Video arraignment debate in Mahoning County risky

When nearly a quarter of a million dollars from the public treasury is spent on a video arraignment system, as was done by Mahoning County, taxpayers expect it to become an integral part of the criminal justice network.
And when a state performance audit of Mahoning County government recommends the expansion of video arraignment, an already cynical electorate is left to wonder whether judges of the common pleas court (general division) are simply being obstinate when they refuse to make regular use of the equipment that was bought with an Ohio Law Enforcement Block Grant.
Like it or not, how the voters perceive a front-page story in Sunday's Vindicator headlined "Video arraignment causes rift" is of great importance today. Why? Because these same voters are being asked to approve the renewal next month of a 0.5 percent county sales tax. If they vote no, county government will lose $12 million a year from the general fund.
Such a loss of revenue will cripple every sector of government, including the sheriff's department, which is responsible for housing prisoners, transporting inmates to the courts, and serving court papers. The loss will also be felt by the judiciary.
At that point, without adequate manpower to operate the jail, video arraignments will no longer be a matter of choice for the judges.
Up close and personal
In the Sunday story, Judge Maureen A. Cronin did not mince words in expressing her opinion about arraignments by video: "I am totally opposed to it. I just don't approve of it as this level. These crimes are far too serious not to see [the defendants] up close and personal." Judge Cronin's colleagues on the common pleas bench agree with her assessment.
While it is true that the court handles felony cases, as opposed to misdemeanor cases that go through the municipal or county court system, Columbiana County's common pleas court routinely uses video arraignments for felonies. (Earlier this month, for instance, a Salem man charged with attempted murder was arraigned by video.)
Why does Columbiana County use this method? Because the county jail is about four miles from downtown Lisbon, where the courthouse is located.
Judge C. Ashley Pike said he and his colleagues have "no qualms about doing it that way," and he added: "It's very efficient and it's cost-effective."
In Mahoning County, Sheriff Randall Wellington, who was raked over the coals recently by Judge Cronin because he failed to deliver prisoners to her court in time for arraignment, wants the judges to use the video system, saying it would save time and money. The location of the jail on Fifth Avenue makes it necessary to transport inmates by van to the courthouse on Market Street.
Commissioner David Ludt, who has been the leading advocate of video arraignments, is disappointed that the judges are not willing to change the way they do things.
Judge Cronin and her colleagues have an obligation to show how video arraignments deprive an accused of his constitutional right to a fair trial. Simply saying they want individuals charged with felonies to appear in person won't cut it.
On the other hand, the four part-time judges of the county district courts in Austintown, Boardman, Canfield and Sebring have no excuse for not using the video arraignment system. The Youngstown Municipal Court, which handles much more serious misdemeanor cases than the district courts, regularly arraigns inmates by video hookup.
The bottom line is not hard to discern: County government must convince the voters that their tax dollars are being spent carefully and properly. Having $243,000 worth of equipment lying around fails the good-stewards-of-the-public-treasury test.