IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA ... - DocumentCloud
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO CRIMINAL DIVISION STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL BRELO, et al., Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CASE NO.: CR-13-580457-A JUDGE JOHN P. O’DONNELL
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PROSECUTOR MCGINTY AND THE OFFICE OF CUYAHOGA COUNT PROSECUTOR DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO APPOINT SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
Now comes the Defendant, Cleveland Police Officer Michael Brelo, (hereinafter “Officer Brelo”) by and through his undersigned counsel, and hereby respectfully requests this Honorable Court to disqualify Prosecutor McGinty and the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office from this matter for publicly investigating all current Judges in Cuyahoga County, including the Honorable Judge John P. O’Donnell, which creates an unjust conflict of interest that violates the Defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial. Prosecutor McGinty and the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office should not be permitted to represent and investigate its own clients, Judges of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, while at the same time prosecuting cases before said clients and targets as the counsel for the Plaintiff, the State of Ohio, such as the case herein. Based on Prosecutor McGinty’s recent actions which creates an actual conflict of interest, the Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court disqualify Prosecutor McGinty and the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office from this instant case and appoint a special prosecutor to handle all further matters related to this case in the interest of justice. Reasons and authorities in
support of this motion are set forth in the attached memorandum, which is fully incorporated herein by reference. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Patrick D’Angelo_____ Patrick A. D’Angelo Attorney at Law (#0009043) Counsel for Defendant
/s/ Fernando O. Mack________ Fernando O. Mack Attorney at Law (0062937) Counsel for Defendant
/s/ Thomas E. Shaughnessy____ Thomas E. Shaughnessy Attorney at Law (0047201) Counsel for Defendant
2
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT I.
BACKGROUND On December 2, 2014, Prosecutor McGinty filed a public records request pursing an
“investigation into the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas’ political practice of assigning counsel to indigent criminal defendants though a system of patronage which utilizes what a select number of active judges refer to as their private preferred lists of attorneys, AKA the ‘Candy list,’ prepared by each individual judge or bailiff and which considers campaign contributions and other political and personal support given to active judges seeking reelection.” (Def. Ex. A). Within Prosecutor McGinty’s five (5) page public record request, the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office is targeting any and all Judges that presided in the arraignment room from 2013 through 2015, more specifically, those Judges that sough reelection during that time period. Id. at p. 2. Through a previously released document from the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office, it was determined that of the 10,293 arraignments from January 1, 2014 through November 18, 2014, approximately one hundred and forty-six (146) arraignments were handled by the Honorable Judge John P. O’Donnell. (Def. Ex. B). Also during this time, Judge John P. O’Donnell and other Cuyahoga County Judges ran for office, received campaign contributions, and made assignments of counsel in indigent cases. Therefore, this instant Court along with all of the Judges in Cuyahoga County are current targets of Prosecutor McGinty’s investigation. Prosecutor McGinty publicly released his investigation to the Cleveland Plain Dealer on December 2, 2014 and commented that: I ran on a pledge that I would stamp out public corruption. That means we have a duty, if there is even a hint of corruption, to look into it. The people of Cuyahoga County deserve nothing less, especially after all the damage that Jimmy Dimora and Frank
3
Russo did to the public's confidence in their government. All we are interested in is the truth. (Def. Ex. C). Prosecutor McGinty and the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office, as officers of the Court, failed to appoint a special prosecutor to independently conduct this investigation into the Cuyahoga County Court, therefore, creating an unprecedented severe conflict of interest between his office and all Cuyahoga County Judges on the bench from 2013 to 2015. II.
LAW AND ARGUMENT The court has broad discretion to appoint counsel to assist the prosecuting attorney in a
pending criminal case whenever the court is of the opinion that the public interest so requires. State ex rel. Williams v. Zaleski, 465 N.E.2d 861, 12 Ohio St.3d 109, 113 (Ohio 1984). Ohio Revised Code 2941.63 vests the court of common pleas with broad discretion in appointing prosecutorial counsel in criminal matters. That section provides: The court of common pleas, or the court of appeals, whenever it is of the opinion that the public interest requires it, may appoint an attorney to assist the prosecuting attorney in the trial of a case pending in such court. The board of county commissioners shall pay said assistant to the prosecuting attorney such compensation for his services as the court approves. The Court of Common Pleas possess inherent power to appoint special prosecutors in criminal matters. State ex rel. Master v. Cleveland (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 23, 27, 661 N.E.2d 180. See, also, State v. Bunyan (1988), 51 Ohio App.3d 190, 192, 555 N.E.2d 980 (where the duly elected prosecutor felt unable to carry out his prosecutorial duties against the defendant, the court of common pleas possessed the inherent power to appoint a special prosecutor). Moreover, as noted in State ex rel. Thomas Newspapers Inc. v. Martin, the trial court properly appointed a special prosecutor to investigate an alleged crime involving a “local official.” (1989). 47 Ohio St. 3d 28, 30.
4
The Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office represents the Judges of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas including the Honorable Judge John P. O’Donnell. It is now investigating its clients, in the words of Prosecutor McGinty, for “public corruption,” while at the same time, acting as counsel for the Plaintiff, State of Ohio, in the case herein. These multiple roles create an atmosphere of real and apparent conflict, coercion, intimidation, and manipulation of our justice system.
Based on the actions of Prosecutor McGinty and the
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office, Officer Brelo’s constitutional right to a fair trial is being violated. Said conduct mandates disqualification of Prosecutor McGinty and the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office, further requiring the appointment of a special prosecutor in the case herein. An order disqualifying the Prosecutor’s Office should be issued when actual prejudice is demonstrated. Here, Prosecutor McGinty and his office have demonstrated actual prejudice by publicly announcing and publishing its intent to investigate the Honorable John P. O’Donnell and all other members of the judiciary in Cuyahoga County. The Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office created this conflict by failing to appoint a special prosecutor to its investigation of all the Judges and court staff it works with on a daily basis. It would be improper and prejudicial to act as a prosecutor before any Judge the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office is currently investigating. The public interest requires Prosecutor McGinty and the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office to be disqualified from this case. There is an obvious and actual conflict of interest in this case. The conflict is real, tangible, involves the public actions of the Prosecutor himself, and permeates throughout his entire office. III.
CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Officer Brelo respectfully requests this Honorable Court to
disqualify Prosecutor McGinty and the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office, and to appoint a 5
special prosecutor to handle all further matters related to this case. A special prosecutor is necessary in this case given the actual conflict created by Prosecutor McGinty and the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office publicly investigating all Judges in Cuyahoga County Court, including this Honorable Court. The Prosecutor’s Office has created an actual conflict of interest that cannot be overcome. Therefore, this Honorable Court should appoint a special prosecutor, and disqualify Prosecutor McGinty and the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office in the interest of justice and a fair trial for the Defendant. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Patrick A. D’Angelo Patrick A. D’Angelo Attorney at Law (0009043) 1370 Ontario St. 2000 Standard Building Cleveland, OH 44113 (216) 623-7311 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant /s/ Fernando O. Mack________ Fernando O. Mack Attorney at Law (0062937) 323 Lakeside Ave. Suite 420 Cleveland, OH 44113 216-556-9610 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant /s/ Thomas E. Shaughnessy____ Thomas E. Shaughnessy Attorney at Law (0047201) 11510 Buckeye Rd. Cleveland, OH 44101 216-721-7700 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant
6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion was electronically filed via the Court’s e-Filing System and electronically served upon the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor this 10th day of December, 2014. Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Patrick D’Angelo_____ Patrick A. D’Angelo Attorney at Law (#0009043) Counsel for Defendant
/s/ Fernando O. Mack________ Fernando O. Mack Attorney at Law (0062937) Counsel for Defendant
/s/ Thomas E. Shaughnessy____ Thomas E. Shaughnessy Attorney at Law (0047201) Counsel for Defendant
7
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy McGinty requests "Candy Lists" he says judges use to assign favorite attorneys (document)
Cuy ahoga County Prosecutor Timothy J. McGinty is pushing f or ref orm of the way attorney s are assigned to criminal cases.(Thomas Ondrey/Plain Dealer file photo)
By Rachel Dissell, The Plain Dealer Email the author | Follow on Tw itter on December 03, 2014 at 3:00 PM, updated December 03, 2014 at 5:29 PM
Reddit
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy McGinty is continuing his decades-long crusade against the county court's system of assigning private attorneys to represent poor criminal defendants. In a sweeping public records request to the court Tuesday, McGinty demanded two years worth of documents, including emails between judges, bailiffs and court administrators regarding scheduling of arraignment room duty and what he termed "Candy Lists" that judges keep and share with attorneys they prefer to be assigned to their cases. See the full request by clicking here or in the document viewer below. Adminstrative/Presiding Judge John J. Russo was not immediately available for comment on the request and its implications. A spokesman said the court "received the request and will respond according." Many other Common Pleas judges could not be reached for comment today because they are attending a meeting in Columbus, according to multiple bailiffs. Russo last month put temporary restrictions on judges seeking to trade their arraignment room duties after information released on McGinty's web siterevealed that Judge Pamela Barker had served more than 10 weeks in the arraignment room in a year in which she was facing a well-funded challenger for her seat on the bench. Barker said she never solicited time in the arraignment room but did fill in regularly for colleagues at their request. She arraigned 25 percent of all defendants through mid-November, according to the prosecutor's data. She was re-elected to the bench last month. Barker told The Plain Dealer last month that her willingness to handle arraignments had nothing to do with the ability it gave her to assign attorneys to cases and that when filling in for other judges she sometimes assigned attorneys to cases from the lists those judges provided her. According to court rules, each of the 34 Common Pleas judges is scheduled to serve two out of 68 weeks handling the initial appearance of defendants indicted by a grand jury. That short appearance usually involves a not guilty plea, the setting of a bond and the assigning of a judge and an attorney -if requested. In the beginning of the five-page letter McGinty said he was requesting the information as part of an investigation into the "political practice of assigning counsel to indigent criminal defendants through a system of political patronage, which utilizes what a select number of judges refer to as their private preferred lists of attorneys ... which considers campaign contributions and other political and personal
support given to active judges seeking re-election." The letter does not state whether McGinty, who technically is also the lawyer for the court, considers the investigation to be a criminal investigation. When asked, his spokesman Joe Frolik replied, 'This is public information and we are hoping for cooperation." Later in the day, McGinty put out this statement: "I ran on a pledge that I would stamp out public corruption. That means we have a duty, if there is even a hint of corruption, to look into it. The people of Cuyahoga County deserve nothing less, especially after all the damage that Jimmy Dimora and Frank Russo did to the public's confidence in their government. All we are interested in is the truth." McGinty, who retired as a Common Pleas judge before running for county prosecutor, has for decades hammered on what he thinks is a corrupt system that has judges doling out cases to defense attorneys in return for campaign donations and political favors. He's done so in published letters and heated debates with fellow judges. A decade ago, McGinty proposed a change in rules that would bar judges from sitting in the arraignment room within 60 days of an election in which they were on the ballot. His colleagues voted down that proposal, though at the time he said the practice was tempered administratively. Judges have wide latitude to assign private criminal defense attorneys to indigent defendants not represented by the Cuyahoga County Public Defender's office, that is supposed to be assigned 35 percent of those cases. The court maintains a list of attorneys who want to be considered to handle the cases, including ones that have special qualifications or training. Barker, who McGinty specifically requested records about, said last month that judge's often are trying to fit the right attorney to each case. McGinty said that excuse has been given for years and that judges often know whom they plan to assign, "before a crime has even been committed." Judge Richard McMonagle, a former administrative judge who is retiring at the end of the year, said while attorney assignments in specific instances over the years may have raised eyebrows, he doesn't think there is a widespread problem with the process. In the past, he said, the court has been active in responding to issues by making adjustments, including limiting the number of assignments a judge is allowed to give each attorney during their stint in the arraignment room.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CASE NO.: CR-13-580457-A JUDGE JOHN P. O’DONNELL
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PROSECUTOR MCGINTY AND THE OFFICE OF CUYAHOGA COUNT PROSECUTOR DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO APPOINT SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
Now comes the Defendant, Cleveland Police Officer Michael Brelo, (hereinafter “Officer Brelo”) by and through his undersigned counsel, and hereby respectfully requests this Honorable Court to disqualify Prosecutor McGinty and the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office from this matter for publicly investigating all current Judges in Cuyahoga County, including the Honorable Judge John P. O’Donnell, which creates an unjust conflict of interest that violates the Defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial. Prosecutor McGinty and the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office should not be permitted to represent and investigate its own clients, Judges of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, while at the same time prosecuting cases before said clients and targets as the counsel for the Plaintiff, the State of Ohio, such as the case herein. Based on Prosecutor McGinty’s recent actions which creates an actual conflict of interest, the Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court disqualify Prosecutor McGinty and the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office from this instant case and appoint a special prosecutor to handle all further matters related to this case in the interest of justice. Reasons and authorities in
support of this motion are set forth in the attached memorandum, which is fully incorporated herein by reference. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Patrick D’Angelo_____ Patrick A. D’Angelo Attorney at Law (#0009043) Counsel for Defendant
/s/ Fernando O. Mack________ Fernando O. Mack Attorney at Law (0062937) Counsel for Defendant
/s/ Thomas E. Shaughnessy____ Thomas E. Shaughnessy Attorney at Law (0047201) Counsel for Defendant
2
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT I.
BACKGROUND On December 2, 2014, Prosecutor McGinty filed a public records request pursing an
“investigation into the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas’ political practice of assigning counsel to indigent criminal defendants though a system of patronage which utilizes what a select number of active judges refer to as their private preferred lists of attorneys, AKA the ‘Candy list,’ prepared by each individual judge or bailiff and which considers campaign contributions and other political and personal support given to active judges seeking reelection.” (Def. Ex. A). Within Prosecutor McGinty’s five (5) page public record request, the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office is targeting any and all Judges that presided in the arraignment room from 2013 through 2015, more specifically, those Judges that sough reelection during that time period. Id. at p. 2. Through a previously released document from the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office, it was determined that of the 10,293 arraignments from January 1, 2014 through November 18, 2014, approximately one hundred and forty-six (146) arraignments were handled by the Honorable Judge John P. O’Donnell. (Def. Ex. B). Also during this time, Judge John P. O’Donnell and other Cuyahoga County Judges ran for office, received campaign contributions, and made assignments of counsel in indigent cases. Therefore, this instant Court along with all of the Judges in Cuyahoga County are current targets of Prosecutor McGinty’s investigation. Prosecutor McGinty publicly released his investigation to the Cleveland Plain Dealer on December 2, 2014 and commented that: I ran on a pledge that I would stamp out public corruption. That means we have a duty, if there is even a hint of corruption, to look into it. The people of Cuyahoga County deserve nothing less, especially after all the damage that Jimmy Dimora and Frank
3
Russo did to the public's confidence in their government. All we are interested in is the truth. (Def. Ex. C). Prosecutor McGinty and the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office, as officers of the Court, failed to appoint a special prosecutor to independently conduct this investigation into the Cuyahoga County Court, therefore, creating an unprecedented severe conflict of interest between his office and all Cuyahoga County Judges on the bench from 2013 to 2015. II.
LAW AND ARGUMENT The court has broad discretion to appoint counsel to assist the prosecuting attorney in a
pending criminal case whenever the court is of the opinion that the public interest so requires. State ex rel. Williams v. Zaleski, 465 N.E.2d 861, 12 Ohio St.3d 109, 113 (Ohio 1984). Ohio Revised Code 2941.63 vests the court of common pleas with broad discretion in appointing prosecutorial counsel in criminal matters. That section provides: The court of common pleas, or the court of appeals, whenever it is of the opinion that the public interest requires it, may appoint an attorney to assist the prosecuting attorney in the trial of a case pending in such court. The board of county commissioners shall pay said assistant to the prosecuting attorney such compensation for his services as the court approves. The Court of Common Pleas possess inherent power to appoint special prosecutors in criminal matters. State ex rel. Master v. Cleveland (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 23, 27, 661 N.E.2d 180. See, also, State v. Bunyan (1988), 51 Ohio App.3d 190, 192, 555 N.E.2d 980 (where the duly elected prosecutor felt unable to carry out his prosecutorial duties against the defendant, the court of common pleas possessed the inherent power to appoint a special prosecutor). Moreover, as noted in State ex rel. Thomas Newspapers Inc. v. Martin, the trial court properly appointed a special prosecutor to investigate an alleged crime involving a “local official.” (1989). 47 Ohio St. 3d 28, 30.
4
The Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office represents the Judges of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas including the Honorable Judge John P. O’Donnell. It is now investigating its clients, in the words of Prosecutor McGinty, for “public corruption,” while at the same time, acting as counsel for the Plaintiff, State of Ohio, in the case herein. These multiple roles create an atmosphere of real and apparent conflict, coercion, intimidation, and manipulation of our justice system.
Based on the actions of Prosecutor McGinty and the
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office, Officer Brelo’s constitutional right to a fair trial is being violated. Said conduct mandates disqualification of Prosecutor McGinty and the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office, further requiring the appointment of a special prosecutor in the case herein. An order disqualifying the Prosecutor’s Office should be issued when actual prejudice is demonstrated. Here, Prosecutor McGinty and his office have demonstrated actual prejudice by publicly announcing and publishing its intent to investigate the Honorable John P. O’Donnell and all other members of the judiciary in Cuyahoga County. The Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office created this conflict by failing to appoint a special prosecutor to its investigation of all the Judges and court staff it works with on a daily basis. It would be improper and prejudicial to act as a prosecutor before any Judge the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office is currently investigating. The public interest requires Prosecutor McGinty and the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office to be disqualified from this case. There is an obvious and actual conflict of interest in this case. The conflict is real, tangible, involves the public actions of the Prosecutor himself, and permeates throughout his entire office. III.
CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Officer Brelo respectfully requests this Honorable Court to
disqualify Prosecutor McGinty and the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office, and to appoint a 5
special prosecutor to handle all further matters related to this case. A special prosecutor is necessary in this case given the actual conflict created by Prosecutor McGinty and the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office publicly investigating all Judges in Cuyahoga County Court, including this Honorable Court. The Prosecutor’s Office has created an actual conflict of interest that cannot be overcome. Therefore, this Honorable Court should appoint a special prosecutor, and disqualify Prosecutor McGinty and the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office in the interest of justice and a fair trial for the Defendant. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Patrick A. D’Angelo Patrick A. D’Angelo Attorney at Law (0009043) 1370 Ontario St. 2000 Standard Building Cleveland, OH 44113 (216) 623-7311 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant /s/ Fernando O. Mack________ Fernando O. Mack Attorney at Law (0062937) 323 Lakeside Ave. Suite 420 Cleveland, OH 44113 216-556-9610 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant /s/ Thomas E. Shaughnessy____ Thomas E. Shaughnessy Attorney at Law (0047201) 11510 Buckeye Rd. Cleveland, OH 44101 216-721-7700 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant
6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion was electronically filed via the Court’s e-Filing System and electronically served upon the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor this 10th day of December, 2014. Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Patrick D’Angelo_____ Patrick A. D’Angelo Attorney at Law (#0009043) Counsel for Defendant
/s/ Fernando O. Mack________ Fernando O. Mack Attorney at Law (0062937) Counsel for Defendant
/s/ Thomas E. Shaughnessy____ Thomas E. Shaughnessy Attorney at Law (0047201) Counsel for Defendant
7
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy McGinty requests "Candy Lists" he says judges use to assign favorite attorneys (document)
Cuy ahoga County Prosecutor Timothy J. McGinty is pushing f or ref orm of the way attorney s are assigned to criminal cases.(Thomas Ondrey/Plain Dealer file photo)
By Rachel Dissell, The Plain Dealer Email the author | Follow on Tw itter on December 03, 2014 at 3:00 PM, updated December 03, 2014 at 5:29 PM
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy McGinty is continuing his decades-long crusade against the county court's system of assigning private attorneys to represent poor criminal defendants. In a sweeping public records request to the court Tuesday, McGinty demanded two years worth of documents, including emails between judges, bailiffs and court administrators regarding scheduling of arraignment room duty and what he termed "Candy Lists" that judges keep and share with attorneys they prefer to be assigned to their cases. See the full request by clicking here or in the document viewer below. Adminstrative/Presiding Judge John J. Russo was not immediately available for comment on the request and its implications. A spokesman said the court "received the request and will respond according." Many other Common Pleas judges could not be reached for comment today because they are attending a meeting in Columbus, according to multiple bailiffs. Russo last month put temporary restrictions on judges seeking to trade their arraignment room duties after information released on McGinty's web siterevealed that Judge Pamela Barker had served more than 10 weeks in the arraignment room in a year in which she was facing a well-funded challenger for her seat on the bench. Barker said she never solicited time in the arraignment room but did fill in regularly for colleagues at their request. She arraigned 25 percent of all defendants through mid-November, according to the prosecutor's data. She was re-elected to the bench last month. Barker told The Plain Dealer last month that her willingness to handle arraignments had nothing to do with the ability it gave her to assign attorneys to cases and that when filling in for other judges she sometimes assigned attorneys to cases from the lists those judges provided her. According to court rules, each of the 34 Common Pleas judges is scheduled to serve two out of 68 weeks handling the initial appearance of defendants indicted by a grand jury. That short appearance usually involves a not guilty plea, the setting of a bond and the assigning of a judge and an attorney -if requested. In the beginning of the five-page letter McGinty said he was requesting the information as part of an investigation into the "political practice of assigning counsel to indigent criminal defendants through a system of political patronage, which utilizes what a select number of judges refer to as their private preferred lists of attorneys ... which considers campaign contributions and other political and personal
support given to active judges seeking re-election." The letter does not state whether McGinty, who technically is also the lawyer for the court, considers the investigation to be a criminal investigation. When asked, his spokesman Joe Frolik replied, 'This is public information and we are hoping for cooperation." Later in the day, McGinty put out this statement: "I ran on a pledge that I would stamp out public corruption. That means we have a duty, if there is even a hint of corruption, to look into it. The people of Cuyahoga County deserve nothing less, especially after all the damage that Jimmy Dimora and Frank Russo did to the public's confidence in their government. All we are interested in is the truth." McGinty, who retired as a Common Pleas judge before running for county prosecutor, has for decades hammered on what he thinks is a corrupt system that has judges doling out cases to defense attorneys in return for campaign donations and political favors. He's done so in published letters and heated debates with fellow judges. A decade ago, McGinty proposed a change in rules that would bar judges from sitting in the arraignment room within 60 days of an election in which they were on the ballot. His colleagues voted down that proposal, though at the time he said the practice was tempered administratively. Judges have wide latitude to assign private criminal defense attorneys to indigent defendants not represented by the Cuyahoga County Public Defender's office, that is supposed to be assigned 35 percent of those cases. The court maintains a list of attorneys who want to be considered to handle the cases, including ones that have special qualifications or training. Barker, who McGinty specifically requested records about, said last month that judge's often are trying to fit the right attorney to each case. McGinty said that excuse has been given for years and that judges often know whom they plan to assign, "before a crime has even been committed." Judge Richard McMonagle, a former administrative judge who is retiring at the end of the year, said while attorney assignments in specific instances over the years may have raised eyebrows, he doesn't think there is a widespread problem with the process. In the past, he said, the court has been active in responding to issues by making adjustments, including limiting the number of assignments a judge is allowed to give each attorney during their stint in the arraignment room.
