VIDEO ARRAIGNMENTS Official to ask judges why system isn't used

Commissioner Ludt said he'll try again to sell judges on video arraignment.
By BOB JACKSON
VINDICATOR COURTHOUSE REPORTER
YOUNGSTOWN -- Mahoning County commissioners aren't ready to pull the plug just yet on video arraignment equipment for the courts, despite the fact that most judges don't use it.
"I am personally going to try to work with the judges and find out why they're not using it," Commissioner David Ludt said. "The savings are too great to not be using it. The key is to communicate with the judges."
Commissioners were responding Thursday to a story that appeared earlier this week in The Vindicator about video arraignments. At Ludt's urging, and using funds from a state grant, the county bought about $245,000 worth of equipment in 2002 to allow criminal defendants to be arraigned via TV hookup from the county jail.
Ludt has said he thinks video arraignments would boost safety and would be a huge cost savings because deputies would no longer have to transport criminal defendants from the jail to the courthouse.
Instead, those defendants would be arraigned over a video hookup from a small courtroom at the jail on Fifth Avenue.
Putting it to use
Of the five common pleas general division judges, only Judge James C. Evans said he uses the equipment and conducts video arraignments.
"I believe in it," Judge Evans said this week. "I used it every week during my last two grand juries, and it worked well."
Judges take turns presiding over quarterly grand jury sessions and criminal arraignments.
The other judges do not use video arraignment because they don't believe it's an acceptable means of arraigning inmates.
Judge R. Scott Krichbaum said the U.S. Supreme Court has defined arraignment as a critical stage of a criminal proceeding. For that reason, he prefers to have inmates appear before him personally, as do Judges Maureen A. Cronin, Jack Durkin and Maureen A. Sweeney.
Ludt told Commissioners Ed Reese and Vicki Allen Sherlock that he met with judges before he ordered the equipment and that "most of them were for it at the time, and now all of a sudden they're not using it."
But Judge Krichbaum and Judge Cronin said the majority of judges told Ludt up front that they were not in favor of video arraignment and probably would not use it.
The county's four outlying misdemeanor courts in Austintown, Boardman, Canfield and Sebring also are wired for video arraignment, but judges there also don't use it.
Paying a monthly fee
Sherlock said commissioners can't force judges to use the equipment, but she hopes they will reconsider since it has been bought and the county pays a monthly fee for dedicated data lines to make connection with the jail.
If the judges aren't going to do video arraignments, Sherlock said commissioners should consider eliminating the lines and their cost.
Steven Stanec, county information technology director, said the county pays $5,800 a month for 28 lines, known as T-1 lines. He said they are used for services other than video arraignment and will be needed and used regardless of whether the judges conduct video arraignments.
"They serve a lot of different functions, some of which are absolutely critical to day-to-day operation," Stanec said. The primary use is support of the PeopleSoft computer system the county uses for payroll and other functions, he said.
bjackson@vindy.com