MANSFIELD, Ohio–The auditorium of Mansfield Senior High School was transformed into a courtroom on Wednesday morning as the Ohio Supreme Court convened to hear oral arguments as part of the Off-Site Court program.
Eleven area high schools attended three separate sessions of the Supreme Court throughout the morning to observe the court’s proceedings, including oral arguments and a debriefing with attorneys from both sides after each session. Mansfield Senior High students also participated in a special question and answer portion with the seven justices before the day’s proceedings.
The Off-Site Court program was first created in 1987, and Wednesday’s session marked the 70th time the Supreme Court has heard oral arguments outside Columbus since the program’s inception. This is the court’s first visit to Richland County.
“We take the Supreme Court on the road, so to speak,” said Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor. “We bring it to communities and we invite students to come and be the audience for the court so the students can understand and appreciate what the Supreme Court does, and how it fits into our government here in Ohio. It is a program to enlighten to the students.”
Members of Richland County’s justice department were also present on Wednesday, including Prosecutor Bambi Couch Page and Judge Brent Robinson. Robinson emphasized the value of students witnessing a “real-life” court experience as opposed to what they might see on television.
“They actually get to see how it works and they get to see how decisions are made, which will affect the lives of everybody in Ohio,” he said. “These are all issues that could affect all of us, issues regarding driving, how school buses are operated, how roads are maintained, how juvenile adjudications are to be handled – it’s stuff that could affect all of us.”
The three cases presenting oral arguments on Wednesday all involved juveniles, which O’Connor said was purposeful.
“I chose those cases specifically because I thought they would be cases that the students could possibly identify with, and would be of interest to them,” she said. “Then it would be easier for them to be prepped to understand the oral argument and then the debriefing.”
The first case of the morning questioned whether Ohio’s juvenile sex-offender law is unconstitutional. Attorney Brooke Burns of the Ohio Public Defender’s office argued in defense of her client, D.S., who was charged in 2010 with two counts of gross sexual imposition occurring when he was 13 and 14 years old.
Juvenile court held a sexual-offender classification hearing in June 2013 and classified D.S. as a tier II juvenile sex offender, which requires him to register his address with law enforcement every 180 days for 20 years. Burns argues this punishment is unconstitutional.
“What’s amazing about oral arguments is you only get 15 minutes and as you can see, 15 minutes goes by really quickly,” said Burns in the debriefing session. “There’s all this pressure to say as much as you can and try to get through your argument. But sometimes the justices want to ask questions you were not planning on answering when they asked them, so the big thing is trying to make sure you say what you think is necessary to try and get them on your side and get their vote.”
Arguing against Burns was Michael Hendershot from the Ohio Attorney General’s appeals section. Hendershot contended that D.S.’s constitutional rights were not violated when the juvenile court classified him a sex offender, and that there was no double jeopardy or multiple punishments because there was only one conviction and then a later hearing for other consequences – as the law allows.
“You prepare thousands of different things, and the questioning focuses on maybe a dozen of those,” said Hendershot during debriefing. “If I have only one regret, then I consider that a very good argument.”
The second case argued on Wednesday addressed bus drivers’ obligations when dropping off students, citing a case where in 2009, six-year-old Amber Sallee got off the bus and ran down the same side of the street instead of crossing to her residence, despite the bus driver honking the horn to get her attention. When Sallee attempted to cross the street after the bus driver continued her route, she was hit by a car and suffered a broken femur; Salle’s family argues a bus driver’s supervisory duties include making sure a child crosses to her residence side of the road.
The third and final case of the day questioned when the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) makes specific highway improvements, do only those particular improvements need to meet current construction standards? The case referenced an incident on Sept. 12, 2009 when teenager Amber Risner was killed after the vehicle she was riding in collided with a tractor-trailer in the intersection of State Routes 220 and 32. The intersection was marked with a stop sign and a red flashing light, and yellow flashing lights faced traffic traveling in both directions on S.R. 32 – Risner’s family contends the addition of lights and signs constituted “improvements,” which requires ODOT to make changes to the intersection conforming to sight-distance standards for motorist safety.
The outcomes of all three cases will likely be decided about a year from now, and O’Connor stated she hopes the students present at Wednesday’s sessions continue following the cases.
“They will be, I hope, interested enough to follow when the Supreme Court issues its opinion and they’ll be able to weigh in; do they think we reached the right opinion or are they going to be critical of what we do,” she said.
