Court Judge may have simply been an insurance policy by the Republican Party to ensure that Williams won his seat in November’s election. The judiciary in Hamilton County is controlled by Republican judges; especially in the Common Pleas Court. The majority of Democratic judges are Municipal court judges. Common Pleas Judges work for the Ohio Supreme Court, Municipal Court Judges work for the county. Final Policy Maneuvers In the latest move, presumably to ensure that the judiciary never falls in the hands of another African American Democrat, Republican Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor began to mobilize support for changing how judges are selected. Although O’Connor was asked about the recent indictment of Hamilton County Juvenile Court Judge Tracie Hunter, she declined comment on the case. But the chief justice said: Criminal indictment of any judge emphasizes the need for greater public education and involvement when choosing judges”. “I think it’s evidence we need to have better information before the public before they elect members of the judiciary… Most judges don’t let their personal beliefs influence their rulings…Judges can only make their decisions on the facts presented in court...There is no such thing as a Republican judge or a Democratic judge…if that is the case, I’m sorry but you’re violating your oath of office and you should hang up your robe. I feel very strongly about that (Osbourne, 2014).  31 Among the possible changes to the way judges are elected, the committee is proposing the following:  Rotating the order of state offices on the ballot, so judges aren’t listed last;  Moving state and county judicial elections to odd-numbered years, where they may get more attention away from high-profile races like president, Congress and governor;  Eliminating party affiliation in primary elections for judicial candidates, and switch to an open primary system;  Centralizing and expanding public education about how the judicial system operates, including creating a database listing the qualifications and experience of all candidates; and  Increasing the basic qualifications needed to run for a judgeship. Currently, a person in Ohio only has to have been a practicing attorney for six years. Public attitudes suggest some change is needed. Epilogue by Vanessa Enoch I chose to study this case, as I had acted as a Consultant to Judge Hunter many years ago, prior to her running for juvenile court judge. She was a practicing attorney and operated the local gospel radio station at the time. Ms. Hunter was well known in the community for leading prayer vigils throughout the city and for promoting peace and non-violence. I met Ms. Hunter on one of those prayer vigils in the Over-the-Rhine neighborhood in Cincinnati during the height of the civil unrest in 2001. This particular vigil was organized by my pastor, Damon Lynch, III. Ms. Hunter was instrumental in  32 getting the word out to the community on her radio station and she helped to pass out water and walked the streets of ground zero as we prayed with the youth, who were enraged by the killing of 15 unarmed black men in Cincinnati. In working with Ms. Hunter in an effort to secure a $500,000 grant to fund a workforce development training program designed to provide youth and adults with a skill-set in radio and television, my experience was that she was very detail oriented, no non-sense, stern and by the book. She had a tremendous concern for children and wanted to ensure that the program provided them with a transferable skill-set they could use in their future careers. I was aware that Ms. Hunter had decided to run for juvenile court judge, but at the time I was teaching at four colleges and I had very little time for political involvement. Although I rarely watched television, I paid close attention to the news surrounding the issues of voter suppression during the election. To me, the voter suppression issues were Cincinnati’s rendition of the “hanging chad”. I was further interested in studying the Hunter case when accusations of backlogged cases arose, as I knew Ms. Hunter to be very conscientious about deadlines and in having worked with her, it was very difficult to imagine the validity of these claims. I wanted to learn more. I could not have imagined all that I would come to learn in having researched this case. In the course of writing and editing the finalized case study, I decided to visit the courthouse for the first time during the pre-trial hearings surrounding the nine felony charges against Hunter. Upon entering the courtroom, the deputy notified everyone that cell phones and electronic devices were not allowed in the courtroom, and if we needed to use them we had to step outside in the hall to do so. Upon entering the courtroom, the judge reiterated his statement that they must be used in the hallway, outside of the  33 courtroom. Ironically, there were numerous television cameras in the courtroom. Hunter’s attorney was arguing for a change of venue and presented evidence that Prosecutor Joe Deters, who had previously brought several charges against Hunter, had a conflict of interest in selecting the special prosecutors in the case. The special prosecutors had made donations to Deters campaign and were currently representing him in his divorce. This was extremely problematic, as Deters had recused himself from prosecuting the case due to his own conflicts of interest. Even more shocking was the fact that the special prosecutors were working for an un-named sum of money at the tax- payers expense, as they admitted in court that they had not yet determined how much they would be billing the county for their services. After the hearing, I waited in the hallway and watching everyone exiting the courtroom, hoping to get a picture of the six to eight members of the Nation of Islam, who said they were there to provide protection to Judge Hunter, since on the previous court date she was viciously attacked by a crazed reporter by the name of Kimball Perry. I’d come across numerous articles by Perry during my research of the case. The unprofessional manner in which he covered the case caused me to ignore his coverage of the events, as his accounts seemed like a personal vendetta and a smear campaign, rather than the unbiased coverage one would expect from the media. In an interesting turn of events, a white man who had come out of the courtroom drawing an unusual amount of attention to himself, began yelling and motioning to the police and the cameramen, “he has an iPad!!!” I looked around the hall to find about 20 people holding iPads, myself included. I didn’t understand the nature of what was happening, since the judge had made it clear that electronic devices were not allowed in  34 the courtroom and a sign attesting to that fact was prominently displayed on the door of his courtroom. There were no signs in the hallway, and to my knowledge no such rule governed the hallways. But, I immediately put my iPad away, to ensure that if there was a rule I was unaware of, I would not be breaking the law. I must have appeared suspect in whatever crime this individual felt the man had violated, because before I knew it, I was being called back down the hall and on the same day the Supreme Court ruled that a search warrant must be obtained to search a cell-phone or an electronic device, I found myself being threatened by deputies with an arrest if I didn’t unlock my iPad to be searched. Despite the fact that I rendered my iPad for searching, I was quickly arrested along with the man who I later found out was Avery Corbin, Judge Hunter’s former court bailiff. The law enforcement officers seemed to know him and he made it clear that he had a personal ax to grind with Mr. Avery. The officer, on the other hand, did not know me, and seemed to simply be out to prove his authority over me as a civilian, who he and the news media presumed to be one of Judge Hunter’s supporters. I later found out that the man who was stirring up the commotion was the notorious obsessed news reporter, Kimball Perry. I was charged with disorderly conduct and failure to provide identification. I should mention that there were numerous videotapes that will attest to the fact that I never raised my voice or became disorderly in anyway, and that I was arrested before I was ever given the opportunity to produce an ID. Although I never identified myself as a supporter, the idea that this type of treatment was reserved for one of Hunter’s supporters at the hands of Hamilton County seems reprehensible to me. I was never read my rights and while being held for nearly an hour, I was refused  35 the right to use the restroom after about 7 “femininely urgent” requests of 5 different deputies. I was told that I had to wait until a female officer came back from lunch to take me to restroom. 5 minutes after asking one officer, he un-cuffed the white female seated next to me and took her to the restroom. When they returned, I again asked if I could go, and the officer again informed me that I would have to wait until a female officer returned from lunch. I was never allowed to go to the restroom, even after asking upon the return of a female officer. I was also never asked if I was a member of the media, and it was only after the officers couldn’t find any warrants, no record of arrests, no criminal record, and no association with any insurgent groups, that they asked what I was doing there. I told them I was there for my Ph.D. case study, to which the officer responded “you people are going to learn when I tell you to do something, you just do it”. When I inquired of which request I was non-compliant, he said “I had to threaten you with an arrest to open your iPad”. He was right, I did initially refuse to open my iPad, because I was confused about why I was being asked to do so, and I felt that opening it was a violation of my right to privacy. The day after the court date and my criminal iPad arrest, 3 young white twenty- something’s, wanting to prove their privilege, took to the streets toting assault weapons on their backs, while walking through a neighborhood in Cincinnati yelling racial slurs and obscenities at black residents. One of their friends video recorded the entire incident, which shows them being briefly stopped by police officers, who allowed them to continue on their way, proudly displaying their assault rifles and continuing the business of yelling racial insults at black passersby.  36 It is sad when an educated African American woman, carrying an iPad in the hallway of a courthouse, poses a greater threat to society, than young white subversives carrying assault weapons through the streets of a metropolitan city yelling racial slurs. I suppose this scenario most accurately defines the racial climate in Hamilton County and the structural dynamics inherent in the system for which Cincinnati has been historically known for.  37 References Cincinnati Herald Staff Reporter. (2013, August 2013). Hunter requests independent audit of Juvenile Court backlog. Cincinnati, Ohio. Coolidge, S. (2014, April 25). Civil rights lawyer attempts juvenile court run. Retrieved April 25, 2014, from Cincinnati.com: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/04/25/civ il-rights-lawyer-attempts-juvenile-court-run/8169861/ Fox19 Staff Reporter. (2012, 18 2014). Judge orders county to hire employee, gets sued. Cincinnati, Ohio. Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA, Law Firm. (2013, December 2). Ohio Supreme Court today receives evidence that Juvenile Court Judge Tracie M. Hunter had issued timely decisions [Press release]. Retrieved April 13, 2014, from http://www.gbfirm.com/judge-tracie-m-hunter-provides-evidence-of-timely- decisions/ Hamilton County Juvenile Court. (n.d.). Tracie M. Hunter Judge. Retrieved April 4, 2014, from http://www.hamilton-co.org/juvenilecourt/Judges/HunterBio.asp Hunter, T. (2013, September 9). Re: Judge Tracie M. Hunter's response to case backlog in Hamilton County Juvenile Court [Letter to Stephanie Hess, Esq.]. Hamilton County Juvenile Court, Cincinnati, OH. Kimball, P. (2014, March 14). Court blasts indicted Judge Hunter. Cincinnati Enquire. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/courts/2014/03/14/court-blasts-judge- hunter/6412261/  38 Osbourne, K. (2014, January 10). Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice: Time to change how judges elected. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from WCPO: http://www.wcpo.com/news/political/local-politics/ohio-supreme-court- chief-justice-time-to-change-how-judges-elected Rules Of Superintendence For The Courts Of Ohio. http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/LegalResources/Rules/superintendenc e/Superintendence.pdf Siegel, J. (2004, July 28). Deters cleared, aides guilty: Treasurer's former chief of staff and fund-raiser plead. Columbus, Ohio. State of Ohio ex Rel., Klarysa, Benge, Relator v. Judge Tracie M. Hunter, Respondent, 1 (Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County October 11, 2013). State Of Ohio Ex Rel., Megan Shahan-Beck ,Appelle v. Judge Tracie M. Hunter, Appellant, 1 (September 18, 2013). The Cincinnati Herald Staff Reporter. (2013, August 22). The Cincinnati Herald. Retrieved May 10, 2014, from TheCincinnatiHerald.com: http://thecincinnatiherald.beta.lionheartdms.com/news/2013/aug/22/hunt er-requests-independent-audit-juvenile-court-b/ Ward, S. F. (2014, January 10). Judge faces felony charges: Prosecutors say she backdated court records, misused county credit card. Retrieved May 2, 2014, from Law News Now: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge_faces_8_felony_charges_for _allegedly_backdating_court_records/  39 WCPO Staff Reporter. (2014, March 10). Ohio's practice of shackling children challenged by ACLU: Writ filed after girl shackled in Cincinnati. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from 9 WCPO Cincinnati: http://www.wcpo.com/news/local- news/ohios-practice-of-shackling-children-challenged-by-aclu  40 Appendix Exhibit 1.pdf Exhibit 2.pdf Exhibit 3.pdf Exhibit 4.pdf Exhibit 5.pdf Exhibit 6.pdf Exhibit 7.pdf