mcginty.jpeg

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy J. McGinty is pushing for reform of the way attorneys are assigned to criminal cases.

(Thomas Ondrey/Plain Dealer file photo)

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 site revealed 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.