MAHONING VALLEY Video arraignment causes rift

The county paid nearly $250,000 for little-used video arraignment equipment.
By BOB JACKSON
VINDICATOR COURTHOUSE REPORTER
YOUNGSTOWN -- Sheriff Randall Wellington said a video hookup could have spared him from being chewed out recently by a judge over inmates' not being taken to common pleas court on time for arraignments.
"They have all the equipment to do video arraignments and no one uses it," Wellington said. "It just sits there."
But Judge Maureen A. Cronin of common pleas court, who hauled Wellington and two of his departmental supervisors into her court Sept. 28 because of the tardy inmates, said video arraignment is not an option for her.
"I am totally opposed to it," Judge Cronin said. "I just don't approve of it at this level. These crimes are far too serious not to see [the defendants] up close and personal."
Common pleas judges preside over felony cases, which are more serious than the misdemeanors heard in lower courts.
Her sentiments are generally shared by her colleagues on the general division bench, which troubles Commissioner David Ludt.
"I would really like the judges to use that equipment," Ludt said. "It's frustrating that they won't."
Funding
Ludt pushed for video arraignment capability shortly after he took office in 2000. Using funds from an Ohio Law Enforcement Block Grant, the county paid $243,000 to buy and install video arraignment equipment in March 2002.
It was used sparingly by former Judge Robert Lisotto, who retired last summer. No other common pleas judges have used it for arraignment.
The equipment is kept on carts so it can be easily rolled from one courtroom to another. Judges often use it during hearings and trials, but only for displaying videotaped testimony for jurors.
Arraignments are conducted once a week in common pleas court. Deputies round up jail inmates who are scheduled to appear, load them into vans and drive them to the courthouse. When arraignments are over, the inmates are returned to the jail and must be processed back in.
Wellington said one of the transport vans was broken the day he was berated by Judge Cronin. The remaining van was used to take inmates to the area court in Boardman, then was returned to pick up inmates for arraignment in common pleas court.
The judge threatened to hold Wellington in contempt, but said last week that she decided against it.
With video arraignments, inmates are taken to a small courtroom in the jail, where they sit in front of a television camera that is linked to a video monitor in a courtroom at the courthouse, where the judge sits.
The judge also is on camera and can be seen and heard by the inmate on a monitor at the jail.
Ludt said he believes it would be easier, safer and more cost-effective to arraign inmates that way because it eliminates the time and risk of transporting large groups to the courthouse.
"I'm talking money and man-hours," Ludt said, adding that there is no cost-analysis to demonstrate how much savings, if any, would be realized.
Open court
But common pleas judges said they don't believe a video appearance passes muster when it comes to ensuring a criminal defendant's right to appear in open court and answer the charges against him or her.
"I do not believe that would be considered open court," said Judge Jack Durkin. "I think that would be a hard stretch."
Likewise, Judge R. Scott Krichbaum said he considers arraignment "a critical stage of a critical proceeding." For that reason, he prefers to have defendants appear before him in person and not on TV.
He said video arraignment is more suitable for use in misdemeanor cases, which are heard in the county's area courts in Austintown, Boardman, Canfield and Sebring. Those courts also are hooked up for video arraignment but don't use it, Ludt said.
Wellington said the video room at the jail is used only by judges at Youngstown Municipal Court, who regularly arraign inmates via video hookup.
Inmates facing felonies in Columbiana County have been arraigned by video for about the past 18 months, said Judge C. Ashley Pike of common pleas court.
"I understand that change is often difficult, especially in the legal system, but we have no qualms about doing it that way," Judge Pike said. "It's very efficient and it's cost-effective."
The Columbiana County Jail is about four miles west of downtown Lisbon, where the courthouse sits. Judge Pike said it's cheaper and easier to arraign inmates while they are still at the jail.
No one has challenged whether a video arraignment is technically an appearance in open court, he said.
Right across the street
Trumbull County's common pleas judges don't use video arraignment because their county jail is directly across the street from the courthouse.
"It's just so much easier to walk them over here," said Judge Andrew Logan. "But believe me, if we had anything more than walking distance to transport them, we would be looking very hard at video arraignment."
Judge Durkin said if it were simply a matter of taking a "not guilty" plea from each defendant, Mahoning County judges might be more open to video arraignment.
But he and Judge Cronin said judges must take time to ensure that defendants have legal counsel, determine whether they are indigent and set a bond for them.
"I like to see their attitudes because, to me, attitude sometimes affects their bond," Judge Cronin said.
Judge Durkin and Judge Maureen A. Sweeney said they would rather see the technology used in the lower courts first.
"If I see that it works there, I might be inclined to consider it," Judge Sweeney said.