THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO : Case No. B1400110

:
Plaintiff, : Judge Steven Wolaver
:
vs. : MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
: DELAYED POST CONVICTION
TRACIE M. HUNTER : PETITION AND/OR MOTION
: FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR A
: NEW TRIAL
:
Defendant. :

Pursuant to Crim.R.35 and R.C. 2953.23 and alternatively Crim.R.57(B) and

Civ.R.60(B), Defendant moves for leave to file a delayed post-conviction petition seeking

dismissal of her indictment, or in the alternative, relief from judgment based on new evidence

that: (A) there was an inappropriate relationship between special prosecutor Scott Croswell and

jury forewoman Sandy Kirkham that recently came to light; (B) the conduct alleged by the State

while not committed by Judge Hunter, per Ohio law, did not violate ORC 2921.42; (C) the State

and Trial Judge Ignored and/or Suppressed Applicable Ohio Law (D) the State violated Judge Hunter’s

due process rights to a fair trial by destroying and withholding exculpatory evidence; (E) Judge

Hunter was denied a fair trial after State’s witnesses committed perjury, made inconsistent

statements at trial and suppressed material evidence; (F) and Judge Hunter was provided

ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.

Recently transcribed hearings demonstrate that the State fabricated evidence, withheld

exculpatory evidence and destroyed exculpatory evidence in violation of the law, to unlawfully

1
influence a jury to convict Judge Hunter, pursuant to ORC 2921.42. She recently requested

pretrial and post trial hearings, not previously transcribed, but contained evidence, that had it

been known, would have changed the trial outcome, giving rise to this Post Conviction Motion.

The newly transcribed hearings providing evidence of jury tampering, tampering with evidence

and State’s misconduct are on file with this court and support the allegations contained herein.

The transcripts also contain evidence of perjury by the State’s key witnesses, including

assistant prosecutor Katie Pridemore and Dwayne Bowman. Therefore, Hunter’s conviction

should be vacated and her indictment dismissed. Moreover, those who altered Juvenile Court

records, tampered with computers and falsified records, then knowingly implicated Judge Hunter

and committed perjury, to influence a jury to convict her of crimes that they committed to frame

her must be held accountable for their acts. A memorandum in support of this motion is attached.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Tracie M. Hunter

Pro Se
PO Box 32325
Cincinnati, Ohio 45232
Tel: (513) 662-6247
[email protected]

I. Introduction and Procedural Posture

Defendant Tracie Hunter was elected the first African-American and first Democratic

Judge of the Hamilton County Juvenile Court in November 2010. She was not sworn in until

May 2012, for a term that began January 1, 2011, after prevailing in an election lawsuit against

the Hamilton County Board of Elections (BOE). Represented by Prosecutor Joseph T. Deters, the

BOE, threw out thousands of valid votes in majority African-American and Democratic precincts

2
in their relentless efforts to prevent her election.1 Once sworn in, Judge Hunter immediately

began to reform the Juvenile Court. She challenged employee pay disparities, ensured the

consistent applications of laws, and exposed the inaccurate reporting of case statistics by the

Juvenile Court to the Ohio Supreme Court (OSC). She was the first judge in Ohio to ban the

routine shackling of juveniles in 2013, that was mandated across Ohio by the OSC in 2016.

Deters publicly expressed his resentment of Judge Hunter. His office’s resistance to her

historic election and subsequent reforms was daily featured in the media, especially WCPO, 700

WLW and the Cincinnati Enquirer. He openly disparaged her as a judge, made racially offensive

comments about her in the media and cast dispersion on her competence, despite the fact that her

rulings were later upheld by the OSC and set new precedence in the state of Ohio. Deters’ actions

towards Judge Hunter eventually compelled her to file ethics complaints against his office. He

retaliated, falsely alleged that she backdated her judicial entries to prevent his office’s appeals,

which the media reported; then retained his personal criminal defense and divorce lawyers, Scott

Croswell and Merlyn Shiverdecker, to prosecute her. After convening a Grand Jury to indict her,

they charged her with nine felonies, including forgery, tampering with evidence, theft in office,

misuse of a credit card and securing a public contract. She was subsequently convicted of one

count of securing a public contract, which is the subject of this post conviction petition.

Judge Hunter’s lawyer met with special prosecutors prior to her indictment. He informed

her that she was being accused of: backdating her judicial entries, which proved to be untrue; not

getting along with her colleague John Williams, which was not a crime; not binding over

1Hunter v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 850 F. Supp. 2d 795 (S.D. Ohio 2012); In State ex rel. Painter v. Brunner, Slip Opinion
No. 2011-Ohio-35. Hunter v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 850 F. Supp. 2d 795 (S.D. Ohio 2012)

3
juveniles to the adult system, while false, also not a crime; and for ruling that the State must turn

over 527B reports to juvenile defendants, again not a crime, but her job as judge to hear evidence

presented by all parties and make a ruling like all other judges in Ohio and across America.

Contrary to the States’s assertions, Judge Hunter was blindsided when she was charged

with theft, securing a public contract, forgery, tampering and misuse of a credit card. A

confidential settlement letter her lawyer drafted, after meeting with special prosecutors, prior to

her indictment, summarized the scope of the State’s allegations against Judge Hunter. Ex. A

Based on the letter, it was clear that Deters sought to control Judge Hunter’s rulings and help

Judge Williams gain control of the Juvenile Court so that he could operate the court alone. Deters

was livid when she required prosecutors to turn over 527 B reports to the defense and used

judicial discretion to retain juveniles in Juvenile Court when law required. His office retaliated

when she threatened to hold a prosecutor in contempt for refusing to turn over reports for her to

review in camera, before she made a ruling, as the law required; and reported his office for

misconduct on cases. They demanded that she acquiesce to John Williams, after he lost the

election to her, but was appointed by the governor to the court. When Judge Hunter maintained

her integrity and autonomy as a judge, and resisted the unlawful demands, related to her rulings,

posed by special prosecutors before the indictment, they fabricated evidence and charged her.

On January 10, 2014, Judge Hunter was indicted and suspended minutes later by the Ohio

Supreme Court (OSC). Deter’s mother-in-law, First District Court of Appeals Judge Sylvia

4
Hendon, was appointed to preside over Judge Hunter’s cases, in violation of RC. 2151.07.2

Hendon, a Republican, presided over Judge Hunter’s Juvenile Court until her term concluded,

December 31, 2016, despite not being a Common Pleas, juvenile or probate court judge from a

different county, as the law required. Deters initiated the usurpation of Judge Hunter’s judgeship

to secure John Williams’, the Prosecutor’s Office and the Republican Party’s 120 year reign over

the Juvenile Court by falsely alleging that Judge Hunter backdated judicial entries. When

Hendon was appointed to preside over her cases, they accomplished their mission.

Judge Hunter was indicted and charged by Deters’ personal criminal defense and divorce

lawyers, Merlyn Shiverdecker and Scott Croswell. Despite the clear conflict of interest, using his

personal lawyers to pursue Judge Hunter, presiding Judge Beth Meyers appointed them at Deters’

recommendation. She admitted to the media in 2014 and later swore in an affidavit, to avoid

testifying at trial, that she did not vet them for conflicts, but hired them solely at Deters request.

She admitted the same to the Cincinnati Enquirer. Perry, Cost to prosecute Hunter? No one can

say, ( June 22, 2014, 11:07 pm, updated 11:44 pm June 22) https://www.cincinnati.com/story/

news/courts/2014/06/22/cost-prosecute-hunter-one-can-say/11250671/

It was a violation of Judge Hunter’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial to be indicted

by Deters’ personal lawyers. Nevertheless, Judge Hunter was put on trial in September 2014, for

five weeks, based on allegations initiated by Prosecutor Deters, after she filed disciplinary

2 The juvenile court is a court of record within the court of common pleas. The juvenile court has and shall exercise the powers and
jurisdiction conferred in Chapters 2151. and 2152. of the Revised Code.
Whenever the juvenile judge of the juvenile court is sick, is absent from the county, or is unable to attend court, or the volume of cases pending in
court necessitates it, upon the request of the administrative juvenile judge, the presiding judge of the court of common pleas pursuant to division
(GG) of section 2301.03 of the Revised Code shall assign a judge of any division of the court of common pleas of the county to act in the juvenile
judge's place or in conjunction with the juvenile judge. If no judge of the court of common pleas is available for that purpose, the chief justice of
the supreme court shall assign a judge of the court of common pleas, a juvenile judge, or a probate judge from a different county to act in the
place of that juvenile judge or in conjunction with that juvenile judge. The assigned judge shall receive the compensation and expenses for so
serving that is provided by law for judges assigned to hold court in courts of common pleas.

5
complaints with the OSC against him and assistant prosecutors Charles Lippert, Christian

Schaefer and James Harper for: refusing to follow her orders to turn over exculpatory evidence

to juvenile defendants; failing to answer lawsuits filed against Judge Hunter, while serving as her

attorneys, that resulted in default judgment rulings; and for representing Judge Hunter while

simultaneously representing the BOE against her. Soon after she filed those complaints, Deters

retaliated, recused himself as her lawyer and alleged that she backdated her judicial entries to

prevent his office’s appeals. Deters secured a multimillion dollar open-ended public contract for

his personal lawyer at Croswell & Adams that defended him in criminal investigations and

divorce proceedings, before he recommended him to indict Judge Hunter. Perry, Cost to

prosecute Hunter? No one can say, ( June 22, 2014, 11:07 pm, updated 11:44 pm June 22)

h(ps://www.cincinna3.com/story/news/courts/2014/06/22/cost-prosecute-hunter-one-can-say/

11250671/ Deters additionally hired Croswell’s son, Nicholas, as an assistant prosecutor in his

office on September 2, 2014, as her trial was set to begin. In addition to an appearance of

impropriety, the extraordinary compensation and contracts Deters provided them appeared to be

quid pro quo for prosecuting Judge Hunter. McNair, For Prosecutor's Office Internships,

Political and Family Ties Get You In The Door, (Aug 14, 2017 at 10:09 am), www.citybeat.com/

news/for-prosecutors-office-internships-poli3cal-and-family-3es-get-you-in-the-door-12176971

On Friday, October 10, 2014, the judge sealed an alleged verdict ahead of a three-day

holiday. The court was closed on Monday, October 13, in observance of Columbus Day. On

October 14, 2014, Judge Hunter was convicted of securing a public contract. Her lawyer

requested a jury poll, but the judge refused and released the jury. Three jurors immediately

contacted the judge and confessed that they did not find her guilty. He ignored them. The jurors

6
then contacted Clyde Bennett and provided sworn affidavits attesting that they did not find Judge

Hunter guilty and would have said so had they been polled. They also swore that they had been

bullied to convict by the jury forewoman to sign the verdict. This New Motion for Leave is based

on new evidence about the jury forewoman’s conduct and relationship with Scott Croswell that

only recently came to light. It is different than the evidence first discovered post trial about

Kirkham’s undisclosed disdain for pastors that denied Judge Hunter a fair trial. The judge failed

to conduct a Remmer hearing after evidence of jury misconduct and tampering was exposed.

II. New Evidence of Jury Tampering and Prosecutorial Misconduct

A. Special Prosecutor Failed to Disclose Relationship with Jury Foreperson

This Motion is separate and distinct from the petition pending appeal filed by her attorney

that failed to report Kirkham’s relationship with Scott Croswell and his wife Wyler-Crosswell.

That petition was based on the jury forewoman Sandra Kirkham’s failure to disclose that she had

a relationship with her youth pastor as a teenager that led her to distrust pastors. Judge Hunter

was the pastor of a church when put on trial. Although the State questioned jurors at length about

her being a pastor, Kirkham failed to disclose her consequential issue with pastors. The extent of

her bitterness was detailed in a book she wrote years later, that if disclosed at trial, would have

been cause for her to be dismissed from the jury. Importantly, for this petition, Kirkham’s book

further uncloaked another secret that she intentionally hid and failed to disclose during voir dire,

her relationship with special prosecutor Scott Croswell and his wife, Stephanie Wyler Croswell.

This new evidence about foreperson Kirkham only recently came to light after two books,

one published by Kirkham and the other published by Croswell’s wife, Wyler Croswell, were

discovered. Their relationship stayed hidden until Hunter’s lawyer read Kirkham’s book, Let me

7
prey upon you: Breaking free from a minister's sexual abuse. Ex. B (ISBN 978-1-7341952-0-0

(hardback)) and discovered the back page editorial written by Croswell’s wife, Wyler-Croswell.

Kirkham’s book further referenced Wyler-Crosswell’s book, Certain Truths. Ex. C (ISBN-13

978-1662451546 (November 11, 2021)) Wyler-Croswell’s book featured an editorial review by

jury forewoman Kirkham. Judge Hunter did not know Wyler-Crosswell, did not know Wyler-

Croswell was the former Juvenile Court Judge in Clermont County; and importantly, did not

know that she was married to special prosecutor Scott Croswell. She had no way of finding out.

Not only did forewoman Kirkham share an undisclosed relationship with Scott Croswell,

it was also not known that Kirkham’s husband was a partner at Frost Brown & Todd, the law

firm that sued Judge Hunter on behalf of WCPO when she prohibited media from publishing the

names and faces of children in her courtroom, as it endangered the children and stymied their

rehabilitation. The lawsuit with WCPO was in progress when the State charged Judge Hunter.

Croswell and Kirkham had a legal duty to disclose their relationship before trial. Kirkham

should have been dismissed from the jury, given her personal relationship with the Croswells.

The fact that her husband’s law firm was suing Judge Hunter was also consequential. It gives the

appearance that she was planted on the jury to ensure Judge Hunter would be convicted

regardless of the evidence. Croswell received a multimillion dollar contract, at Deters request, to

prosecute Judge Hunter, in a case that could have been handled for free by the Ohio Attorney

General. This created the motivation to secure a conviction by any means necessary. Except for

the undue influence of a jury forewoman that failed to disclose her relationship with prosecutor

Croswell and Wyler Croswell, which Hunter had no way to discover, she would have been

acquitted. Instead, atypically for a jurist, Kirkham held a joint press conference with Croswell

8
after her trial and expressed anger that Judge Hunter was not convicted on all nine charges, even

after the State’s witnesses testified and evidence proved they knew she didn’t commit the crimes.

Kirkham, motivated by her relationship with prosecutor Croswell, her loyalty to him and

his wife and apparent intent to convict Judge Hunter, despite evidence to the contrary, was shared

in a WCPO story: “"The jury foreperson in the criminal trial against former Hamilton County

Juvenile Court Judge Tracie Hunter said late Tuesday she was "extremely frustrated' jurors were

not able to convict beyond one count. "I am disappointed with the results of our deliberations.

The evidence presented by the prosecution was compelling and convincing,'' Sandy Kirkham, the

jury foreperson, said in a statement. "It is very disconcerting that a judge might so attempt to

manipulate our judicial system without severe consequences.”” Elgazzar, Judge Tracie Hunter

Found Guilty On Once Count, (Posted 1:09 PM, Oct 14, 2014, and last updated 3:50 PM, Jan 11,

2018) h(ps://www.wcpo.com/news/crime/tracie-hunter-trial-suspended-juvenile-court-judge-

found-guilty-on-one-count

Subsequently, three jurors contacted Attorney Bennett, immediately following trial, and

admitted that they did not find Judge Hunter guilty, but were bullied by Kirkham to sign the

sealed verdict form. They all submitted affidavits stating that if they had been polled, they would

have said their verdicts were not guilty; but Judge Nadel refused to poll the jury upon request,

after the verdict was published. The jurors clearly did not believe that the jury had been polled,

based on their affidavits, and expected to be polled once the verdict was published. One juror

Kimberly Whitehead reported: "I did so because I was pressured into doing so, particularly by

the jury foreman," Whitehead wrote in her sworn statement. "I did not believe the evidence

9
presented at trial had anything to do with the charge in count six of the indictment. "I am stating

that 'guilty' for count six was not my verdict. My true verdict for count six was 'not guilty.” Ex. D

Those three jurors also stated that racism was a factor in the jury room and that Kirkham

and the white jurors were motivated to convict Judge Hunter regardless of the evidence.

Kirkham’s post trial press statements further confirmed those three jurors’ admissions regarding

Kirkham’s motives. A Remmer hearing should have also been conducted with the three jurors

that came forward, but was not. A Remmer hearing was necessary to bring Kirkham’s extensive

misconduct to light, not only on her omission regarding disdain for pastors, but her undisclosed

relationship with Crosswell and her bullying jurors that were morally convicted to confess.

Wyler-Croswell and Kirkham’s books, prove the existence of their undisclosed

relationship and establish new grounds for this post conviction petition. Res judicata does not

apply to the matter at issue since a Remmer hearing was never conducted in this case.

B. The State Misconstrued R.C. 2921. 42 To Influence an Unlawful Conviction

Judge Hunter was unlawfully convicted, pursuant to ORC 2921.423, which required her to

knowingly authorize, or employ the authority or influence of the public official's office to secure

authorization of any public contract in which the public official, a member of the public official's

family, or any of the public official's business associates has an interest. The State alleged she

secured a public contract for her brother by giving him something he was not allowed to receive.

3 (A) No public official shall knowingly do any of the following:

(1) Authorize, or employ the authority or influence of the public official's office to secure authorization of any public contract in
which the public official, a member of the public official's family, or any of the public official's business associates has an interest;
(2) Authorize, or employ the authority or influence of the public official's office to secure the investment of public funds in any
share, bond, mortgage, or other security, with respect to which the public official, a member of the public official's family, or any of
the public official's business associates either has an interest, is an underwriter, or receives any brokerage, origination, or servicing
fees;(3) During the public official's term of office or within one year thereafter, occupy any position of profit in the prosecution of a
public contract authorized by the public official or by a legislative body, commission, or board of which the public official was a
member at the time of authorization, unless the contract was let by competitive bidding to the lowest and best bidder;(4) Have an
interest in the profits or benefits of a public contract entered into by or for the use of the political subdivision or governmental
agency or instrumentality with which the public official is connected;

10
There was no evidence identified or produced at trial of anything that Judge Hunter allegedly

provided her brother that he was not allowed to receive. The language of R.C. 2921.42 had

nothing to do with the State’s allegations. Without misconstruing and misinterpreting the statute

as written, no unbiased jurist could have convicted Judge Hunter beyond a reasonable doubt, the

burden required for criminal trials, when the alleged conduct didn’t violate the law. In fact,

Kirkham confessed to the media that she applied the standard compelling or clear and convincing

evidence, a lesser burden of proof required in civil trials. Id.@ WCPO

The statute required that Judge Hunter secure a public contract. The State claimed she

secured a job. Her brother secured his job with the Juvenile Court on his merit and efforts years

before she was elected. Because of his exemplary record, he was rehired at the Juvenile Court

twice. Mr. Hunter worked for the Juvenile Court about seven years. He quit the court to move out

of state, but his father became unexpectedly critically ill. He requested his job back at Juvenile

Court, which he left in good standing, in order to stay in Cincinnati and help his family care for

his hospitalized father. He requested and received his job back before Judge Hunter took office.

The State claimed she secured his job during the termination process, after they initially alleged,

which was reported by all the media, that she hired her brother at the court. When his personnel

records proved she didn’t, they changed their story and alleged she provided confidential records

to save his job after Judge Hunter’s hostile colleague fired him. The State did not present any

evidence of a job she secured because he was terminated. Exculpatory evidence that was

withheld by the State, discussed further in this brief, will prove that the State knew that Judge

Hunter did absolutely nothing to secure a job; and that Stephen informed superintendent Dwayne

11
Bowman, HR supervisor Laura Wickett, court administrator Curt Kissinger and both judges that

he did not want his job back at the Juvenile Court. Their father died. He had no plans to stay.

The State’s case was based solely on the fact that she requested information related to an

incident with a corrections officer (JCO) at the court, that happened to be her brother, after he

was violently attacked by a juvenile. Judge Hunter was merely doing her job. Exculpatory

evidence withheld by the State will show that the same youth had also attacked a police officer

and had a history of violent behavior. The juvenile attacked Mr. Hunter after another corrections

officer left his cell open. The juvenile began hitting Stephen. T.p. 3191 (Vol. 28 of 37, Thursday,

Oct. 2, 2014) (testimony of Janaya Trotter). Juvenile Court policy required all correctional

officers from all floors to rush to the aid of any correctional officer involved in a restraint. But

multiple correctional officers reported that, in violation of policies and procedures, Mr. Hunter

was forced to fend off a large, violent youth alone after another officer allowed the juvenile to

escape and did not help him. Id. Court records would show that Mr. Hunter suffered a dislocated

shoulder during a prior restraint and was disadvantaged physically when attacked again. That

was an ongoing problem reported by many JCOS to Judge Hunter. Mr. Hunter was accused of

assault for protecting himself. He was treated differently because he was Judge Hunter’s brother.

Juvenile files, obtained in public records requests made by outside organizations, demonstrated

that injuries were a common occurrence at the detention center, as Trotter testified. Id.

Corrections officers feared for their health and safety due to the high number of attacks and

injuries of employees at the Youth Center. Before the attack on Stephen, many JCOS requested

Judge Hunter to intervene on their behalves because they feared for their lives and safety.

Material evidence contained in emails withheld by the State will prove their communications.

12
 Judge Hunter began addressing safety issues with Bowman the year before the incident

with her brother. Bowman perjured himself when he testified that she had not addressed any

issues before Stephen was attacked. There are plenty of material emails that will prove

otherwise. For instance, on 12/14/2012, months after she took office, Judge Hunter sent an email

to Bowman about safety at the youth center. She verbatim stated, “What has been expressed to

me regarding safety concerns by various JCOS and officers, has been the manner in which our

staff are trained to deal with aggressive detainees. I have heard that some employees do not feel

that the tactical training they are provided is appropriate if they are attacked by a child. I have

been meaning to discuss our restraint tactics with you. This is what has been expressed to me

after visiting our youth center. Let’s talk about this soon. Thank you.” Ex. E

Stephen was not at the youth center when Judge Hunter visited all shifts, including the

overnight shift in 2012, to personally meet and discuss concerns with employees at the Youth

Center. She heard numerous complaints from the officers about their health and safety, their main

concerns. She began addressing juvenile restraints the year before her brother was attacked.

Mr. Hunter’s personnel file, which Judge Hunter also requested, after multiple public

records requests related to that incident, revealed that Mr. Hunter had an exemplary record.

However, Judge Hunter noted a discrepancy in Mr. Hunter’s personnel file when Wickett deleted

positive information from his personnel file before she sent it to the media. Court staff, led by

Judge Williams, tampered with Mr. Hunter’s personnel file before they released it to the media.

Judge Hunter sent emails to Wickett inquiring why the Juvenile Court altered his personnel file.

Judge Hunter also noticed a document in Mr. Hunter’s personnel file, that had nothing to do with

the incident with the juvenile, that appeared to be altered by the Court after it had been signed.

13
Judge Hunter’s communications with Wickett about those alterations were material evidence that

was withheld by the State to prevent the jury from learning that the Juvenile Court had a history

of tampering with employee personnel files and other court records, which she discovered.

In another instance, the State perjured themselves when they alleged that the Juvenile

Court first fired Judge Hunter’s bailiff Avery Corbin. Mr. Corbin resigned from the Juvenile

Court and his resignation letter was in his personnel file. They added a termination letter to his

personnel file later. Material evidence, including her emails that were withheld, will prove that

the State lied to the jury about Mr. Corbin’s personnel file and altered their records. It was not a

violation of 2921.42 for Judge Hunter to investigate after the Juvenile Court released false

information to the media, which was intentionally designed to generate publicity about her. She

had every right to ask details about incidents that were being tied directly to her as a judge.

Although it was a regular occurrence for correctional officers to restrain violent

juveniles, and this incident was no different; it was abnormal for such routine restraints to be

reported in the media. JCOS were disturbed that Kissinger shopped the story about Mr. Hunter to

the media and used it as an opportunity to exploit them in violation of the law. Id. at 3188-3193

For instance, Trotter testified that WCPO TV was able to obtain documents from

Kissinger that she was not able to get as Stephen’s lawyer, about his incident. Id. Trotter

somehow obtained information about Kissinger’s communications with WCPO and Nate

Livingston, who made numerous public records requests to the Juvenile Court. Trotter testified

that a WCPO employee confirmed in a TV news report that he received internal records from

Kissinger about the incident with Stephen and the juvenile that attacked him, after Kissinger

denied it. Id. Kissinger later apologized for lying about giving the documents to WCPO. Id.

14
Trotter’s testimony proved that the court administrator was secretly providing information to

WCPO about internal investigations and interoffice information that was confidential. Id.

When the media, citizens and employees contacted Judge Hunter, she was legally

obligated to respond. Therefore, when employees contacted her office for help; media or citizens

requested public records; complaints were filed against employees; or Kissinger notified her

about record requests or reported employment issues to her, Judge Hunter always requested

information about the issues in order to make an informed response. Requesting documents

relevant to the incident involving her brother and any juvenile at her court was not a crime and

did not violate the statute. It was her job to do as judge and she was consistent in every case.

In fact, exculpatory evidence, unlawfully withheld by the State, demonstrated that Judge

Hunter habitually followed up on all incidents brought to her attention as part of her duties as the

judge and employer of the Juvenile Court.4 Those duties were outlined in the Judicial

Employment Training Manual she received from the OSC in conjunction with the training they

provided as part of her judicial orientation. That manual was submitted as evidence.

There was insufficient evidence, in fact not one thread of evidence, to substantiate a

violation of RC 2921.42. The State charged Judge Hunter with securing a public contract, based

on acts they alleged that did not violate the statute and was not a crime. The State withheld

material evidence contained in Juvenile Court emails and records that demonstrated Judge

Hunter always requested full reports. The State twisted the law to compel nine jurors to convict

in violation of the law by alleging that actions she took as part of her job, to protect the court

4Rules of Evidence
Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the
presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in
conformity with the habit or routine practice.

15
secured an employment contract. No evidence of an employment contract was presented. Judge

Williams fired Stephen and Bowman and Trotter testified that Judge Hunter did not intervene.

Trotter testified that Judge Hunter did not contact her regarding Stephen. Id. at 3156 She

testified that Judge Hunter did not help her represent Stephen. Id at 3157 She testified that she

was rushed to do a hearing right away by Laura Wickett and didn’t have an opportunity to meet

with Stephen prior to representing him in the administrative hearing because of personal issues

with her grandmother. She testified that she received the information needed to represent Stephen

30-45 minutes before his hearing. Id. at 3158, 3163 She testified that Judge Hunter did not give

her anything with respect to his termination hearing. Id at 3167 She testified that she met

Stephen at a gas station and that he gave her 3 documents, including copies of witness

statements, that had been provided to him at his termination hearing. Id. at 3169, 3170 She

testified that she took three documents and rejected one. Id at 3171 She didn’t identify the

alleged document and oddly the State didn’t ask. It appeared the State did not ask because they

already knew from Grand Jury testimony and the administrative hearing that Judge Hunter did

not provide or do anything illegal and did not want it to come out. Any alleged document was

exculpatory evidence and they were required to produce it, as it was material to her innocence.

Trotter said she didn’t accept a document. Id at 3171 Document is singular, meaning one.

That singular document, never identified, never produced remains a mystery 10 years later. Judge

Hunter had no knowledge of the document. All records at Juvenile Court are presumed public.

The State knew that records deemed confidential were accessible to JCOS to defend themselves

and exempted from confidentiality in administrative hearings resulting from disciplinary actions.

16
 Unlike Mr. Hunter, WCPO was not allowed to obtain the confidential documents of a

juvenile. Yet Trotter testified that WCPO was able to obtain documents that were related to the

investigation of Stephen’s termination that she couldn’t get as his lawyer. Id. at 3188. Trotter's

testimony about rejecting a mystery document did not amount to a violation of R.C. 2921.42 by

Judge Hunter. Trotter’s testimony proved that Kissinger, not Judge Hunter, violated the law by

providing confidential records to the media that he lied about. It violated Judge Hunter’s Sixth

Amendment right to know the natures of the charges and specific evidence against her.5

Despite no evidence or testimony that Judge Hunter provided confidential documents,

pursuant to Ohio law governing juvenile records, there was nothing that she could have provided

that violated the law. The State misconstrued juvenile law to the trial judge, who either did not

know the law himself, or knowingly misled the jury to convict Judge Hunter in violation of the

law. There was no evidence identified or produced to even remotely support a conviction for

securing a public contract. If it were not for the bullying of jurors by forewoman Kirkham, who

enjoyed an undisclosed relationship with the special prosecutor, no reasonable, unbiased juror

would have convicted Judge Hunter and an unbiased judge would have dismissed the charge.

The Constitution requires that every element of a criminal statute must be met in order to

convict, yet not even one of the elements required by that statute was minimally met, let alone

proven beyond a reasonable doubt.6 No evidence of the contract she allegedly secured was

produced. When City Beat Newspaper exposed that Ohio Supreme Court Justice R. Patrick

5 The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay,
the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know your accusers are and the nature of the charges and
evidence against you.

6Section 2901.05 Burden of proof - reasonable doubt - self-defense.

(A) Every person accused of an offense is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of
proof for all elements of the offense is upon the prosecution…

17
DeWine sent an email to Prosecutor Deters and asked him to hire DeWine’s son in the

Prosecutor’s Office, he secured a public contract when Deters hired his son. McNair, A favor, A

Scandal and Questions About Judicial Conduct, (Aug 17, 2017 at 10:28 am) www.citybeat.com/

news/a-favor-a-scandal-and-ques3ons-about-judicial-conduct-12180244; McNair, For Prosecutor's

Office Internships, Political and Family Ties Get You In The Door, (Aug 14, 2017 at 10:09 am),

www.citybeat.com/news/for-prosecutors-office-internships-poli3cal-and-family-3es-get-you-in-the-

door-12176971 DeWine and Deters’ conduct clearly violated RC 2921.42. Mens rea was

established. There was evidence that DeWine knowingly employed the influence of his public

office as a justice on the OSC to secure a job that he defacto obtained for his son in the Hamilton

County Prosecutor's Office. They discussed getting a job. Every element was met.

Unlike DeWine, Bowman testified that Judge Hunter spoke to no one about a job for her

brother. Also, unlike DeWine, who secured a job for his son, there was no evidence of a job that

Judge Hunter secured. It was a flagrant violation of her constitutional rights that the white judge,

now Ohio justice, that upheld a conviction against her and the white prosecutor, also now an

Ohio Justice that initiated criminal prosecution against her, openly broke the law and violated RC

2921.42, hiring their family members, but were not charged with the crimes that their families

financially benefitted. Tangible evidence exists proving Justice DeWine violated that Statute; but

Judge Hunter was convicted on an inference to a mystery document never identified or produced,

never proven that it came from Judge Hunter, was presumed public, regardlessly or exempted

from confidentiality to a JCO, if it wasn’t, after the State misled the jury and improperly applied

the law. The trial court violated Judge Hunter’s rights, denied her a fair trial and failed to conduct

the required Remmer hearings when their jury misconduct and tampering was exposed.

18
 C. The State and Trial Judge Ignored and/or Suppressed Applicable Ohio Law

The alleged conduct was not a violation of law, pursuant to ORC 149.435.7 The State

alleged that Judge Hunter provided something to her brother that he was not entitled to receive;

but never identified anything that she allegedly provided, nor identified anything that he wasn’t

lawfully entitled to receive. Per the statute, Mr. Hunter, was entitled to receive all records relative

to his defense of the civil or administrative action arising out of the employee's involvement in

the case that gave rise to the civil or administrative action. There were no confidential records

identified, or that could have been identified, that Judge Hunter could have provided Mr. Hunter,

even had she, that he was not legally entitled to receive, per RC 149.435(C)(1)(2)(3). That is why

the State never produced nor identified the alleged document they claim she provided.

As nothing unlawful was identified, and everything she requested in her emails, including

his personnel file was lawful for her brother to obtain; and anything deemed confidential was

excepted by statute, she was wrongfully convicted. Judge Hunter neither did anything illegal

when she requested information, as it was her job as the statutory employer. Bowman knew that

he possessed only delegated authority. The State and trial judge intentionally suppressed RC

7 (B)(1) Except as provided in division (C) of this section, a law enforcement agency or employee of a law enforcement agency shall not disclose
a name or other information contained in a routine factual report that is highly likely to identify an alleged delinquent child or arrestee who is also
an abused child and who is under eighteen years of age at the time the report is created. If the agency or employee does not know whether the
alleged delinquent child or arrestee is an abused child, the agency or employee shall attempt to determine whether or not the alleged delinquent
child or arrestee is an abused child and shall not disclose the name or other information before making the determination.
(2) No person to whom information described in division (B)(1) of this section is disclosed, and no employer of that person, shall further disclose
that information except as provided in division (C) of this section.

(C) This section does not prohibit the disclosure of information described in division (B) of this section to any of the following:

(1) An employee of a law enforcement agency or a prosecutor for the purpose of investigating or prosecuting a crime or delinquent act;

(2) An employee of the department of youth services, a probation officer, a juvenile court judge, or an employee of a public children services
agency or a county department of job and family services who is supervising the alleged delinquent child or arrestee who is also an abused child
and who is under eighteen years of age;

(3) An employee of a law enforcement agency for use in the employee's defense of a civil or administrative action arising out of the employee's
involvement in the case that gave rise to the civil or administrative action;

19
149.435(C)(1)(2)(3) that applied to Mr. Hunter as a correctional officer for the Juvenile Court.

The State intentionally misrepresented and misconstrued the laws; and the trial judge

either did not know the law or intentionally ignored the applicable law to influence a wrongful

conviction. The State knew that Judge Hunter had not provided any confidential documents to

her brother, based on the law and withheld evidence, when they charged her with violating RC

2921.42, which didn’t apply to the acts they falsely alleged she committed, and misled the jury

with the intent to influence a conviction contrary to RC 149.435(C)(1)(2)(3). The Court should

have granted Judge Hunter’s request for Grand Jury testimony to prove that the State knowingly

charged Judge Hunter in violation of RC 149.435, which applied to Stephen as a court officer.

D. The State Withheld and Suppressed Exculpatory Evidence

The state knowingly and willfully withheld material evidence that was favorable to Judge

Hunter’s defense, that had it been disclosed during discovery, would have changed the trial

outcome. Judge Hunter was unlawfully denied access to the Juvenile Court computers, emails

and administrative disciplinary evidence that contained information directly related to the charge

she was convicted. She had a right to inspect the computers, as she was being charged with a

crime and the evidence would be on the computers if she committed them. Judge Hunter did not

have access to her emails at the Juvenile Court because they were on the court’s servers and

Judge Williams immediately barred her from the court, blocking access to her office and

computer, moments after she was indicted, to prevent her from obtaining evidence. Magistrates

and employees were intimidated and threatened with being fired if they spoke to her or provided

any information that would help her case. They intentionally hid evidence of her innocence. The

20
State possessed emails and other records, that were exculpatory in nature, and would have

exonerated Judge Hunter, but withheld them to influence a conviction, contrary to law.

The State also withheld exculpatory evidence from the administrative hearing that Trotter

represented Stephen. Evidence from that hearing would have revealed that the State knew, before

indicting Judge Hunter, that her brother Stephen unequivocally told them that he did not want his

job back. Prior to the administrative hearing, Stephen informed the Juvenile Court that he did not

want his job. Judge Hunter had no motive to save his job, did not possess the necessary mens rea,

having no motive, and never expressed intent to save his job. As that administrative hearing was

cited by the State to influence her conviction, evidence from that hearing should have been

provided in discovery to Judge Hunter. During trial, the State told Trotter not to talk about the

administrative hearing, although it went directly to the charge. He knew that evidence from the

hearing proved Judge Hunter’s innocence. The State denied access to material evidence,

including court emails, records and administrative evidence that refuted the charge in question.

The State knew that Stephen informed the court that he did not want his job back and

would not return to the Juvenile Court under any circumstance. They knew that he had other

regular employment when they conspiratorially charged Judge Hunter with securing a job that he

informed them that he did not want. The State also knew that Mr. Hunter obtained a right to sue

letter from the EEOC for violation of his civil rights and discrimination after he was attacked by

a juvenile and treated differently by Judge Hunter’s hostile colleague. The State knew that Judge

Hunter was not involved in any of his proceedings, had not been informed about his proceedings

and did not speak to anyone about his job or those proceedings. The State intentionally withheld

exculpatory evidence that proved she did not secure a job, then misled the jurists, knowing that

21
there was no confidential information that could have been used by Judge Hunter to secure a job

that her brother had already informed Dwayne Bowman, Sean Bell, and the judges that he did

not want via his lawyer. The State was motivated to suppress the law from the jury and withheld

exculpatory information to secure a conviction. The State was aware that ORC 149.435 applied

to Mr. Hunter when they intentionally misled the jury to believe there was confidential

information he received that he was not entitled to receive and that Judge Hunter provided it.

Those exculpatory emails would demonstrate that the multiple meetings she held with

youth center employees had nothing to do with her brother, contrary to Bowman’s testimony; but

were requested by many employees that were injured and were concerned about their safety. Her

brother neither attended any of her meetings nor benefitted from any of the changes she made as

a direct result of those meetings. Judge Hunter repeatedly requested all her court emails in public

records, but the Juvenile Court and State has consistently refused to provide them, in violation of

public records laws, because they know that her emails prove that the State lied and Judge

Hunter is innocent, as she always maintained. Judge Hunter’s emails detail her work ethic and

history as a judge and expose all of the corruption she uncovered and incidents she investigated

at the Juvenile Court. The State did not want the jury or public to see her hundreds of emails. The

State knowingly withheld exculpatory evidence that refuted each and every allegation of the

State, including most importantly, the charge that she was wrongfully convicted.

Exculpatory emails withheld by the State would prove that throughout Judge Hunter’s

tenure, employees working at either Kissinger or Williams’ direction altered her judicial entries,

put her name on docket sheets as the jurist on cases that never appeared before her and took

unauthorized actions on her cases in their efforts to sabotage her work. Murdock assigned her

22
case managers that had no previous case management experience. They struggled to spell and

intelligibly write. Murdock knew better, but in their concerted efforts to sabotage Judge Hunter’s

work, they assigned individuals that could not competently perform the required work, expecting

her to accept and affix her signature. However, Judge Hunter, caught their extensive spelling and

grammatical errors and was forced to spend hours each day correcting work that should have

never been presented to a sitting judge. Most days Judge Hunter did not leave court until close to

midnight. These were the types of internal shenanigans that she faced daily at Juvenile Court.

The State withheld exculpatory emails that they should have provided to prove that Judge

Hunter was innocent. However, they didn’t because it would have exposed all the things that

they did to frame Judge Hunter and falsely accuse her of their actions. Murdock admitted in an

email that she and Miller often cut and pasted Judge Hunter’s entries after she signed them. The

State withheld those emails to cover up the unlawful actions taken by other employees to frame

Judge Hunter. The State knowingly disposed of computers containing exculpatory evidence of

her innocence before they indicted her, to prevent their misconduct from coming to light. The

trial judge illegally denied her access to court emails and computers to wrongly convict her.

Bennet advised the judge on record before trial began that he would not be able to provide Judge

Hunter with effective assistance without that exculpatory evidence in the State’s possession.

The trial judge denied Judge Hunter’s routine request to preserve exculpatory evidence;

denied her right to inspect the court’s computers and allowed the State to withhold exculpatory

evidence that proved her innocence, with what appears was intent to influence a conviction. By

23
withholding evidence that was material to her innocence, the State knew it would compel a jury

to convict. By denying evidence that was exculpatory in nature, she was denied a fair jury trial.8

E. State’s Key Witnesses Committed Perjury and Tampered With Computers

It was no secret that Judge Hunter ruffled a lot of feathers when she began exposing and

cleaning up internal corruption at the Juvenile Court, like the court’s reporting of inaccurate case

statistics to the OSC. Hundreds of Judge Hunter’s emails that the State withheld from her would

reveal that she quickly began uncovering and addressing major problems within the court. Ex. F.

For instance, the clerk’s office, supervised by Connie Murdock, repeatedly lost Judge

Hunter’s judicial entries. She questioned Murdock in emails why Murdock, via Lisa Miller,

repeatedly requested she sign new entries to replace the ones they claimed disappeared after she

signed them. Ex. Case files disappeared or were never returned from the Court of Appeals in

cases she was falsely accused and sued for not ruling, preventing her review. Ex. G. She

confronted those daily occurrences via emails, which the State refused to provide for trial.

Bowman accurately testified that Judge Hunter did not contact anyone about her brother’s

disciplinary hearing nor speak to him or any other personnel about retaining her brother’s job. He

admitted that she took no actions nor inquired about her brother’s job. Bowmen knew that she

did nothing to secure a contract. He testified that Judge Hunter was involved in everything that

went on at her court. He also knew it was her job to be informed as his employer. Therefore,

Bowman contradicted and perjured himself when he claimed it was unusual for a judge to ask for

the information she requested by email. He knew that it was his job to report everything back to

the judges. He also knew that from day one Judge Hunter contacted him via email and interacted

8 The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a
lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you.

24
with him about everything at the youth center, including employees, policies, and legislation. She

instructed him to make changes at the Youth Center, like a dress code, which she implemented.

There was no dress code until Judge Hunter ordered one to cut down on fights between the

youth. Emails proving Judge Hunter’s involvement and directions were withheld by the State.

Bowman perjured himself when he testified that her meetings with employees were

about her brother because he knew that Judge Hunter sent emails to all the employees of the

youth center agreeing to meet with them after they expressed concerns, especially about safety,

long before any incident with her brother. Ex. H. There are court emails of employees thanking

her for meeting with them. She met some individually in her office. She always requested their

personnel files from HR. The State withheld Judge Hunter’s emails during discovery because

they provided the chronology and contents of her extensive email trail at the Juvenile Court,

which would have proved that her meetings with employees had nothing to do with her brother.

Judge Hunter began visiting the Youth Center as soon as she took office. She met with

them after many employees contacted her requesting private meetings to discuss their concerns

about safety, due to repeated assaults and injuries by juveniles. They contacted for help. They

requested that Bowman not be present because they believed he would retaliate against them for

sharing their concerns. But she not only requested meetings with the Youth Center, but requested

meetings with all the Magistrates and employees at Juvenile Court. Ex. I All of her requests for

meetings are documented in emails that the State refused to provide that prove it was Judge

Hunter’s habit to be engaged in everything at the court. She was a hands on judge.

Bowman perjured himself when he testified that Judge Hunter’s requests were unusual

because he was only authorized to perform the duties he performed on behalf of both judges. He

25
worked for Judge Hunter and knew it was his duty to provide both judges detailed reports on all

incidents9. According to RC 2152.42, Bowman worked under the direction of the judges. Id.

In fact, at the time she was charged, Judge Hunter had been investigating a complaint by

a supervisor at the Youth Center against Bowman and had sent him multiple emails requesting all

records, emails and personnel files related to the incident involving that employee. Judge Hunter

subpoenaed that employee to testify at her trial, but Bennett neglected to call her as a witness.

The State withheld applicable law, like R.C 149.435, and material evidence from the jury

in order to influence a jury to convict. Material evidence withheld by the State would have

proved that Judge Hunter investigated numerous employee issues and complaints against the

Juvenile Court and its employees. She confronted court administrator Kissinger in emails after he

directed employee Ron Dumas to investigate Magistrate Ayana Love and find dirt on her in order

to discipline or terminate her. The director of Pro Kids reached out to Judge Hunter to alert her

that Dumas contacted her about Love after she held prosecutor Betsy Sunderman in contempt for

refusing Love’s repeated orders to get off her cellphone during a proceeding. When Judge Hunter

backed Love’s contempt finding, Kissinger helped the Prosecutor’s office go after Love. Ex. J.

When a probation officer was accused of sexual harassment by a court provider, Judge

Hunter requested all records related to the incident after the complainant contacted her office.

Ex. K When a young black father seeking custody of his son filed a complaint against Magistrate

Roger Bouchard for asking if he was a drug dealer Judge Hunter requested all related records.

9 Section 2152.42 Superintendent and other employees of facility. Chapter 2152 Delinquent Children; Juvenile Traffic Offenders

(A) Any detention facility established under section 2152.41 of the Revised Code shall be under the direction of a superintendent.
The superintendent shall be appointed by, and under the direction of, the judge or judges or, for a district facility, the board of
trustees of the facility. The superintendent serves at the pleasure of the juvenile court or, in a district detention facility, at the
pleasure of the board of trustees.

26
Although it was her case, Kissinger tried to hide the incident from her as it involved a white

Republican Magistrate. They covered up his conduct to keep it from becoming public, as they

fed stories to the media about black court employees and children. When Magistrates reported

what Bouchard did, she immediately requested all records related to the incident in her court.

When Magistrate Elisa Murphy requested to be compensated fairly for handling dual

dockets, while underpaid, Judge Hunter went to bat for her increase. Ex. L She also instructed all

the employees that she would do more to address all of their concerns. Just as employees

working for the State fabricated evidence, changed computer records and told witnesses to lie

about Judge Hunter backdating documents, which the State’s witness admitted at trial, they

fabricated stories about Judge Hunter taking actions to secure a job for her brother. They had five

weeks to present tangible evidence of confidential records, but presented nothing, because just

like they lied about her backdating entries and falsely accused her of theft for appealing cases the

Prosecutor’s Office intentionally failed to answer and lost, they lied about her securing his job.

Those are just a few of the incidents Judge Hunter investigated, sought records and got

involved because she was a hands on judge. Employees took their complaints and concerns to

Judge Hunter because they trusted her to care and knew she would respond, and she did. Her

emails detailing all of these incidents were exculpatory in nature but withheld by the State. They

would have demonstrated that Judge Hunter didn’t single out the incident with her brother.

The State knowingly lied to the jury about Judge Hunter’s actions and duties as judge and

employer of the Juvenile Court. The State knowingly misconstrued the applicable laws and

knowingly falsely alleged that her request for records was related to one incident at Juvenile

Court that involved her brother, then falsely equated it to securing a public contract, despite

27
knowing she habitually requested records related to all employee or court-related incidents

reported to her by the court administrator, employees, complainants of the public and/or vendors

of the Juvenile Court, as part of her duties as Judge and employer of the Court. If the State had

provided all of Judge Hunter’s exculpatory court emails during discovery, as required by law, the

jury would have known that Judge Hunter also requested all records related to complaints filed

against probation officers, Magistrates and supervisors, including Dwayne Bowman.

Bowman perjured himself because he knew that Judge Hunter sent identical emails to

him requesting all records in incidents involving correctional officers he supervised on behalf of

the judges that were brought to her attention by court staff or when public records requests were

made by citizens or media. She responded to multiple public records requests regarding her

brother. Judge Hunter was trained by the OSC to investigate employee incidents, due to her

liability as the employer of Juvenile Court, per RC 2151.0810. Her judicial orientation training

manual was admitted as a trial exhibit as evidence of that training.

Exculpatory emails withheld by the State would demonstrate that Judge Hunter was

forced to work in an unsafe and toxic workplace in the face of intimidation by Deters, Williams

and Kissinger on a daily basis and everyone at court knew it. Employees working for those

individuals sometimes, out of concern for her safety, advised her what they were doing, like

taking Judge Hunter’s mail and having meetings with the press to generate negative stories.

10In Hamilton county, the powers and jurisdiction of the juvenile court as conferred by Chapters 2151. and 2152. of the Revised
Code shall be exercised by the judge of the court of common pleas whose term begins on January 1, 1957, and that judge's
successors and by the judge of the court of common pleas whose term begins on February 14, 1967, and that judge's successors
as provided by section 2301.03 of the Revised Code. This conferral of powers and jurisdiction on the specified judges shall be
deemed a creation of a separately and independently created and established juvenile court in Hamilton county, Ohio. The
specified judges shall serve in each and every position where the statutes permit or require a juvenile judge to serve.

28
Rather than support Judge Hunter and be a court administrator for both judges, Kissinger held

secret meetings with Kimball Perry of the Enquirer and WCPO to generate news on her. Ex. M

They harassed her with dozens of frivolous lawsuits, most that were later dropped.

Months after she was sworn in, Prosecutor Deters sued Judge Hunter over a decision written by a

Magistrate in a case that never appeared before Judge Hunter and that she never heard nor ruled

upon. It was dismissed. In her first three months, Deters directed the County Commissioners to

sue her after she directed the court to hire attorney Wende Cross, now the Honorable Judge Cross

as her court administrator. They claimed it was a waste of money, but administrative records

confirmed that both judges in the past had separate court administrators, including Hendon. A

separate court administrator was critical for Judge Hunter because Kissinger refused to help her

and often unlawfully interfered in her cases, harming the children. Judge Hunter hired Cross as a

Magistrate at Juvenile Court instead. Ex. N

The Enquirer and WCPO, who often met with Williams and Kissinger in secret, began

suing her repeatedly for various issues that they never sued other judges for before her, even

when she ruled the exact same way regarding media access. Court records will confirm it. They

sued her for prohibiting their publishing the names and faces of juveniles. The Enquirer sued her

again when she refused to provide them the psychological evaluations of juveniles, which they

knew was unlawful for them to obtain. Republican Public Defender Ray Faller filed a dozen

lawsuits against her, alleging she had cases out of time, which was factually and legally untrue.

Attorney Allison Hild, a public defender, testified that Faller forced public defenders to

sue Judge Hunter against their wills, to harass her. Faller alleged she was behind on cases; then

John Williams reported her to the OSC; but according to public records obtained from the OSC

29
by her lawyer Branch, Williams had more cases pending beyond time than her, but Faller didn’t

sue him. After Faller filed a dozen Writs against Judge Hunter, Deters insisted on representing

Judge Hunter; then failed to answer the lawsuits as her lawyer, after she provided case specific

evidence proving that her rulings were not delayed and that the lawsuits were frivolous.

When Judge Hunter retained attorney Branch to competently defend her court and paid

the OSC $1,100.00 to file notices of appeals in each of those cases, Croswell charged her with

theft and misuse of a credit card, despite knowing she stole nothing and had the right to use her

Juvenile Court issued credit card to pay for business relative to her job as judge, which included

defending frivolous lawsuits. The State knew when they lied in the indictment about her using

county money for personal filings that Judge Hunter had been sued in her judicial capacity. The

State’s piling on of false charges, despite evidence she provided to dispute every charge,

prejudiced the jury. It is unlawful for the State to withhold material evidence, but they did it

anyway because a recent extensive study by National Public Radio of cases in Ohio showed that

prosecutors in Hamilton County get away with misconduct because they suffer no consequences.

Alcalde, Kincaid, Sastre, Oakes, Swartsell, Thompson, How Ohio Prosecutors Broke Rules To Wind

Convictions And Got Away With It; NPR, Morning Edition (Dec. 14, 2023, 5:00 AM), https://

www.npr.org/2023/12/14/1216111092/ohio-court-prosecutor-misconduct-due-process-rights

It is not innuendo or speculation that the State tampered with computers to frame Judge

Hunter or Juvenile Court staff changed her entries, then alleged she did it. It was verified by an

independent forensic expert with no ties to Judge Hunter or Hamilton County. He recovered files

the court deleted and scrambled proving crimes alleged pointed back to the State, not Judge

30
Hunter. The State indicted her and destroyed the evidence before she was charged. That was

unlawful. They were not charged despite falsifying court records and altering her judicial entries.

T.p. 1-111 (Motions Hearing on Appeal, Tuesday, Dec. 22, 2015) A Motion To Dismiss

was filed following the computer forensic expert’s visit to Juvenile Court to inspect computers.

Jurors were told that Judge Hunter was late on cases and overturned by the First District

so she must be guilty. They failed to report that the First District was overturned by the OSC on

Judge Hunter’s ruling while she stood trial. Her rulings as a judge were wrongly put on trial.

Leading reform didn’t make her a criminal. The State didn’t like her rulings so they prosecuted

her to get rid of her. The State pulled off a coupe to eliminate the first black Common Pleas

judge that had administrative power in Hamilton County, Ohio, that was elected by the people.

With her election in 2010, came powers that no other black judge had in the county at that time.

For instance, she was the first black judge to directly hire Magistrates or sign all court contracts.

That is the reason they falsely accused her of crimes, fabricated evidence and charged her. The

State withheld that information from the jury when they implied no other black judge faced

similar issues. It is because she possessed power that no other black judge had on any Common

Pleas Court in Hamilton County that threatened the Republican status quo. The Republicans

maintained control of the judiciary in Hamilton County until 2020. She was an anomaly in 2010.

She was not appointed, like most black Common Pleas judges then, nor did she obtain her

judgeship by benefitting from a party deal not to run a political opponent, common at the time.

The prosecutors couldn’t control Judge Hunter or her rulings and that was a problem.

The majority of the State’s key witnesses worked for Prosecutor Deters, her accuser.

Assistant Prosecutor James Harper was one of the State’s key witnesses against Judge Hunter.

31
Despite his clear conflict of interest, Harper represented her in violation of the law. Harper was

the lead prosecutor that represented the BOE in Hunter v. BOE. When Judge Hunter took office,

the election case was still active. When Harper began to represent Judge Hunter in those cases,

he was still representing the BOE. He simultaneously represented Judge Hunter, in violation of

law and ethics, as he represented the BOE against her. Every lawyer knows such conflict is

prohibited, but they allowed conflicted prosecutors to represent her and lose her cases by default.

Judge Hunter became the only judge ever held in contempt by the First District Court of

Appeals for barring media from her courtroom, after they defied her direct order not to publish

the names of 12-year old children in the media, to protect them after the KKK showed up at their

elementary school. She followed the letter of law, including the Rules of Superintendence and

Hamilton County Local rules that required her to restrict media access when it was necessary to

protect vulnerable juveniles in accordance with the law. She thoroughly documented her rulings.

But with Harper as her legal counsel, she was held in contempt despite fully complying with the

Court’s rulings and Ohio law. Harper failed to use her courtroom videos or evidence to prove she

complied. The media claimed she denied their entrance, but they were in her court on record.

Board Commissioner Todd Portune passed a resolution acknowledging that it was a

conflict of interest for Deters’ Office to represent Judge Hunter, but Deters refused to recuse

himself. Hendon, Deters mother-in-law then ruled that Judge Hunter was not allowed to obtain

independent legal counsel or appeal the First District’s rulings to the OSC. David Singleton,

director of Ohio Justice and Policy Center, was representing Judge Hunter in the WCPO case,

but withdrew his representation, after Hendon’s threats. Attorney Branch eventually appealed the

default judgments and represented her in the WCPO case. Judge Hunter reported the prosectors

32
to the OSC for failing to answer the lawsuits as her lawyers, while refusing to allow her to retain

competent counsel. Deters promptly retaliated and falsely alleged that she backdated her entries.

Multiple prosecutors employed by Deters fabricated evidence and committed perjury in

order to compel a jury to convict Judge Hunter, contrary to the evidence. Prosecutors knew that

Juvenile Court employees, like Murdock, tampered with, altered and amended Judge Hunter’s

entries after she signed them and destroyed Juvenile Court records, including the computer hard

drives they used to do it. That information came to light over a year after Judge Hunter was

convicted, in December 2015. When her retrial commenced on January 19, 2016, the State sua

sponte dismissed nine charges against Judge Hunter in order to keep evidence of their extensive

prosecutorial corruption that the forensic computer expert uncovered from being exposed. If that

material evidence had been known in 2014, she would not have been convicted. The State

fabricated nine charges against Judge Hunter to have her removed from the seat that they kept a

black person and Democrat from obtaining for over 120 years until she was elected. The Motion

to Dismiss filed by her lawyers after that new evidence came to light is attached. Ex. O

Additionally, the trial transcript recently transcribed for this petition proves the same.

In violation of Ohio Criminal Rule 16(B) (5), (7)11, the State knowingly withheld material

evidence that proved Judge Hunter did not backdate her judicial entries to unlawfully influence a

jury to convict her. Those records were not provided to Judge Hunter during discovery. The

11Upon receipt of a written demand for discovery by the defendant, and except as provided in division (C), (D), (E), (F), or (J) of this rule, the
prosecuting attorney shall provide copies or photographs, or permit counsel for the defendant to copy or photograph, the following items related
to the particular case indictment, information, or complaint, and which are material to the preparation of a defense, or are intended for use by the
prosecuting attorney as evidence at the trial, or were obtained from or belong to the defendant, within the possession of, or reasonably available to
the state, subject to the provisions of this rule:
(5) Any evidence favorable to the defendant and material to guilt or punishment;
(7) Any written or recorded statement by a witness in the state’s case-in-chief, or that it reasonably anticipates calling as a witness in rebuttal.

33
State’s ProWare software expert Ron Flischel testified that he knew she had not backdated her

judicial entries, based on computer logs, when he signed a sworn affidavit, at the Prosecutor’s

request, implicating Judge Hunter. He admitted that assistant prosecutor Rachel Curran directed

him to omit from his affidavit that Judge Hunter did not backdate the entries.

The computer records, if preserved and provided, would have revealed her innocence.

But Judge Nadel denied Judge Hunter’s timely motion to preserve the evidence, in contradiction

of law. Nadel’s actions were not of an unbiased judge conducting a fair trial of a colleague, but a

judge with an agenda. An unbiased trial judge would have thrown out those charges after the

State’s expert witness and case manager Lisa Miller, an 18-year veteran of the Juvenile Court,

testified that Hunter did not backdate her entries; testified to the practice of the Court to alter

records; and further testified that Murdock, supervisor of the Juvenile Court clerk’s office and

court case managers, that included Miller, directed her to change Judge Hunter’s entries. The

State withheld the ProWare computer log and emails that proved that Murdock modified Judge

Hunter’s entries on multiple occasions and sent email communications directing Miller to make

changes. Despite their testimony, Kirkham bullied jurors to convict her contrary to the evidence.

Assistant Prosecutor Kathleen Fischer, daughter of First District Court of Appeals Judge

Patrick Fischer, now OSC Justice Fischer, was the assigned prosecutor in Judge Hunter’s

courtroom as the time she was indicted in connection to two cases that they charged her with

forgery and tampering with evidence. Kathleen Fischer knowingly filed an affidavit falsely

inferring that Judge Hunter backdated her entries in violation of the law. Kathleen’s affidavit did

not come to light until 2023, when Judge Hunter began representing herself pro se and

discovered the document filed in court records. OSC. Testimony and forensic evidence proved

34
that was a lie. Therefore, Kathleen, knowingly perjured herself in an affidavit that was used to

indict and prosecute Judge Hunter with the intent to convict her of a crime the State knew she

was innocent. That affidavit was not provided to Judge Hunter during discovery.

In order to obtain an indictment for forgery and tampering with evidence, in contradiction

to computer records the State had in their possession, the State must have misled the Grand Jury.

Judge Hunter regularly notified Murdock when she discovered that multiple court records were

inaccurate. Withheld emails would have shown that she confronted Murdock about: falsifying

court docket sheets and case statistics filed with the OSC; and for naming her as the jurist on

cases never heard by Judge Hunter to create the false appearance that she was behind on cases

that Juvenile Court employee Murdock and others were the jurists. The State knowingly withheld

those exculpatory emails in order influence a jury to convict her in violation of the law.

Assistant prosecutor Katie Pridemore perjured herself when she testified that the Chief

Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court commissioned her to review all of Judge Hunter’s cases and

compile a report for her about Judge Hunter. In response to a public records request, the OSC

said that Pridemore’s statement was false. T.p. 32-34 (Motions Hearing on Appeal, Tuesday, Dec.

22, 2015) Pridemore perjured herself when she accused Judge Hunter of disliking and being

mean to all of the prosecutors. Although all of Judge Hunter’s Juvenile Court proceedings were

videotaped, by Judge Hunter’s choice, neither Pridemore nor the State produced even one video

or shred of evidence of Judge Hunter being discourteous or rude to any prosecutor, including

Pridemore. If Judge Hunter had conducted herself in the manner that Pridemore testified, they

would have presented it as evidence and released it to the media for the world to see; but they did

not because she lied. Pridemore testified that the prosecutors went through every single one of

35
Judge Hunter’s cases, which would have been unlawful given the prosecutors were a party to

each case; and alleged that the only backdated documents in the system were the two cases that

the State charged Judge Hunter with forgery and tampering with cases. That was also perjured

testimony because Pridemore knew it was untrue. Judge Hunter produced nearly 100 entries that

were dated back to the hearing dates, not by Judge Hunter, but by the clerks and case managers

and supervisors, like Murdock, because that was how the court operated before Judge Hunter.

Juvenile Court routinely lost, misplaced files and deleted files, as the forensic computer expert

uncovered in 2015, over a year after she was wrongfully convicted, based on the State’s lies.

Pridemore alleged that the First District Court of Appeals always overturned Judge

Hunter so she backdated her entries to keep them from appealing. Pridemore committed perjury

because she knew that was an untrue statement. If she scoured every one of Judge Hunter’s cases

as she testified, she knew that Judge Hunter didn’t create those entries in the system, and knew

who did. Pridemore knew that Juvenile Court employees, like Murdock, and employees working

at the direction of Attorney Murdock, changed Judge Hunter’s entries and modified them in the

Juvenile Case Management System, which prosecutors knew before they knowingly, indicted

and charged Judge Hunter. Judge Hunter’s rulings set precedence as she stood trial for bogus

charges related to those two cases that Murdock and Miller created and amended the entries.

Forensic evidence detailed in the attached Motion To Dismiss filed as she faced retrial in 2016

and pretrial hearing evidence recently transcribed, prove that the State knowingly charged Judge

Hunter with crimes that they knew in advance of charging, she didn’t commit.

F. Judge Hunter’s Attorney Provided Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

36
 While the State withheld exculpatory evidence and suppressed applicable Ohio law to

unlawfully convict Judge Hunter, her attorney Clyde Bennett provided ineffective assistance of

counsel when he failed to: request Nadel recuse himself; report Nadel’s unethical discussions

with him about her case; ensure that the jurors were not tainted by negative pretrial publicity;

request a long jury questionnaire, standard in high profile cases, to root out biased jurors;

adequately examine the potential jurors for bias and improper relationships, like those that

existed between jury forewoman Kirkham and prosecutor Croswell and Prosecutor Deters; file

critical pretrial motions; cross-examine State’s witness Stephen Hunter; and unilaterally decided

to call attorney Janaya Trotter, instead of attorney Branch as her key witness.

Bennett should have known that it was a violation of law and ethics for Judge Hunter’s

peer, Common Pleas Court Judge Norbert Nadel, to preside over her case in violation of

precedent case law that required he be disqualified, due to inherent conflicts of interest.12 Those

cases, in reaching decisions to disqualify peer judges, quoted the Preamble of the Code of

Judicial Conduct. “With respect to judicial disqualification, the Supreme Court of Ohio has

stated that "'[p]reservation of public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system is vitally

important,' and '[a]n appearance of bias can be just as damaging to public confidence as actual

bias.'" In re Disqualification of Burge, 138 Ohio St.3d 1271, 2014-Ohio-1458, ¶ 9, quoting In re

Disqualification of Murphy, 110 Ohio St.3d 1206, 2005-Ohio-7148, ¶ 6. Thus, the Code of

12 12 In re Disquali-ication of Nugent , 47 Ohio St.3d 601, 546 N.E.2d 927 (1987); In re Disquali-ication of
Sheward, 100 Ohio St.3d 1221, 2002; In re Disquali-ication of Nadel (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 604, 546 N.E.2d 926; In
re Disquali-ication of Rastatter, 127 Ohio St.3d 1215, 2009; In re Disquali-ication of Corrigan, 110 Ohio St.3d
1217, 2005-Ohio-7153, 850 N.E.2d 720; In re Disquali-ication of Burge, 138 Ohio St.3d 1271, 2014

37
Judicial Conduct provides that "[a] judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in

which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned[.]" Jud.Cond.R. 2.11(A).

Bennett had a relationship with Nadel that clouded his professional judgment and

compromised Judge Hunter’s case. Bennett knew that Judge Nadel was motivated to preside over

Judge Hunter’s case and had discussed getting her case with him before it was rolled. Bennett

shared that Nadel was proud of being the Judge that heard Pete Rose’s MLB case. Now he would

be the judge that helped his beloved Republican Party take down black Democrat Judge Hunter.

Judge Hunter requested Mr. Bennett to file a motion requesting Nadel to recuse himself, but

Bennett refused. He said he wanted to try the case before Judge Nadel. Her case would also bring

Bennett the publicity he relished and needed to jumpstart his career. It worked. Bennett provided

ineffective assistance of counsel, making decisions contrary to her instructions and best interest,

that violated Judge Hunter’s constitutional rights to a fair jury trial. When Bennet failed to

request Judge Nadel to recuse himself, Judge Hunter made an oral motion, on her own behalf, in

open court, before trial began, based on his unethical acts and conversations with Bennett. Nadel

openly accused Judge Hunter of being a renegade judge, while he failed to follow rules and laws,

like polling a jury; and allowed the State to openly abuse Judge Hunter publicly, call her names

and make prejudicial statements. Judge Hunter was not treated with respect or decorum as the

Code of Judicial Conduct and Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. She was abused publicly.

Although Bennett advised Judge Nadel that he could not provide Judge Hunter effective

assistance of counsel if he was forced to proceed to trial without exculpatory evidence, he should

have immediately filed an interlocutory appeal, knowing that the absence of material exculpatory

evidence would and did impact the trial income. He should have additionally sought the Grand

38
Jury testimony be disclosed, when it was used, to prove that the State lied to get an indictment on

the charge she was convicted, as well as, all of the other charges the State piled on. Ex. P

Bennett had a duty to report Judge Nadel’s conduct and protect his client, but did not. He

failed to report prosecutors for intimidation and misconduct when Deters threatened not to give

him plea deals for his other clients, after he argued a Motion alleging vindictive prosecution.

Bennett shared that communication with her before trial commenced. Ex. Q Judge Hunter has

good reason to believe that Deters’ threats caused Bennett to compromise her representation in

order to protect his relationship with prosecutors that he that needed as leverage for other clients.

Bennett failed to file the hundreds of news stories published about Judge Hunter on TV,

radio, print and electronic media that proved potential jurors had been inundated with negative

news stories that tainted her case and denied her a fair trial. When Deters unethically accused her

of murder two days before her trial, it was impossible for jurors that saw it, not to be influenced.

Those news stories biased jurors who admitted they believed them and were likely to convict.

Bennett neglected to file a motion to change venue with those hundreds of stories attached.

Bennett failed to request Judge Nadel allow him to prepare a long jury questionnaire,

typical in high profile cases like hers. A long jury questionnaire, like the one Ray Tensing was

afforded in his murder case with over 100 questions, unlike the standard eight question

questionnaire used in run of the mill cases, would have allowed him to identify biased jurors.

Judge Hunter didn’t see the jury questionnaire until voir dire started. Tensing received his

extensive questionnaire with potential jurors several weeks before his trial commenced.

The voir dire process violated Judge Hunter’s constitutional rights. A journalist that

worked for WCPO, the news station that was suing Judge Hunter at the time she was indicted,

39
was on Judge Hunter’s jury. WCPO published countless vicious, biased news stories about Judge

Hunter, on Deter’s behalf, many filed on the docket in preparation for the retrial of her case in

2016. Deters later married a WCPO reporter. An employee of WCPO should have been excluded

as a juror, based on her employer’s actions against Judge Hunter that could have compelled its

employee, who relied on WCPO for her livelihood, to convict her contrary to evidence. Bennett

should have known that an employee of WCPO presented a clear conflict of interest and should

have been challenged for cause. He should have further challenged how an employee of WCPO

was randomly selected as part of her jury pool, while they were suing her and publishing stories

about her. Deters used WCPO as one of his bully pulpits to influence jurists against her before

and during trial. When Deters issued a press release two days before trial, alleging that Judge

Hunter was responsible for the murders of two people, WCPO published the false story. During

voir dire, after Bennet raised the Batson13 challenge because special prosecutors used all of their

peremptory challenges to only eliminate black potential jurists, a white potential jurist, who

coincidentally worked for the Hamilton County Treasurer’s Office, falsely alleged that Judge

Hunter hugged a black potential juror while jury selection was underway. WCPO ran the story

repeatedly and falsely identified a random black lady that was attending the trial as the potential

juror. Despite it being untrue, the potential black jurist was subsequently challenged for cause by

the State, based on those allegations, and eliminated by Judge Nadel. The State alleged she was

hostile because she cried after they falsely accused her of hugging Judge Hunter. Judge Nadel

agreed with the state that she was hostile, a dog whistle to cover its racist overtone. The lady did

not know Judge Hunter, never met her, and certainly had never hugged her, but he upheld it.

13 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)

40
 Her attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel when he failed to challenge

clearly conflicted jurors. When it was clear that an unbiased jury pool could not be empaneled,

he should have renewed his motion to change venues to ensure that Judge Hunter received a fair

trial. He should have challenged Judge Nadel when he failed to dismiss jurors that stated they

were biased by the negative news stories shared to millions of people by WCPO. The judge kept

all the white jurors that admitted bias and convinced them that they could be fair, but eliminated

black jurors that expressed no biases, based on age and race, in violation of the law. T.p. (Vol.

11-12, Sept. 8-9, 2014)

News stories filed in this case exposed the prosecutor’s unbridled attacks that began

during her election case and escalated when Judge Hunter refused to concede her election or

judgeship. Bennett should have challenged for cause every juror that confessed that they were

biased against Judge Hunter, especially those that had clear conflicts. He should have filed a jury

questionnaire in advance of trial and ascertained the identities and backgrounds of potential

jurors and their connections to the Prosecutor’s Office. He did not challenge those jurors for

cause. When Judge Hunter requested Bennett challenge jurors for cause, including the WCPO

employee, he responded that he didn’t want the jurors to think he was racist, being a black man.

That was not a legally sufficient reason to fail to challenge jurors. He should not have agreed to

represent Judge Hunter if he was afraid to employ the law to protect his client as a black man. He

had a duty to challenge every juror for cause that expressed a bias against her. By failing to do

so, jurors with clear biases against her, like Kirkham and the WCPO employee, were empaneled

in violation of her constitutional rights. It was incompetent, ineffective assistance of counsel and

legally unsound not to challenge jurors with a clear conflict of interest and bias against Judge

41
Hunter. Judge Hunter could do nothing about her lawyer’s decisions, as the judge made clear that

Judge Hunter was not allowed to assist in her defense. Additionally, Judge Nadel continually

praised Bennett throughout the trial, in further violation of Judge Hunter’s constitutional rights.

While Bennet was arguing, he told Nadel twice, “I love you judge,…” That was inappropriate.

Bennett should have renewed the request to change venues given the number of jurors

that expressed bias against Judge Hunter, based on all the pretrial and prior negative news

publicity fueled by Deters’ office when Judge Hunter was not allowed, per judicial ethics, to

respond. Therefore, she never defended herself against Deters’ lies in the media, which jurists in

the jury pool admitted they believed. They were likely to convict and did, based on the media.

Attorney Bennett should have filed a motion for a change of venue and renewed such

Motion when so many members of the jury pool expressed relationships with Judge Hunter’s

adversaries. Their kids went to school with court staff, like Kissinger and Williams. Multiple

witnesses had Republican judges for neighbors. It was impossible for so many jurors to have a

connection to the prosecutor’s office. There were even connections to police officers from North

College Hill, where black children were accused of beating a white man. That incident became

one of Judge Hunter’s most highly publicized and criticized Juvenile Court cases. The jury pool

appeared handpicked. A review of the entire voir dire transcript will reveal that there were too

many connections for her jury to have been randomly selected in a county of over 800,000

people. The jury process seemed tainted to ensure they would get a conviction, regardless of the

evidence, as three jurors’ affidavits confirmed. It was clear that jurors, like Kirkham, the WCPO

employee, and Judge Heather Russel’s neighbor juror were not randomly selected. The OSC

witness that testified about Judge Hunter’s payment to the OSC was also the neighbor of a judge.

42
 Bennett failed to raise the applicable statute, RC 149.435, that eradicated the State’s false

narrative that she provided a confidential record to her brother. As a JCO defending himself in an

administrative hearing, he was entitled to have all of juvenile’s records to prepare his hearing.

Bennett failed to examine Trotter about her relationship with Judge Hunter. Trotter

represented Judge Hunter in her judicial capacity, before she represented Stephen. It would not

have been illegal nor unethical for Judge Hunter to provide information to her lawyer that

impacted her job as a judge, as they already had an established attorney-client relationship.

Although Trotter testified she received nothing from Judge Hunter, their privileged relationship,

based on her prior representation, should have been brought out during Trotter’s testimony.

If Bennett had cross-examined Stephen, he could have simply asked Stephen specifically

what he provided his lawyer or did she reject anything, but he did not. The State should have

asked Stephen as their witness; but according to Stephen, they told him just before he took the

stand that they didn’t want him to identify any documents. The State in violation of the law,

instructed a witness to withhold exculpatory information that was material to her innocence.

Stephen expected Bennett to cross examine him. Judge Hunter also expected Bennett to cross

examine him. Stephen was the only witness that Bennett failed to cross examine and that the

State barely examined. Judge Hunter instructed Bennett to recall Stephen and properly cross

examine him, but he called Trotter instead. Two experienced lawyers lost her case. It was

incompetent and ineffective assistance that Bennett failed to cross examine Stephen.

Trotter represented Stephen in the disciplinary hearing and knew that the court’s key

witness lied. She also knew that she instructed the court that Stephen did not want his job back.

If the disciplinary proceeding evidence had been provided in discovery to dispel the State’s false

43
allegations; and if employees involved in the related incident, that Judge Hunter specifically

subpoenaed, were called as witnesses, Judge Hunter would not have been wrongfully convicted.

If Bennett had cross examined Stephen, he would have testified that he was the intake

officer for the Youth Center and in that role prepared the files of all juveniles admitted to the

Juvenile Court for detention. He would have testified that he had access to all juvenile files. He

would have also testified that any reports provided Judge Hunter by Bowman had been created

by Mr Hunter as the intake officer for the Juvenile Court. If Bennett had cross examined Mr.

Hunter, he would have exposed that he incurred stellar evaluations during his years of service to

the Juvenile Court and only faced a disciplinary action in retaliation after his sister was elected.

He would have testified that HR employees altered information in his personnel file before they

released it to the media, which Judge Hunter became aware after a public records request to her

office. Judge Hunter contacted Wickett about discrepancies she noticed in Stephen’s personnel

file in emails that were also withheld from discovery. The State thoroughly questioned every

witness they called to testify about their employers, job titles, length of employ and duties,

except Mr. Hunter. He was the State’s only witness that they did not question about his specific

job responsibilities at the Juvenile Court because they knew it would prove fatal to their case.

If Bennett had properly cross examined Stephen and prepared Trotter, their testimony

would have proven that Dwayne Bowman, Wickett, Kissinger and both judges had been

unequivocally informed that Stephen did not want his job back at the Juvenile Court and only

participated in the disciplinary administrative hearing to clear his name. If Stephen had been

cross examined, he would have testified that Judge Hunter did not provide him any confidential

documents, as he told the State, which is why they didn’t ask. Bennett should have subpoenaed

44
transcripts or recordings of the administrative hearing that proved Stephen didn’t want his job

and that Judge Hunter was not involved in any way with the administrative hearing. The State

provided no evidence to support their claims against Judge Hunter. Bennett dropped the ball.

Bennett also failed to call witnesses that Judge Hunter provided and subpoenaed. Those

witnesses would have testified that she openly communicated her actions as judge through

emails on all matters she was engaged within the court, including hiring, internal investigations,

public records requests, employee issues, probation and all juvenile matters occurring within her

court. She documented all of her actions and communications to directors, employees, and court

personnel, knowing that those emails became public records. She hid nothing she did. Her open

actions did not align with one knowingly committing crimes, but doing her judicial job. There

are hundreds of emails that document all the matters that Judge Hunter addressed in her court.

She recently acquired some of the emails from the Juvenile Court, after making public records

requests for over 10 years. Those are randomly attached as exhibits. Emails that exist relevant to

this specific charge are still being withheld to cover up the State’s misconduct. Ex. R

Judge Hunter documented every action she took. Exculpatory emails withheld by the

State, that Bennett should have fought to get before trial, would have demonstrated that she was

focused on doing her job, despite being publicly harassed and terrorized every day by the

Prosecutor’s Office and directors working for her competitor Judge Williams. Many employees

shared their concerns about what they were witnessing or heard daily at the court. One employee,

with close ties to the Republican Party, even brought her a stun gun, worried for her safety at

Juvenile Court, due to the intense hostility directed at Judge Hunter daily. Judge Hunter, having

the largest caseload of any juvenile court judge in the entire State of Ohio, as was revealed in

45
reports released by the OSC, often worked until close to midnight at court. Bennett should have

used witnesses that Judge Hunter subpoenaed to prove the unlawful actions taken against her.

Bennett should have called attorney Branch, now honorable judge, as a witness, which

she requested and expected him to do. Branch cleared her schedule and repeatedly contacted

Bennett about testifying on Judge Hunter’s behalf, but Bennett inexplicably called Trotter to

testify instead. Branch represented Judge Hunter in the lawsuits filed against her at Juvenile

Court. Branch knew that the prosecutors failed to answer lawsuits brought against Judge Hunter.

She knew that Judge Hunter had been falsely accused of theft and misuse of a credit card after

she filed notices of appeals in all the cases that prosecutors failed to answer as her lawyers that

Branch ultimately appealed on her behalf. Branch could have testified about every charge.

Trotter had provided evidence relevant to Stephen’s treatment by the Juvenile Court to Branch.

Branch would have been a reliable, credible witness for Judge Hunter. Branch even worked with

the lawyer that met with the special prosecutors and drafted a letter to curb the State’s alleged

issues with Judge Hunter, before they indicted her. But Bennett inexplicably failed to call Branch

on Judge Hunter’s behalf, who was best qualified to testify on all charges. He called Trotter. He

called the witness whose conflicting testimony, that he failed to clear up, led to her conviction.

Having made the decision to call Trotter, Bennet should have known the relevant juvenile

laws that applied and invoked them in Judge Hunter’s defense. Although it was made clear that

Judge Hunter did not provide any confidential documents, and no witness identified or produced

any confidential documents that she was alleged to have provided, Bennett should have clarified

that there were no laws that prevented Trotter from gathering relevant evidence in advance of her

client’s administrative hearing nor that required her to wait until she was in the hearing to receive

46
documents her client was legally entitled to have to effectively represent him. The jury would

have understood that it would be incompetent and amount to ineffective assistance of counsel for

any attorney to wait until she was in her client’s hearing to prepare for his hearing. A lawyer is

supposed to do her homework, investigate and collect evidence in advance to effectively defend

her clients. A lawyer should not be threatened with retaliation or prosecution for doing her job.

Bennett should have subpoenaed employees that Judge Hunter provided that had been

injured at Juvenile Court and contacted Judge Hunter for help. Judge Hunter did all the work,

provided all the evidence for her case, except that which was unlawfully withheld by the State.

Bennett learned about multiple instances of juror misconduct that he failed to report to

the court. During the three day weekend, after the jury verdict was supposedly sealed, one of the

jurors talked to her neighbor Judge Heather Russel about the sealed verdict, in violation of the

law. When Bennett learned of this, he should have reported it and requested a mistrial. When

Bennett learned that Deters was on vacation with Croswell, during Judge Hunter’s hearings,

rather than request a continuance and attribute it to his client, who didn’t want a continuance, he

should have reported their misconduct to the OSC and filed motions to declare a mistrial. Instead

he compelled Judge Hunter to waive her speedy trial rights as the State wanted, but she refused.

Deters alleged to have no involvement in the case he initiated against Judge Hunter, but

his employees were the State’s key witnesses, and he attempted to induce her to vacate her

judgeship. Multiple prominent elected officials approached Judge Hunter with offers on Deters’

behalf. If she waived her speedy trial rights, they would not send her to jail. If she vacated her

judgeship to allow the governor to appoint a Republican to her seat, she would not be retried on

the eight charges that resulted in a hung jury. Those were the primary offers made to her on

47
Deters’ behalf by officials and pastors, as he publicly maintained that he was not involved in her

case. Judge Hunter refused to waive her speedy trial or to abdicate her judgeship, the State’s key

objective. She went to jail as a result and served time for a crime she did not commit. Judge

Hunter’s lawyers were aware of Deters’ extortionist tactics and should have reported his conduct.

The special prosecutors were clearly not working independently of the Prosecutor’s

Office, that had an expressed conflict of interest, if Prosecutor Deters was calling the shots and

offering backdoor deals, attempting to coerce Judge Hunter to vacate the seat Republicans

wanted. Many of those individuals and/or organizations received money from Deters’ Asset

Forfeiture Funds, including Singleton’s organization. If special prosecutors were retained to

prosecute Judge Hunter because Prosecutor Deters had a conflict of interest, Deters should not

have been involved in prosecuting the State’s case, while being the chief complainant. Assistant

prosecutor James Harper, the lead attorney in Hunter v BOE14, should not have been her lawyer

at Juvenile Court. Harper, angry that Judge Hunter filed an ethics claim against him and Deters

testified they prosecuted her in retaliation. The State abused the law to execute a vendetta. He

was a witness against her in violation of the Ohio Rules of Conduct. Ohio R. Prof'l. Cond. 1.915

14 Hunter v. Hamilton County Bd. of Elections, 635 F.3d 219 (6th Cir. 2011)

15 (a) Unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing, a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a
matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially relatedmatter in which that person's interests are
materially adverse to the interests of the former client.
(b) Unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing, a lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the
same or a substantiallyrelatedmatter in which a firm with which the lawyer formerly was associated had previously represented a
client where both of the following apply:
(1) the interests of the client are materially adverse to that person;
(2) the lawyer had acquired information about the client that is protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) and material to the matter.
(c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly represented a client in a
matter shall not thereafter do either of the following:
(1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these rules would permit or
require with respect to a client or when the information has become generally known;
(2) reveal information relating to the representation except as these rules would permit or require with respect to a client.

48
 Bennett knew that he could not effectively represent Judge Hunter without the material

evidence withheld and suppressed by the State, necessary to defend the charge. He also knew

that keeping biased jurors, connected to the Special Prosecutors, like Kirkham, in relationship

with Croswell and his wife, and an employee of WCPO that was suing her was prejudicial to her.

Prosecutors threatened Bennett that he would not receive any more plea deals for his

other clients, after he argued a pretrial motion that Deters’ prosecution of Judge Hunter was

malicious and vindictive. Judge Hunter requested Bennett call Deters as a hostile witness and

subpoenaed him; but Bennett failed to call him, putting the complainant Deters’ interests above

hers. Judge Hunter had a Sixth Amendment right to confront her primary accuser, Deters. But the

prosecutors’s threats compromised her lawyer’s ability to effectively represent her. Id.

Attorney Branch was prepared to testify on Judge Hunter’s behalf, but Bennett did not

call nor respond to Branch’s communications to testify, which Judge Hunter only learned after

her trial as Nadel pressed him to rest her case. Bennett also failed to call key Juvenile Court

employees that Judge Hunter subpoenaed, based on their first-hand knowledge of facts related to

the charge she was convicted. Judge Hunter also requested that Judge Meyers be called. She

would have testified that she failed to vet the special prosecutors for conflicts of interest, as

Deters’ personal lawyers, that should have precluded them from serving as prosecutors.

Moreover, Bennett failed to raise the proper applicable defenses to ORC 2921.42, given

that Judge Hunter, was one of two judges that signed all contracts for the court, signed off on

every employee hire of the Juvenile Court, swore in employees of the court and was responsible

for co-executing the ORC and Personnel Policy of the Juvenile Court, which required her to

investigate any incidents reported to her by any employee of the court, including allegations for

49
which she could be sued and held liable. Judge Hunter was trained by the OSC to investigate all

incidents reported to her. He should have called the OSC employment trainer. Bennett failed to

call as witnesses the majority of individuals that Judge Hunter identified to testify in her defense,

including the Prosecutor Joe Deters, presiding Court of Common Pleas Judge Beth Meyers and

Juvenile Court employees directly involved and aware of the Juvenile Court procedures and

policies typically follow by the judges of the Juvenile Court.

Finally, Mr. Bennett neglected to raise one of the most important arguments of all, that

Judge Hunter like every other judge in America, was entitled to judicial immunity, as every

charge made by the State was based on allegations directly related to her duties as a judge. She

was treated differently than every judge in Hamilton County, the State of Ohio and the United

States when she was charged with crimes for simply doing her job as a judge. Her new lawyers

raised her immunity, included in the attached motion that should have prevented the State from

breaching the walls that separate the powers of government in retaliation and revenge. Ex. S

III. ARGUMENT

On July 27, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion for Leave To File Delayed Post Conviction

Petition And/or Motion for Relief From Judgment. This Motion argued that Ohio Supreme Court

Justice DeWine requested and secured a job for his son, but was not prosecuted. Unlike DeWine,

Judge Hunter never requested nor secured a job for her brother. She requested reports, related to

an employee incident with her brother, as she did in all employee incidents at the Juvenile Court.

She should have received a Remmer hearing for justice to be done in this matter. New

evidence has come to light, since the last Motion for Post Conviction relief was denied by this

court. Based on this new evidence, Defendant, is raising an ineffective assistance of counsel

50
claim as part of this petition. This newly discovered evidence compels Counsel to file this

Supplement. For these reasons, Defendant renews and supplements the Motion for Leave to File

Delayed Postconviction Petition and/or Motion for Relief From Judgment currently on appeal.

B. The Jury Bias In The Trial for Defendant Hunter Required a Remmer Hearing

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to trial by an impartial jury. U.S.

Const. amend. VI. “The presence of even a single biased juror deprives a defendant of [her] right

to an impartial jury.” Williams v. Bagley, 380 F.3d 932, 944 (6th Cir. 2004). “In a criminal case,

any private communication, contact, or tampering directly or indirectly, with a juror during a trial

about the matter pending before the jury is, for obvious reasons, deemed presumptively

prejudicial[.]” Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 229, 74 S.Ct. 450, 98 L.Ed. 654 (1954).

When a defendant raises a “colorable claim of extraneous influence[,]” a court must fulfill its

“duty to investigate and to determine whether there may have been a violation of the

[constitutional guarantee].” United States v. Lanier, 988 F.3d 284, 294 (6th Cir. 2021) (quoting

Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 229, 74 S.Ct. 450, 98 L.Ed. 654 (1954)). To comply

with this obligation, a court usually must conduct a Remmer hearing where the defendant has an

opportunity to demonstrate jury bias. United States v. Lanier, 988 F.3d 284, 294–95 (6th Cir.

2021).

In the most recent denied petition, evidence came to light that Sandra Kirkham authored a

book revealing her 40 year history of disdain and distrust for clergy. Judge Hunter was clergy in

2014 and Kirkham failed to disclose her bias. A Remmer hearing should have been provided to

establish that there was juror bias back in 2014, that was solidified further in her book about

clergy abuse in 2021. Although juror misconduct was made, no Remmer hearing was held is an

51
instance of injustice. There should have been a Remmer hearing conducted on her behalf to

demonstrate jury bias. The books cover established that there was a relationship with the special

prosecutor and his wife Stephanie Wyler Crosswell, which was not known until recent. The fact

that this court denied her request for a new trial is not an automatic application of res judicata.

C. 29253.23(A)(1) Permits Trial Court to Entertain Petition as Petitioner was Unavoidably

Prevented from Discovering Relationship with Prosecutor Scott Croswell and His Wife

“R.C. 2953.23(A)(1) permits a trial court to entertain an untimely or successive petition

under one of two conditions (1) the petitioner was unavoidably prevented from discovering the

facts on which the petition is predicated, or (2) the United States Supreme Court has recognized

a new federal or state right that applies retroactively to the petitioner and the petition asserts a

claim based on that new right. If the petitioner can satisfy one of these threshold conditions, she

must then demonstrate that, but for the constitutional error at trial, no reasonable fact finder

would have found him or her guilty of the offenses of which he was convicted.” State v. Taylor,

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102020, 2015- Ohio-1314, ¶¶ 6-7, citing R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(b).

Judge Hunter was prevented from knowing that a relationship existed between the jury

forewoman and special prosecutor that should have been disclosed to the trial court. It was

unlawful for the special prosecutor not to disclose his relationship with Kirkham to the trial

court, but more importantly to the defendant that was biased by their failure to disclose. Not only

would no reasonable fact finder have found Judge Hunter guilty of the offense, three jurors came

forward and in fact stated that they didn’t find her guilty of that offense and that their true

verdicts were not guilty. They confessed to being pressured by the jury forewoman to sign the

verdict form. If it were not for Kirkham’s misconduct, Judge Hunter would have been acquitted.

52
 The fact that Kirkham was motivated to convict, based on her undisclosed relationship

with the special prosecutor meets the threshold condition. There was no evidence of that charge,

as Juror Whitehead said, but Kirkham, who failed to admit she disliked clergy; failed to admit

that she was sexually abused by clergy, which she detailed in a book after Judge Hunter’s trial;

but further failed to disclose her relationship with the special prosecutor is overwhelming

evidence of juror misconduct, conduct specifically prescribed by the Sixth Amendment.

The hearing conducted before the trial court regarding the book only recently became

available, as it had not been ordered by prior counsel. Discussion of that argument, relative to

Kirkham’s conduct is in T.p. 1-59 (Aug. 24, 2022) (argument by Atty. Lou Sirkin).

Judge Hunter was denied a full and fair opportunity for a Remmer hearing. Extensive

misconduct by the state, including withholding exculpatory evidence; failing to disclose

improper relationships between the special prosecutor and Sandra Kirkahm require a hearing.

D. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Tracie Hunter requests that this Court accepts this Motion for

Leave to File Delayed Post Conviction Petition and/or Motion for Relief From Judgment with

this new information. The new evidence regarding Sandra Kirkham’s relationship with the

Special Prosecutor and his wife, that they both failed to disclose, and Ms. Hunter had no way to

discover is highly relevant and requires a Remmer hearing be performed to satisfy justice.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Tracie Hunter , pro se

PO Box 32325
Cincinnati, Ohio 45232
Tel: (513) 662-6247
[email protected]

53
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served this 9th day of October,

2024 via electronic mail upon the following: Robert Scott Croswell, Croswell & Adams, 8 W.

Ninth St. 2nd Floor, Cincinnati 45202; and Merlyn Shiverdecker, 817 Main Street 2nd fl,

Cincinnati, Ohio, 45202

s/Tracie Hunter,

Pro se

54