Keenya transcripts: Plea & Sentencing Hearings

 transcript of plea hearing

 transcript of sentencing hearing

With a little knowledge of Ohio and Federal court rules, the constitutional and procedural problems in both these proceedings is evident. By knowledge I mean, all one has to do is read the applicable statutes which instruct the Judge how to proceed and anyone (even me!) can see clearly that the rules were not observed.

In the Transcript of Sentencing, you can read what the Judge detailed as 'the abuse' Keenya inflicted on her grandchildren. This was Keenya's first knowledge of the nature of the charges against her. Why?

Because the charging counts (all 36) are non-specific as to alleged conduct and time - in effect then, those counts (particularly the (5) she pleaded guilty to) are 'fill-in-the-blank' for the Judge to insert whatever language she chooses. The 'Motions for Bills of Particular' filed by the defense are supposed to address this defeciency by requiring the Prosecutor to be specific - that way, the defense can prepare and respond. The Judge is required to rule on these Motions - she did not (see Transcript of Docket ).

The goal all of the State was to get Keenya to plead guilty, at any cost, for once a defendant pleads guilty, he/she gives up valuable Constitutional protections chiefly to see the evidence against and confront the witnesses against them, and cannot defend against the outrageous statements made by the Prosecutor and the Judge.

Once the defendant pleads guilty in the Plea Hearing, the Judge can 'fill-in-the-blanks' at the Sentencing Hearing. That is what Judge Whitmore did as she read from a prepared statement for benefit of the news media called to observe her hand down her harsh sentence - she could gain demonstrate that she is 'tough on crime'. Why was this important to the Judge and to the Prosecutor? - politics: the Judge was in the midst of campaiging for the 9th District Court of Appeals (also situated in Akron, Ohio), and the Prosecutor was slated to become the Lt. Governor of Ohio in January 1999. Sure enough, that evening news was filled with news footage from the courtroom and of the Judge handing down her verdict.

Of particular note, Keenya's defense attorney was also campaigning for a seat on the Akron City Council, all the while representing Keenya.The defense attorney, the Judge, and the County Prosecutor were all of the same political party. It's easy to see that the two people most important to the defense attorney's political future were the two people foremost in his sphere of influence - the Judge and the Prosecutor. This is a prime example of a conflict of interest.

It is particularly aggregious that the Judge cited Keenya's past relationship with her own children as evidence that she abused her grandchildren - this absurdity is repugnant.

What the Judge does not state are these facts: it was the State (CSB) that requested Keenya take custody of the little girl who was abandoned by her mother; it was the State (CSB) who granted custody of the little boy to Keenya after his mother abandoned him. Obviously, if Keenya's past relations with her own children were aggregious then, why would the State give her custody of her grandchildren? Then, subsequently claim her prior relationship with her own children was evidence of abuse of the grandchildren?

Another fact is, the Judge wanted to demonize Keenya and chose language and exaggerations in her sentencing statement (before the cameras) to ensure no one would question the propriety of the sentence.

Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)