Judge weighs request on data

Some of the defense lawyers said disclosure could threaten public safety.
By PETER H. MILLIKEN
VINDICATOR STAFF WRITER
YOUNGSTOWN -- Mahoning County Juvenile Court Judge Theresa Dellick has taken under advisement a Vindicator request for disclosure of addresses of juveniles charged with participating in a criminal gang.
The request pertains to 33 youths who are alleged to be members of the South Side Soldiers, L Unit (for Lucius Avenue) and Dale Boys (referring to Auburndale and Avondale avenues), ranging in age from 12 to 20, who were arrested last month by a local, state and federal law enforcement task force.
The charge requires at least one prior felony conviction. The 11 defendants who are now 18 or older were juveniles at the time of the alleged offense.
The juvenile court has released the names and ages of the defendants, but not their addresses. Court Administrator Anthony D'Apolito declined to provide addresses to the newspaper because of what he said were concerns for the safety of neighbors and of other members of the defendants' families.
Judge Dellick conducted a hearing Friday morning on The Vindicator's request, which was attended by Anissa Jones, juvenile court prosecutor, and nine lawyers for the defendants.
Why addresses are needed
Through its lawyer, David L. Marburger of Cleveland, The Vindicator argued that it needs the defendant's addresses to identify them precisely and accurately to its readers and differentiate them from others with the same or similar names.
The Vindicator publishes the street names of addresses for defendants in criminal cases but not their exact house numbers.
Three of the defense lawyers did not object to the addresses' being released.
However, several of the defendants' attorneys argued against disclosure of the addresses for what they said were public safety reasons.
"I don't see the grand need of The Vindicator to be permitted to put a street address or a street specifically with my client's name," said Atty. Paul Conn, who represents one of the adults charged.
"The public's right to know does not outweigh my client's or his family's safety concerns, and these, according to the State of Ohio, are highly dangerous people," Conn said.
Marburger replied that "it isn't the burden of the press to establish a grand need or a great need for these addresses.
"It is the burden on those who wish to withhold the addresses to establish that there really is a known speculative, concrete, palpable danger to a particular individual if that street is released," Marburger said, adding that burden hasn't been met.
"No neighbor has come forward and said, 'If a street of someone else is disclosed, it will harm me,'" he told the judge.
Melissa Dinsio, lawyer for one of the defendants, said she believes disclosure of the addresses "would pose a potential threat to the safety of the individuals listed as well as their families."
"What about the other people living on these streets -- the other people who are not involved in gangs?," Dinsio asked.
"How many times have we heard of some house getting shot up because somebody thinks that it is somebody's house? I am sure that those people, members of the public that have this right to know, don't want somebody coming down their street looking for my client and shooting their 2-year-old that happens to be in the living room," Dinsio added.
Safety hazard alleged
Jones said she believes releasing the defendants' street addresses linked with their names could pose a safety hazard to innocent people.
"Our delinquency records are not closed. They are open. ... This court has cooperated [with the media] and knows its limitations," Judge Dellick said, adding that she will weigh the public's right to know against issues of safety, proper court procedures and the well-being of the juvenile defendants.
The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that a judge can close juvenile court proceedings only if open proceedings would harm the child or endanger fairness of the court proceeding; "the potential for harm outweighs the benefits of public access;" and "there are no reasonable alternatives to closure," Marburger said in a written memorandum, in which he argued the same standards apply to court records.