Enquirer Motion for Contempt

7/28/2019 Enquirer Motion for Contempt

1/13

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OFAPPEALSHAMILTONCOUNTY,OHIO

STATE, x e l . THE CINCINNATI Case No. C 300183ENQUIRER,

P e t i t i o n e r ,

v s . O r i g i n a l A c t i o n i n MandamusHONORABLE TRACIEM.HUNTER,

R e s p o n d e n t .

MOTIONFOR CONTEMPTThe C i n c i n n a t i E n q u i r e r(The E n q u i r e r") moves t h i s c o u r t f o r an o r d e r f i n d i n g The

Honorabl e Judge T r a c i e Hunter n Contempt of h i s C o u r t ' s E n t r y G r a n t i n g A l t e r n a t i v e Writ ofP r o h i b i t i o n(t h e W r i t" ) . Judge Hunter h a s p l a c e d r e s t r i c t i o n s on t h e r i g h t of The C i n c i n n a t iE n q u i r e r t o a t t e n d c e r t a i n p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e Judge H u n t e r i n a manner h a t v i o l a t e s t h e W r i t .

The E n q u i r e r a s k s t h a t t h i s Court a c a t e t h a t p o r t i o n of udge H u n t e r ' s o r d e r t h a t p r o h i b i t s TheE n q u i r e r from p u b l i s h i n g t h e names of h e D e f e n d a n t s and h e i r p a r e n t s .

MEMORANDUM NSUPPORT

FACTS

Pending e f o r e t h i s Court s The n q u i r e r ' s Complaint o r Writ of r o h i b i t i o n , s e e k i n g t o

v a c a t e c e r t a i n o r d e r s i s s u e d b y J u d g e H u n t e r p r o h i b i t i n g The E n q u i r e r from a t t e n d i n gp r o c e e d i n g s i n Hamilton County u v e n i l e C o u r t . The r o c e e d i n g s a t i s s u e a r e d o c k e t e d a s :

In Re : . M . , Case Nos. 12- 7 2 8 5 ; 12- 7 3 0 5 ; In Re: T . M . , Case Nos. 12- 7 2 8 8 , 1 2 -7306; n Re: . J . , Case Nos. 12- 7 2 7 9 , 12- 7 3 0 8 ; In Re: .H., Case Nos. 1 2-7366,1 2-7367; n Re: . C . , Case Nos. 12- 7 2 7 8 , 12- 7 3 0 7 ; I n Re : D.C., Case Nos. 1 2 -7304, 2- 7 3 0 3 .


2/13

(The r o c e e d i n g s" ) . (A opy of h e Complaint s a t t a c h e d h e r e t o a s E x h i b i t A).On March 29, 2013, t h i s Court i s s u e d t h e Writ o r d e r i n g Judge Hunter t o admit

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of The E n q u i r e r t o t h e P r o c e e d i n g s . (A C o p y of h e W r i t is a t t a c h e d h e r e t o a sE x h i b i t B ) .

On une 24, h e d i s p o s i t i o n h e a r i n g i n Case No . 1 2- 7 3 6 6 , t o o k p l a c e i n Hamilton C ou n t yOhio J u v e n i l e C o u r t . T h i s c a s e i s c o v e r e d by t h i s C o u r t ' s E n t r y G r a n t i n g A l t e r n a t i v e Writ ofP r o h i b i t i o n i s s u e d March 29, 01 3

A t t h e b e g i n n i n g of h e h e a r i n g , Judge H u n t e r announced t h a t s h e ha d s i g n e d a n e n t r yg r a n t i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of The C i n c i n n a t i E n q u i r e r t o a t t e n d t h e h e a r i n g(t h e E n t r y" ) . A opyof h e E n t r y i s a t t a c h e d h e re t o a s E x h i b i t C .

Judg e Hunter r e a d t h e c o n t e n t of h e E n t r y i n open c o u r t i n r a p i d f a s h i o n. P a r t of h eE n t r y p r o h i b i t e d The n q u i r e r from p u b l i s h i n g t h e n a me s of e f e n d a n t s and h e i r p a r e n t s " f o r a l lc u r r e n t a n d u t u r e p r o c e e d i n g s r e g a r d i n g t h i s m a t t e r . "

Counsel f o r The E n q u i r e r a t t e m p t e d t o o b j e c t t o t h i s p o r t i o n of h e E n t r y , b u t JudgeHunter e f u s e d t o h e a r t h e o b j e c t i o n an d h r e a t e n e d t o e x p e l c o u n s e l from h e courtroom i f he d i dnot m m e d i a t e l y s i t d ow n . (See A f f i d a v i t of ohn C . r e i n e r ) .

ARGUMENTThis Court n e q u i v o c a l l y s t a t e d i n t h e Writ h a t " r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of The E n q u i r e r s h a l l be

p e r m i t t e d i n t h e c o u r t r o o m . " T h i s Court i s s u e d n o c o n d i t i o n s o r r e s t r i c t i o n s o n t s o r d e r . JudgeH u n t e r ' s E n t r y , however, e r m i t s The E n q u i r e r t o a t t e n d o n l y i f i t r e f r a i n s from p u b l i s h i n g t h en a m es of t h e J u v e n i l e D e f e n d a n t s a nd t h e i r p a r e n t s . Although The Ohio Rules ofS u p e r i n t e n d e n c e 1 2 and L o c a l J u v e n i l e Rule 14 a d d r e s s r e s t r i c t i o n s on p h o t o g r a p h i n g an dv i d e o t a p i n g i n J u v e n i l e C o u r t , n e i t h e r p u r p o r t s t o l i m i t t h e a b i l i t y of newspaper o r a n y me mber


3/13

of h e p u b l i c from p u b l i s h i n g t h e name of a u v e n i l e D e f e n d a n t . Thus, by p l a c i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s ont h e r i g h t of T h e E n q u i r e r t o a t t e n d t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t h a t a r e n o t p r o v i d e d f o r i n t h e Ohio o r LocalR u l e s , Judge Hu nter s i n contempt of h i s C o u r t ' s W r i t .

I n a d d i t i o n , t h e E n t r y c o n s t i t u t e s an u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r i o r r e s t r a i n t on T h e E n q u i r e r ' sr i g h t t o p u b l i s h t r u t h f u l i n f o r m a t i o n . P r i o r r e s t r a i n t s on s p e e c h a r e p r e s u m p t i v e l yu n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , p a r t i c u l a r l y r e s t r a i n t s on r e p o r t i n g c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s . See Nebraska PressAss n v . S t u a r t , 427 U.S. 539, 559, 9 6 S . C t . 2791 (1976)(t h e p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t p r i o r r e s t r a i n ts h o u l d have p a r t i c u l a r f o r c e a s a p p l i e d t o r e p o r t i n g of r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s" ) . C o n s e q u e n t l y , onm u l t i p l e o c c a s i o n s , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h a s h e l d p r i o r r e s t r a i n t s on p u b l i c a t i o n l i k et h e one h e r e t o v i o l a t e t h e F i r s t Amendment, even i n c a s e s i n v o l v i n g j u v e n i l e s . S e e , e . g . , Smithv . Daily Mail Publ'g C o . , 443 U.S. 97, 9 9 S . C t . 2667 (1979) West V i r g i n i a s t a t u t e imposingc r i m i n a l s a n c t i o n s f o r p u b l i c a t i o n of u v e n i l e s ' names h e l d t o be a v i o l a t i o n of t h e F i r s tAmendment); Oklahoma Publ'g C o . , 443 U.S. 97, 9 9 S . C t . 2667 (1979) h o l d i n g t h a t c o u r to r d e r e n j o i n i n g p r e s s from p u b l i s h i n g , b r o a d c a s t i n g , o r d i s s e m i n a t i n g " t h e name r p i c t u r e of aj u v e n i l e was n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r i o r r e s t r a i n t on p e e c h ) .

T he c i t e d d e c i s i o n s of h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme Court make c l e a r t h a t R e s p o n d e n t ' sconduct would be u n l a w f u l , even i f t h e names of t h e j u v e n i l e s were n o t a m a t t e r of p u b l i cr e c o r d . I n t h i s c a s e , however, T h e E n q u i r e r l a w f u l l y o b t a i n e d t h e names of t h e i n v o l v e dj u v e n i l e s from a p o l i c e r e p o r t p u r s u a n t t o a p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t . T he f a c t t h a t any i n t e r e s t e dmember of h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c n o t u s t t h e p r e s s ) c o u l d o b t a i n t h e j u v e n i l e s ' names s , on t s own,s u f f i c i e n t t o make R e s p o n d e n t ' s o r d e r p r o h i b i t i n g p u b l i c a t i o n of h o s e names u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .See Craig . Harney, 3 3 1 U . S . 367, 374,67 . C t . 1249 1947) h o l d i n g t h a t t h o s e wh o s e e ando b s e r v e a p u b l i c t r i a l "can r e p o r t i t w i t h i m p u n i t y " and t h a t " [ t ] h e r e i s no s p e c i a l p e r q u i s i t e of

3


4/13

t h e j u d i c i a r y which e n a b l e s i t , a s d i s t i n g u i s h e d from o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s of e m o c r a t i c government,t o s u p p r e s s , e d i t , o r c e n s o r e v e n t s which t r a n s p i r e i n p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e i t" ) . Thus, h e f a c t t h a tt h e i n f o r m a t i o n was of u b l i c r e c o r d b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i s a e p a r a t e an d i n d e p e n d e n t l y s u f f i c i e n tground f o r f i n d i n g Respondent's a c t i o n s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .

This Court s h o u l d i s s u e an o r d e r t h a t Judge Hunter i s i n contempt of h i s C o u r t ' s Writan d v a c a t e t h a t p o r t i o n of e r E n t r y t h a t p r o h i b i t s The E n q u i r e r from p u b l i s h i n g t h e names of h eDefendants an d t h e i r p a r e n t s .

Of ounsel:

GRAYDONHEAD ~ RITCHEYLLP1900 i f t h T h i r d C e n t e r511 Walnut t r e e tC i n c i n n a t i ,OH 45202-3157Phone: (513) 21-6464Fax: (513) 51-3836

R e s p e c t f u l l y s u b m i t t e d ,

/ s/John C. GreinerJ oh n C . reiner 0005551)Counsel or The C i n c i n n a t i EnquirerGRAYDONHEAD L RITCHEYLLP1900 i f t h T h i r d C e n t e r511 Walnut t r e e tC i n c i n n a t i ,OH 5202-3157Phone: (513) 29-2734Fax: (513) 51-3836E- m a i l : j g r e i n e [email protected]

CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE

T h e u n d e r s i g n e d hereby c e r t i f i e s t h a t a r u e and c o r r e c t copy of h e f o r e g o i n g Motion orC o n t e m p t was s e n t b y e l e c t r o n i c m a i l an d r e g u l a r U.S. Mail, p o s t a g e p r e p a i d , t h i s 24th day ofTune 2013, up on h e f o l l o w i n g :

C h r i s t i a n J . S c h a e f e r , Esq.A s s i s t a n t P r o s e c u t i n g A t t o r n e y23 0 East Ninth S t r e e t , S u i t e 4000C i n c i n n a t i ,OH 5202C h r i s . c h a e f e [email protected] t t o r n e yfor Respondent

4287254.1

0

/ s/John C. GreinerJo h n C. reiner 0005551)


5/13

FIRSTDISTRICTCOURTOFAPPEALSHAMILTON COUNTY,OHIO

STATE, XREL.THECINCINNATI Case No.ENQUIRER, division of Gannett a t e l l i t eInformation Network, ~ . c . Judge312Elm treetCincinnati,OH 5202,

P e t i t i o n e r ,

vs. COMPLAINTFOR WRITOFPROHIBITION

HONORABLE RACIEHUNTERHamilton County Court of Common leasJ u v e n i l e D i v i s i o n80 0 BroadwayCincinnati,OH 5202,

Respondent.

P e t i t i o n e r The Cincinnati Enquirer, a d i v i s i o n of Gannett a t e l l i t e Information Network,

Inc.(Petitioner" ) , o r i t s Complaint o r Writ of r o h i b i k i o n , t a t e s as follows:

The arties

1 . P e t i t i o n e r operates an d does business as The Cincinnati Enquirer, a newspaper of

general i r c u l a f i o n in C i n c i n n a t i , Hamilton County, hio.

2. Respondent T r a c i e Hunter i s a judg e in the Common leas Court for Hamilton

County, hio, u v e n i l e Division who resides over e v e r a l cases involving the alleged felonious

assault and aggravated r i o t i n g by he s i x Defendants on a man n North College Hill who was

seriously beaten an d n j u r e d .

EXHIBIT A


6/13

3. The a s e s a r e docketed as o l l o w s : I n Re; T,M., Case Nos. 12-7285, 12- 7 3 0 5 ; In Re:T.M., Case Nos. 12- 7 2 8 8 , 12- 7 3 0 6 ; In Re: . J . , Case Nos. 12- 7 2 7 9 , 12- 7 3 0 8 ; T n Re: A.H., Case Nos .

12- 7 3 6 6 , 12-7367; n Re: . C . , Case Nos. 7 2- 7 2 7 8 , 12- 7 3 0 7 ; In Re: . C . , Case Nos. 12-7304,12- 7 3 0 3 .Back au n d

4. On ugust 1 6 , 2012, e t i t i o n e x ran a s t o r y in The C i n c i n n a t i E n q u i r e r , captioned"Six 'bored' teens a t t a c k man . " In the s t o r y , P e t i t i o n e r d i s c l o s e d the n a m e s of f i v e of the s i xDefendants in the Case, which P e t i t i o n e r h a d r e c e i v e d v i a a p u b l i c records request to la wenforcement f f i c i a l s . (See A f f i d a v i t of e n n i f e r B a k e r ) .

5 . On August 22, 2012, P e t i o n e r ran afollow- up s t o r y in The C i n c i n n a t i E n q u i r e r ,captioned " Account t a r t e d to help rnan a t t a c k e d by t e e n s . " This s t o r y a l s o d i s c l o s e d the nameo f , a n d contained a quote from, the mother of t w o of the Defendants. T h e story a l s o reportedthat the 4 5-year old v i c t i m " s u f f er e d s o many n t e r n a l i n j u r i e s T h a t doctors h a d to i n s e r t a tubedown i s throat to remove a l l blood fr om h i s stomach." (See A f f i d a v i t of e n n i f e r Baker).

6. On August 24, 2012, l e g a l counsel f o r P e t i t i o n e r appe ared before Magistrate

Judge Kelly in t h i s Case, along with counsel f o r other me d ia o u t l e t s a n d defense counsel, torespond to e f f o r t s b y s o m e of the defendants counsel to c l o s e p r o c e e d i t n g s in the Case. (SeeA f f i d a v i t of K e n t e l l i n g t o n ) .

7 . As r e s u l t , the p a r t i e s a nd M a g i s t r a t e Kelly c a m e o a n agreement as t o how he

p r o c e e d i ~ l g s would be c o v e r e d . - In p a r t i c u l a r , the p a r t i e s agreed n ot t o f i l m or photograph the

f a c e s or i d e n t i f y i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the De#endants in the courtroom along with t h e i r p a r e n t s .

T h e p a r t i e s a l s o agreed a n d a r t i c u l a t e d o n the record before Magistrate Kelly that P e t i t i o n e r

could continue to p r i n t the n am e s of the Defendants (as P e t i t i o n e r h a d d o n e previously upon


7/13

r e c e i v i n g the names of t 1 1 e a l l e g e d f e l o n s from a p o l i c e r e p o r t pursuant t o a p u b l i c recordxequest t o law enforcement a u t h o r i t i e s , which d i s c l o s e d t h e names). (See A f f i d a v i t of Kent

W e l l i n g t o n ) .8 . On ugust 2 5 , 2 0 1 2 , P e t i t i o n e r ran a s t o r y i n The C i n c i n n a t i E n q u i r e r , captioned

"NCH e a t i n g spawns p r o t e s t s -Boys a c e unusual c o u r t p r o c e s s . " T n t h e s t o r y , and c o n s i s t e n twith t h e proceedings o n August 4 , P e t i t i o n e r d i s c l o s e d t h e names of t h e s i x Defendants in theCases a g a i n . (See A f f i d a v i t of e n n i f e r B a k e r ) .

9 . On August 3 1 , 2 0 1 2 , P e t i o n e r named the s v c Defendants again in a s t o r ycaptioned, Teens n d i c t e d i n b e a t i n g c a s e . " (See A f f i d a v i t o f J e n n i f e r B a k e r ) .

1 0 . Unbeknownst t o P e t i t i o n e r u n t i l t h e w e e k o f March 1 8 , on September 1 7 , 2012,Judge Txacy Hunter a p p a r e n t l y a l t e r e d the agreement reached by the p a r t i e s and entered o frecord b e f o r e M a g i s t r a t e K e l l y . Judge Hunter's o r d e r , which was no t served o n e t i t i o n e r or . t sl e g a l c o u n s e l , s t a t e s t h a t t h e media i s no longer allowed t o p r i n t t h e names of the defendantsthat h ad already been p u b l i c a l l y d i s c l o s e d by law enforcement o f f i c i a l s and p r i n t e d i n v a r i o u s ,e a r l i e r media r e p o r t s (some o f which a r e i d e n t i f i e d a b o v e ) . (See A f f i d a v i t s of e n n i f e r Baker and

Kent e l l i n g t o n ) .1 1 . On arch 1 5 , 2 0 1 3 , Judge Hunter e n t e r e d an order r e s t r i c t i n g P e t i t i o n e r from

broadcasting, e c o r d i n g , e l e v i s i n g or photographing t h e proceedings in t h e Cases and a t t a c h e d

a c o py o f a September 1 7 , 2 0 1 2 order t h a t P e t i t i o n e r h ad no t seen b e f o r e . (A o p y of the e n t r y

and order i s a t t a c h e d as E~ibitA- 6 t o A f f i d a v i t o f J e n n i f e r B a k e r ) ,1 2 . On March 1 8 , 2 0 1 3 , J e n n i f e r Baker attempted to covex t h e proceedings in t h e

Case, bu t was denred a c c e s s t o t h e proceedings by Judge Hunter's c l e r k . At f i r s t , sh e was

[ e ?


8/13

ordered t o wait in the lobby o u t s i d e the s i x t h f l o o r courtroom during proceedings in the Cases.But t h e n . she was t o l d by Judge Hunter's b a i l i f f t h a t she needed to v a c a t e the s i x t h f l o o r

a l t o g e t h e r a n d waif in the lobby n n the i r s t f l o o r , even though the March 15, 2013 order onlyrevokes permission of The C i n c i n n a t i E n q u i r e r t o "broadcast, record, t e l e v i s e or photograph"proceedings in the Case.

13. Upon nformation a n d b e l i e f , J e n n i f e r Baker w a s the only r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of them e d i a that w a s e s t r i c t e d a c c e s s t o t h e proceedings in the Case o n March 8 , 2013.

14. On March 25, Ms . Baker attempted t o cover a proceeding i n the Case, but wasbarred from doing o .

15. Upon nformation an d e l r e f , h e r e a r e g u i l t y p l e a s of th e t h r e e remaining l l e g e d

co-Defendants o n March 25 , April 1 a i d Apri122, 0 1 3 . There are a l s o sentencing hearings o nApril 2, A pri123 a n d May 3, 013.

16. T h e Court's e s t r i c t i o n s o n c c e s s i n g a n d r e p o r t i n g about the Cases a r e contraryto Ohio law, n d the Ohio a n d United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n .

R e s f i r i c t i o n s o n Disclosing Names17. A court may r o h i b i t a c c e s s to a J u v e n i l e Court record only i f the court finds

a f t e r hearing evidence a n d argument on the i s s u e , t h a t "(1) there e x i s t s a reasonable a n d

s u b s t a n t i a l b a s i s f o r b e l i e v i n g t h a t p u b l i c a c c e s s could h a r m the c h i l d or enda~lger the f a i r n e s s

of the a d j u d i c a t i o n , (2) the p o t e n f i a l f o r h a r m outweighs the b e n e f i t s of p u b l i c a c c e s s , a n d (3)

there are n o reasonable a l t e r n a t i v e s to c l o s u r e . " S t a t e e x r e l . P l a i n D e a l e r P u b l ' g Co. o . F l n y d , 1 1 1

Oh io t . 3d 5 6 , 1- 6 2 , 2006-Oh io ~ 4 3 7 i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . No uch hearing h as been

held here.

4


9/13

18. Judge Hunter's orders r e s t r i c t i n g p u b l i c a t i o n of the j u v e n i l e s ' names an dr e s t r i c t i n g Ms. a k e r ' s a c c e s s to the proceedings c o n s t i t u t e s an u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r i o r r e s t r a i n t

o n speech. Nebraska P r e s s Assn v . S t u a r t 1 9 7 6 ) , 427 U.S. 3 9 .Prohibition s A~~ro~riate H ere

19. P r o h i b i t i o n i s the a p p r o p r i a t e remedy t o prevent a court f r o m improperlyexcluding the p i x b l i c an d press f r o m p r e t r i a l proceedings in criminal m a t t e r s .

20 . P r o h i b i t i o n i s a writ issued b y a highex court t o a lower court to r e s t r a i n th ewlauthorized e x e r c i s e of j u d i c i a l po wer. S t a t e e x r e l . D a i l y R e p o r t e r v . CouYt of Common l e a s ,

F r a n k l i n C o . 7 9 9 0 ) , 56 Ohio S t . 3 d 145, 1 4 5 . P r o h i b i t i o n i s the proper a c t i o n to dispute a t r i a lcourt o r c ~ e x , w h i c h impedes a p u b l i c a c c e s s t o court proceedings. S t a t e e x r e l . P l a i n D e a l e rP u b l i s h i n g Co. v . Geauga Co. Court o f C o mm o n P l e a s , J u v e n i l e D i v . , 9 0 Ohio S t . 3 d 79 , 82, 20 0 0-O h i o-35. In a c t , " p r o h i b i t i o n i s the D r i l y remedy a v a i l a b l e to nonparties who i s h to challengean o r d e r . w h i c h r e s t r i c t s fh e r i g h t s o f f r e e speech an d press of such n o n p a r t i e s . " S t a t e e x r e l .T o l e d o Blade Co. v . Henry Co. Count o f Common P l e a s , 1 25 Ohio S t . 3 d 149, 2010-O h i o-1533, [ 1 9(quoting S t a t e e x r e i . N e w s Herald v . Ottawa Co. Court of Common P l e a s , J u v e n i l e D i v . , 77 O h i o S t .3d 0 ,43- 4 4 , 1 9 9 6-Oh i o- 3 5 4 . )

21 . To arrant a writ of r o h i b i t i o n , the movin g party must s t a b l i s h (1) he court or

o f f i c e r against whom he writ s sought s about o e x e r c i s e j u d i c i a l or quasi u d i c i a l p o w e r , 2)

f he e x e r c i s e of such p o w e r s c l e a r l y unauthorized b y law, an d (3) denial of the writ w i l l cause

i n j w y for w h i c h t h e r e i s n o adequate remedy in the ordinary cour se of law. McAuley v . Smith,

82 h i o S t . 3 d 393, 9 5 , 1 9 9 8 -O h i o ~ 0 2 . All h r e e elements a r e met ere.

5


10/13

2 2 . P e t i t i o n e r has a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o a t t e n d t h e s e p u b l i c proceedings a n dR e s p o n d e n t ha s a l e a r l e g a l duty o p e r m i t t h e p u b l i c a n d p r e s s t o a t t e n d .

2 3 . R e s p o n d e n t has e f u s e d t o comply with her e g a l d u t y .2 4 . P e t i t i o n e r has n o adequate a l t e z n a t i v e r e m e d y n t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e o f t h e law.

Mo r e o ve r , e t i t i o n e r i n t e n d s t o c o v e r t h e e x p e c t e d g u i l t y p l e a s o f t h e remaining t h r e e a l l e g e df e l o n Defendants o n A p r i l 1 a n d A p r i 1 2 2 , n a d d i t i o n t o s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g s o n Apri12, A p r i12 3a n d May 3 . H o w e v e r , Res p o n d e nt has d e n i e d P e t i t i o n e r a c c e s s t o t h e proceedings in t h eCases.

2 5 . R e s p o n d e n t has n o v a l i d e x c u s e f o r r e f u s i n g t o permit e t i t i o n e r , t h e m e d i a a n dt h e p u b l i c t o a c c e s s t o t h e s e p r o c e e d i n g s .

2 6 . R e s p o n d e n t has t a k e n t h e r e s t r i c t i v e a c t i o n s above u n l a w f u l l y a n d withoutcondu cting a c l o s u r e h e a r i n g a s r e q u i r e d b y la w a n d without p r i o r n o t i c e t o P e t i t i o n e r a sr e q u i r e d b y law.

WHEREFORE, e t i t i o n e r s e e k s a Writ o f P r o h i b i t i o n p r e v e n t i n g R e s p o n d e n t from: a)

d e n y i n g P e t i t i o n e r an d t h e p u b l i c a c c e s s t o t h e courtroom a n d p r o c e e d i n g s i n th e C a s e s , (b)d e n y i n g P e t i t i o n e r t h e a b i l i t y t o photograph a n d r e p o r t o n t h e s e C a s e s , a n d ( c ) p r o h i b i t i n gP e t i t i o n e r f r o m p r i n t i n g t h e n a m e s f t h e a l l e g e d f e l o n D e f e n d a n t s .

D


11/13

Of o i t i n s e l :

Kent ellington 0055540)GRAYDONHEAD&ITCHEYLLP1900 i f t h Third Center511 Walnut t r e e tC i n c i n n a t i ,OH 5202-3157Phone: (513) 29-2812Fax: (513) 3 3-4387E- m a i l : [email protected]

TO THE CLERK:

R e s p e c t f u l l y submitted,

J o ~C. r e i n e r ' ~ 0 0 0 5 5 5 1 )A o ney o r P e t i t i o n e rG DONHEAD&ITCHEYLLP1900 i f t h Third Center511 Walnut t r e e tC i n c i n n a t i ,OH 5202-3157Phone: (513) 29- 2 7 3 4F a x : (513) 51- 3 8 3 6E- m a i l : j g r e i n e [email protected]

PRAECIPEFORSERVICE

P l e a s e i s s u e a Summons along with a copy o f t h i s COMPLAINT o the Respondenti d e n t i f i e d i n the a p t i o n o n page one i a C e r t i f i e d M a i l , e t u r n r e c e i p t r e q u e s t e d .

4130725.1

7


12/13

INTHECOURTOF PPEALSF1RSTAPPELLATEDISTRICTOFOHIO

D101494777HAMILTON COUNTY, HIO

STATE x e l . THE INCINNATIENQUIRER, APPEALN0. -130183P e t i t i o n e r ,

v s .

THEHGNORABLETRACIEHUNTER,R e s p o n d e n t .

ENTRYGRANTINGALTERNATIVEWRITOF ROHIBITIONAND ESTABLISHINGTIME

ENTEREDM A R 2 0 1 3

T h i s came t o be c o n s i d e r e d upon t h e c o m p l a i n t f o r w r i t of p r o h i b i t i o n , t h e m o t i o n f o rp r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n , an d t h e memorandum i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e m o t i o n , Th e c o u r t c o n s t r u e s t h emotion o r p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n a s a e q u e s t f o r an l t e r n a t i v e w r i t . Th e o u r t g r a n t s an a l t e r n a t i v ew r i t of r o h i b i t i o n o r d e r i n g t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o s t a y t h e e n f o r c e m e n t of h e documents d a t e d March1 5 , 2013 and March 2S, 013, e v o k i n g Th e i n c i n n a t i E n q u i r e r ' s p e r m i s s i o n t o b r o a d c a s t , e l e v i s e ,p h o t o g r a p h , r r e c o r d c o u r t r o o m p r o c e e d i n g s . R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of h e E n q u i r e r s h a l l b e p e r m i t t e d i nt h e c o u r t r o o m .

Th e c o u r t o r d e r s t h a t a s t i p u l a t e d r e c o r d b e f i l e d i n t h i s c a s e o n o r b e f o r e A p r i l 1 2 , 2013.Th e r e s p o n d e n t s h a l l have u n t i l A p r i l 2 6 , 2013, o f i l e a r e s p o n s e t o t h e c o m p l a i n t f a r w r i t ofp r o h i b i t i o n . Th e p e t i t i o n e r s h a l l have u n t i l MaytO, 2Q13, o f i l e an y m o t i o n o r memorandum i nr e p l y .

ENTERUPONTHE JOURNALOFTHECOURT ~ 1 A R 2 9 0 1 3f

PERORDEROF THECOURT.BY:Judge

.


13/13

ANTONIOHENDRIX

HAMILTONCOUNTY,OHIOJUVENILECOURT

CASENO.2-7366JUDGETRACIEM.HUNTER

ENTRYGRANTINGRESTRICTEDACCESSTOBROADCAST,ELEVISE,RECORDORPHOTOGRAPHCOURTROOMPROCEEDINGSThepersons)elowrequestedper mis s iont o br oad cas t ,e l e v i s e , phot ogr aph,o rot her wis er e c o r d pr oceed ings n t h e above a p t i o n e d case.

C i n c i n n a t i E n q u i r e r , A p p l i c a n tT h i s a p p l i c a n t was r e v i o u s l y b a r r e d fr oma t t e n d i n g a l l f u t u r e proceedings n t h i s m a t t e r a f t e ri o l a t i n g t h i s C o u r t ' s c o n d i t i o n s i n ap r e v i o u s h e a r i n g , wher eby h i s Cou r tg r a n t e d p e r m i s s i o n t or o a d c a s t . ThisE n t r y n e i t h e r a l t e r s noramendsh i s C o u r t ' s p r e v i o u s Or d er s or h i s C o u r t ' s pendingr f u t u r e Orders,whichs h a l l bedecidedu ponproperM o t i o n t o t h i s Cou r tonacas ebycas eb a s i s .TheC o u r t , u ponconsiderationoft h e abover e q u e s t , pu r s uanto n l y t o theF i r s t D i s t r i c to u r t ' s Order,w h i l e al a w s u i t l i t i g a t i n g t hes ei s s u e s , i s pending,her ebyg r a n t s i t s a u t h o r i z a t i o n t or o a d c a s t , t e l e v i s e , phot ogr aph, r ot her wis er e c o r d j u d i c i a l pr oceed ings i n theabovecapt ioneda t t e r , s u b j e c t t o thef o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s :A l l per s onsapproved o broadcas t , e l e v i s e , phot ogr aph,r r e c o r d cou r t r oompr oceed ings mustcomplyw i t h OhioRu les o f Su per int end ence,Ru le1 2 ; and Rule14 f theu les o f P r a c t i c e o f theH a m i l t o n Cou nt yJ u v e n i l e C o u r t .Br oad cas t s ,vid eotapes,phot ogr aphs andrecor dingsmayinclude u l l imagesandsoundf t hejudgeanda l l cou r t r ooms t a f f .I n accordancew i t h Su per int end enceRu le12and Ru le14 f theRules o f P r a c t i c e , l li c t i m s andwitnessesmay b j e c t t o beingf i l m e d , vid eot aped ,r ecor d ed ,o r phot ogr aphed .f t heydoo b j e c t , theyMAYNOTe i l m e d , v i d e o t a p e d , r e c o r d e d , o r photographed.J u v e n i l e Defend ant s may n l y bevideotapedbelowthew a i s t . Namesf theDefendant sandh e i r p a r e n t s a r e b a r r e d fromp u b l i c a t i o n orbroadcast o r a l l c u r r e n t and u t u r e proceedingsr e g a r d i n gh i s m a t t e r . PhotographingtheDefendants' a r e n t s i s p r o h i b i t e d , as t mayompr omis et h e s a f e t y ofhe u v e n i l e s . f Defend ant s o b j e c t a t any i m e , ac l o s u r e h e a r i n g s h a l l becond ucted.I f med iaa p p l i c a n t v i o l a t e s t h i s o r d e r , t h e Judgemayrevokev i o l a t o r s ) p e r m i s s i o n t ob r o a d c a s t , v i d e o t a p e , photograph, r r e c o r d a l l f u t u r e cou rtroomp r o c e d i n g s ; anda d d i t i o n a l l y mayakeany t h e r a c t i o n s a v a i l a b l e u nd er l a w .

D~~~6JudgeT r a c i e M.Hunter Dat eEXHIBITC

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	kimball-perryjournalist
View:	227 times
Download:	0 times

Enquirer Motion for Contempt

Documents