Targeted prosecution for political gain. Can it happen to you?

For politically ambitious Summit County Prosecutor Maureen O'Connor and Common Pleas Court Judge Beth Whitmore, demonstrating that you are 'tough on crime' is your objective because that is how to get votes. You demonstrate it by aggressively identifying likely defendants and prosecuting them to the ‘full extent of the law'; If they cannot find a suitable bad guy well, then they set their sights on anyone whom they can, at least, portray as being unsavory and thus deserving of punishment. And it doesn't hurt a campaign when one of the candidates has a recognizable nickname like Judge "Maximum Beth' Whitmore; which Keenya Curry learned of all too late.

When Keenya Curry was targeted, O'Connor was to become the Lt. Governor of Ohio and, her friend and colleague Judge Whitmore was in the midst of campaigning for a judgeship on the 9^th District Court of Appeals also located in Akron, Ohio's Summit County. O'Connor and Whitmore are members of the same political party that controlled then and now the courts in Summit County and, they had and have a cadre of like-minded party affiliates in supporting positions throughout the local court system.

Unfortunately and compounding the problems which confronted Keenya Curry is that Attorney James Reed, her assigned Public Defender, is also of the same political party as O'Connor and Whitmore et al and, he also was running for political office while representing Keenya. Imagine the conflict he had in vigorously defending Keenya while not wanting to alienate the political party elite whose favor he needed if he had any hopes of a successful political career. Not to mention his lack of criminal experience. After all, he had spent his working life as a tax attorney and had only minimal criminal experience. In the end, what he got for his efforts was duped by those elite; what he got for his client was 25 years without chance of parole. Despite this, Attorney Reed's career has advanced, as have those of O'Connor, Whitmore, and their cadre of like-minded part affiliates.

Both candidates understood the public wants to know that their elected officials are protecting the public from those who would do them harm. They need to constantly remind the public of their efforts in thwarting crime and punishing the evildoers. They do that routinely by, in the case of O'Connor, charging as many people with as many sensational charges, as possible; Judge Whitmore completes the team by issuing harsh sentences to those that O'Connor and her office managed to ensnare; deserving of punishment or not; guilty of a crime or not.

The majority of people targeted by the Prosecutor elect not to go to trial. Why? One reason is because the Prosecutor uses the power of her office to bludgeon many defendants into accepting plea agreements which neither the Prosecutor nor the Judge is obliged to honor. So, a defendant gives up their Constitutional protection for a supposed deal only to discover the Prosecutor or the Judge reneges on the Plea Offer - in actuality, the defendant is left holding the bag or, in Keenya Curry's case, is given the maximum sentence possible instead of the probation or 1 year she was told was the deal.

To really get the public's attention, the candidates know they need a sensational case; something worthy of print and coverage by the media so as to ‘shock the conscience' of the public. However, sensational cases don't come along often. So, what can they do to generate the confidence the voters demand?

One frequent tactic employed is to 'manufacture' a case out of nothing; select a routine case and dress-up elements which, when presented in just the right light, appeal to the public‘s fears and sense of outrage.

O'Connor and Whitmore are seasoned campaigners and they know that drum beating is effective in making the voting public aware of their track records; that is, they utilize every case and media event to shout just how tough on crime they really are. They know the best times to do this is as close to election day, as possible, because they know the public has a short memory. They understand that the more sensational the allegations the more certain they are to leave an indelible impression in the public's mind.

A lack of evidence is not a hindrance to bringing criminal charges against anyone. These ambitious politicos are fully aware of two important facts in our present legal system: that there is no oversight of their actions and, that no one will step forward to stop them. Their positions provide them with enormous power to both compel and direct investigations: authorize, limit, or deny motions or funds to the defense that would enable a viable defense of innocence to be mounted or proved. Without oversight to reign-in unscrupulous members of the justice system, anything is possible. Who is going to stop them?

Using the power of their positions, some in the justice system are able to manipulate the legal process; in doing so, they can spin contrary facts to appear to be evidence of crimes. Thus, the final outcome is pre-determined to conform to their whims and the public's need to see results without caring how those results were achieved. After all, it is not they (the public) being prosecuted so it is not much of a concern. The public often say to themselves, the defendants must be guilty of something or else, why would they have accepted a plea offer?

A conviction of guilty or innocent defendants is achieved using various methods: the least likely method is a trial. The overwhelming majority of cases never go to trial; instead, the cases are plea-bargained. One prime way in achieving convictions is by restricting or limiting access by the defense or interested public to supposed ‘evidence'. In doing so, the Prosecution effectively stifles opposition to their objective of gaining a conviction.

Another favorite tactic of the Prosecutor is to pile-on innumerable charges and literally beat a defendant into submission with the power of the Prosecutor's office; guilty or not, many defendants have no other choice but to accept a Plea Offer forced upon them by the Prosecutor. It happened to Keenya Curry and has happened to many others. Her prosecution was not a fluke and the preponderance of similar convictions is proof that hers was not a product of mere chance.

In the case of indigent defendants (those without funds to hire an attorney), the presiding Judge controls the purse strings of available money for use by the defense. The Judge can deny the defense attorney any opportunity to review the Prosecutor's so-called evidence or, deny the defense the necessary funds to hire experts or conduct research and tests which might support the defendant's claims of innocence. Considering the stipend paid to Public Defenders, it is not hard to see why most Public Defenders spend expend comparatively little time defending their clients because they are paid so little or not at all. It is easy to understand why Public Defenders are eager that their clients take a Plea Offer from the Prosecutor even if the offer is not in the defendants' best interests. And, as discussed earlier, acceptance of a Plea Offer is no guarantee that the Prosecutor or the Judge will honor their offer. Keenya Curry has learned that fact the hard way.

Alarmingly, it is also the presiding Judge who must approve or deny the Public Defender‘s fee bill for services rendered to the defendant; the effect is that a Public Defender will not or cannot incur work on behalf of his client unless the Judge approves first. Imagine the limitations imposed by a hostile Judge on a defendant who is trying to prove their innocence.  You think that cannot happen because the Judge is supposed to be impartial - that is true is an ideal world in which we do not find ourselves living.

The Prosecutor can also be particularly effective in manufacturing a case against a defendant, especially if they have a trusted circle of like minded individuals around to assist in reaching their objectives; or manipulate anyone who might be in a position to expose their weakness or true objective such as, the defense attorney.

Things often do not happen in a vacuum, particularly in the political or legal arena. Somebody knows something and does not tell because either they are apart of the overall plan or because they are afraid of reprisals if they step forward. In the legal arena, many attorneys and judges will freely admit these kinds of behind-the-scenes things go on but, they add, there is nothing the can do about it. Then, who is exercising oversight to protect the public from unsubstantiated prosecutions?

The perpetrators know that no one is watching, especially in a closely controlled environment so, they know they can operate freely without fear of reprisals. Doesn't that present quite a dangerous predicament for the unsuspecting public who believes in equal application of the law and justice for all?

When targeting a defendant, timing is everything. So, they plan their assault to gain the most favorable exposure; the election campaign is their guide - the plan must bear fruit soon enough to be utilized in their campaigns. Of course, the media is essential to get their version disseminated to the voting public. Remember, a trial most be avoided at all costs because a defendant has rights and their ‘evidence' will be subject to cross-examination if it gets to trial; so, forcing a plea is best to avoid the uncertainties and adverse publicity that a trial can bring.

Above all, they choose their prey carefully; they select only defendants who are the most vulnerable and who lack the resources to resist.  Ask yourself, how many rich people serve any significant prison time or are setting on death row? Selected defendants are also primarily those who are poor and who usually have some character flaw easily exploited.

Who among us doesn‘t have a flaw or two? Certainly, Keenya Curry has her share. However, she did not receive a 25-year sentence because her flaws were criminal and merited the sentence. Instead, it was that she was caught in the cross-hairs of politically ambitious Summit County Prosecutor Maureen O‘Connor and Common Pleas Court Judge Beth Whitmore who had no qualms about exploiting Keenya (and the minor children) for their own ambitions.

Character flaws were not the only element that made Keenya Curry a prime target. More importantly, was her involvement with two minor children (her grandchildren) which made her the most attractive target. When minor children are involved, the Court's (through the presiding Judge) primary duty is the protection of the children above all else, even above most duties owed to a defendant.

Under such a mandate, a Court or Prosecutor can deny the defense access to the evidence which the Prosecutor says they have amassed because to do so would potentially expose the children to harm. The effect of such denials is to prevent the defense (or even the public) from scrutinizing or rebutting the very basis of the Prosecutor's case.  The Prosecutor and the Court are essentially saying, trust us because this defendant is really a bad person and if you knew what we know you would agree.

It happened to Keenya Curry; the rest of us have to pray it does not happen to us.