Opinion Column
Published in Columbus Dispatch
June 22, 2005

Jackson Case Shows Need For Juror Education

By Mark R. Weaver

Despite last week’s jury decision acquitting Michael Jackson, I’m still a fan of our jury system. There’s no better way to discern truth and ensure justice. But the irrational way jurors often make decisions sends a dangerous message to potential crime victims — like me and you.

Jackson’s jurors acquitted on all charges; even those not reasonably in dispute, such as the lesser counts of supplying alcohol to minors. In a post-trial press conference, one juror said her verdict was based on her personal distaste for the mother of the alleged victim. “I disliked it intensely when she snapped her fingers at us,” the juror said. Others agreed.

Message to jurors: please decide cases on facts and credibility, not the annoying habits of witnesses. As a criminal prosecutor, I’ve handled several jury trials, including child sex abuse cases. I’ve noticed a disturbing trend where the likeability of a victim or witness affects the verdict.

It’s the job of juries to judge each witness, but we should be troubled by a tendency that promotes justice for likeable crime victims and injustice for the less sympathetic.

Worse still, predators who target a mentally challenged or unruly child can grab a “get out of jail free” card when jurors are put off by the victim’s attitude on the witness stand. Yet an insolent display can be a direct result of being victimized.

The Jackson jury foreman told CNN that jurors wished there had been different witnesses to the alleged acts. But we, as prosecutors, don’t pick our victims or our witnesses. The person who committed the crime did the choosing.

Sadly, this isn’t the only problem with modern American juries. Their TV viewing habits can lead to concerns as well.

For years, high-tech TV crime dramas like “CSI,” have topped the ratings. In less than an hour, a crime occurs, detectives investigate, and whiz-bang computer technology allows prosecutors to gain a conviction from some detail like an eyelash left at the scene. As the credits role, the crook is sent off to prison.

Such fantasy makes for good entertainment but bad juries. Many prosecutors now ask potential jurors if they watch crime shows in general or CSI in particular. Those who do are reminded that most trials don’t involve crime-fighting gizmos but rather come down to eyewitnesses and tangible evidence.

Even when technology is used, it rarely boasts the impressive abilities seen on TV. For example, a photo taken from 100 yards away simply can’t be enhanced to show a small tattoo on someone’s neck. NASA can’t do it and neither can your local crime lab. But jurors expect it, because it happened on TV.

As the magazine US News recently reported, some juries aren’t even convinced by a direct DNA match. An Illinois prosecutor presented a case where DNA that a rapist left on his victim was unmistakably matched to a gang member arrested for the crime. Beyond that, the victim identified the defendant as the rapist.

The verdict? Not guilty. Jurors hesitated to convict because they worried that debris on the victim was never tested to see if it was soil from the park where the attack occurred. “They said they knew from CSI that police could test for that sort of thing,” the prosecutor told US News. “But we had his DNA. It’s ridiculous.”

It is ridiculous and all too common. But this injustice can be prevented. It’s high time for pre-trial education of jurors, conducted by the court system in clear language underscoring the importance of setting aside personal biases and pre-conceived ideas.

Judges now try to do this by reading lengthy jury instructions at the end of the trial. Despite valiant efforts by some very smart people who write the instructions, most jurors appear dazed by the terminology and the written-by-committee mishmash they hear. Perhaps a pre-trial video played while potential jurors are waiting could alleviate these problems. We know people like watching TV, so using that approach for juror education could lead to more rational verdicts.

So as Michael Jackson moonwalks back to Neverland Ranch, let’s use his case as a catalyst for justice. Jurors should know that no prosecutor can prove guilt “beyond any possible doubt.” And that bad people can be victims of crime just as good people can commit crimes.

Premises like these are crucial and bear repeating. Nearly all jurors are good people trying their best. But with the right education, their best can be a whole lot better.

####

Mark R. Weaver is a litigator with the Columbus law firm of Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor. He was Ohio’s Deputy Attorney General from 1995-99 and is a part-time prosecutor in Adams County, Ohio where he often handles child sex abuse cases.

Opinion Column
Published in the Miami Herald
July 2004

Kids Left Alone In Cars: Entirely Preventable But It Happens Every Summer
A Criminal Prosecutor Suggest Tougher Penalties Can Save Lives

By Mark R. Weaver

Across America, the traditional sounds of summer are all around us. The crack of a baseball smacked across a backyard. The liquid hiss of sprinklers quenching lawns and gardens. The happy jangle of an ice cream truck making its rounds.

But amidst the chorus of these happy summer sounds, comes a horrible plea for help — the muffled screams of babies and toddlers begging to be relieved from the suffocating, hot death of an automobile interior.

Just this week, in 90 degree heat, a seven month old Parkland boy baked to death in his father’s SUV. The man, a local dentist, left the child trapped in the stifling vehicle for more than three hours.

Prosecutors should charge that father with manslaughter. Under Florida law, that charge can be brought when someone’s actions kill a human being through “culpable negligence,” which was clearly the case in this death. This is a second degree felony, punishable by a stiff prison sentence.

A prison term for this crime may seem harsh to some, but these horrific crimes occur over and over again. In the last decade, more than 550 American children died after being left in overheated cars, according to Kids ‘N Cars, an advocacy group dealing with issues of child safety in automobiles.

A study in the Journal of the Louisiana State Medical Society found temperatures often reach more than 140 degrees in vehicles — even when the windows were left slightly open.

In case after case, the same shocking situation occurs. A parent claims to have “forgotten” about the child in the car. Or they left the young one “just for a minute.” Everyone involved calls it a “tragedy.”

Tragedy, yes. But entirely preventable.

NASA scientists at the Langley Research Center have developed a unique safety device, that they call a “Child Presence Sensor.” It can alert parents who inadvertently leave their small children in their vehicle.

Even though such technology is welcome, we shouldn’t need a space-age gizmo to keep children from being left alone in cars. All it takes is for all parents to put the well being of their children ahead of all else. After all, isn’t that the essence of parenting?

In the law, the term negligence describes a careless act that causes injury. Typically, negligence can result in a civil judgment — meaning the careless person will have to pay money to the injured party. But there are times when negligence can and should be criminal in nature. Forgetting to remove a child from a simmering car is such a case.

Parents who allow their children to die this way should do prison time. Soon enough, negligent parents will get the message.

Being a parent is the most demanding job in the world. Most people who become parents have little idea of how difficult things will be. Particularly with young children, parenting requires constant vigilance.

“Forgetting” your small child for several hours is criminal behavior. No matter how tired a parent is, no matter how distracted by other events or problems, the top priority of a mother or father must be the physical safety of their children.

In each of these cases, the children died horrible deaths. The coroner reports describe a level of unspeakable suffering that makes one weep to even contemplate. One little girl tore her own hair out with clenched fists as she died in the agony of 130-degree heat.

This is shameful neglect. How a parent can forget where a helpless toddler or infant is for hours at a time — as if the child were a set of keys routinely misplaced — is beyond any rational understanding or explanation.

Even if the temperatures aren’t high enough to create a danger, an unattended child in a car is a target for a multitude of evils.

In the shadow of our collective concern about terrorism, we mustn’t neglect basic child safety issues such as this. Children are being left alone in hot cars every week. And every one of these deaths is preventable.

After more than a dozen years of experience as a practicing attorney, I’ve seen some state laws change to offer more protection for children. That’s good news in a setting normally tinged with sadness and horror. As the father of two young children, I take heart from that news.

But more needs to be done. While none of us can save the children who were so cruelly left to die, all of us can remain vigilant. We can speak out and take appropriate action to save a child.

Here are some points each of us should remember:

- Don’t leave a young child unattended, out of your eyesight, in a car — even if it’s just for a few moments.

- If you see a young child unattended in a car, call 911.

- If your child is asleep in the car when you arrive home, bring him inside immediately — even if you’re concerned he might awaken.

- Keep your car locked when it’s parked — dozens of children die each year when they sneak inside to play and are overcome by heat.

- Finally, be observant for the neglect of others. If you suspect any sort of child abuse or neglect, call your local Children’s Services office.

People who aren’t willing to give laser-like focus to the physical well being of their children simply shouldn’t have children. And those who seriously neglect their children should be prosecuted and go to jail.

-30-

Mark R. Weaver of Columbus, Ohio, is a criminal prosecutor who primarily handles child sex abuse cases. He was formerly the Deputy Attorney General of Ohio.

Opinion Column published in the Akron Beacon Journal
July 11, 2002
20 YEARS LATER, TODAY IS A DAY TO REMEMBER KRISTA LEA HARRISON

By Mark R. Weaver

In a few months, people all across Ohio will know the name Robert Buell. His execution is set for September 25th. People on both sides of the death penalty issue will invoke his name to make their respective points. What a shame.

At least today, we should all remember Krista Lea Harrison.

Twenty years ago today, Robert Buell stalked a neighborhood park in rural Wayne County and saw his prey — an 11-year-old girl named Krista Lea Harrison. She was just across the street from her house, collecting aluminum cans for recycling.

The details are too horrible to recount, but the evidence clearly proves that Buell kidnapped, brutally raped, and then strangled her. Thanks to the hard work of local police and prosecutors, he was found guilty and sentenced to death.

I served as Deputy Attorney General during the first term of Attorney General Betty Montgomery. In that job, I often dealt with death penalty appeals. I worked on many different cases, but the tragic death of this innocent schoolgirl has stayed with me more than any other.

Over the last several years, the brutal violation of little Krista Lea has been eclipsed by the whines and excuses of her murderer. After his conviction, courts gave him the benefit of the doubt and reviewed his repeated legal claims. Then every single one of them dismissed those frivolous appeals.

All too often, such legal maneuver has nothing to do with guilt and innocence and everything to do with gaming the system and buying more time. The defense attorneys who oppose the death penalty point the finger of blame everywhere – except where it belongs.

As a result, dozens of Ohio death row inmates have cases that are literally stuck in the court system – not moving anywhere for two years or more at a time. In many of these cases, the killers have spent thousands of days on death row, chuckling as their case files gather dust in court filing cabinets.

Although I learned the legal concepts of the death penalty appeals system years ago, the practical reality of it became real to me in 1996 when I toured death row.

Deep inside Ohio’s maximum-security prison in Mansfield, I walked down long hallways and was buzzed through several locked doors. Eventually, I was ushered into one of the five death row pods. Each prisoner is locked down in a small cell. The cells feature a thick steel door with a small window at eye level.

The warden escorted me into one of the pods and invited me to walk around. Since each door was locked, I decided to peer into one of the many cells before me. I walked to the cell closest to me, and as I approached, I felt a slight chill.

There was a name stenciled on the cell. Robert Buell.

I had spent many hours going over his file. I knew his crimes well.

I continued forward and peeked in the window. In the muted shadows of the tiny cell sat a small, frail man reading a magazine. He looked up at me for a moment. Our eyes met.

Every detail of his crime flashed through my mind in an instant. I turned away.

For the rest of my tour, I was subdued. The run-in I had with Buell seemed strangely coincidental to me.

As I left the prison, I took a different route on the way home. Since I had never driven that road before, I was somewhat surprised to see a sign pointing the way to Marshallville. That’s because Marshallville was the little hamlet where Buell began his deadly deed.

Marshallville is a small country town. The homes sport friendly front porches and hand-painted signs that proclaim the identity of the local high school athletes who live there.

I took the turn for Marshallville and drove quietly past the park where Krista Lea saw her last few moments of peace. As I drove home, I was saddened all the more recalling that her parents still lived across the street from the park and can see it from their front picture window.

Becoming so familiar with cases like this was one of the hardest parts of the job I had.

Law school taught me to understand the arguments on both sides of the death penalty debate. But Krista Lea Harrison and Robert Buell taught me the real lessons of this issue.

The death penalty appeals process has become a sham. It’s a system that rewards creativity of defense lawyers who, time and time again, concoct outrageous reasons for yet another meritless legal motion.

Every convicted criminal has an absolute right to appeal. We all must respect and defend that right. But the process has gotten well out of hand.

Death penalty cases should be scrutinized carefully, so an innocent man is never put to death. That’s called due process of law, and our constitution requires it.

But due process requires action. Any legitimate questions about a case should be examined and then resolved. And once guilt is no longer in doubt, the death penalty must be carried out.

Such is the case with Robert Buell.

Whether you agree with the death penalty or not, you certainly must agree that our system loses credibility when we fail to follow through on the sentences meted out by courts.

And all of us – death penalty supporters and opponents alike – ought to take a moment today to remember the person behind this tragedy — Krista Lea Harrison.

####

Mark R. Weaver is a Columbus, Ohio lawyer and part-time criminal prosecutor who primarily handles child sex abuse cases. He was formerly Ohio Deputy Attorney General of Ohio.

Columbus Dispatch Book Review of
The Supreme Court by William H. Rehnquist
Published January 2001

AMERICA’S HIGHEST COURT – A VIEW FROM THE CHIEF

By Mark R. Weaver

Upon his retirement, President John Adams told others that Chief Justice John Marshall had been his “gift to the American people.” Marshall’s historic tenure with the Court proved that sentiment right. But President Ronald Reagan could also lay claim to that same notion when it comes to his nomination of William Rehnquist as Chief Justice.

Rehnquist has led our nation’s highest court through numerous legal thickets armed with a keen intellect and an ever-present sense of history. Whenever he chooses to retire, historians will likely judge him among the elite of his predecessors.

Of the 16 men who have served at the helm of America’s judicial branch, few have had a more unique perspective on law and justice than our current Chief Justice. Rehnquist has been a top Justice Department attorney, a Supreme Court clerk, an Associate Justice, and Chief Justice. In his nearly 30 years on the Court, he has served with six different presidents (soon to be seven) and ruled on everything from Roe. v. Wade and the Watergate tapes to the latest skirmishes over affirmative action and religion in public schools. Along the way, he was one of only two Chief Justices to preside over a presidential impeachment and the only one to help decide a presidential election debacle.

It is from this vantage that Rehnquist wrote a history of the Court he now leads. This month, that work has been re-released with substantial updates and two new chapters. Anyone who follows the grand history of America’s court of last resort will find this book indispensable reading.

He opens with a clerk’s eye view of the Court in 1952, when he worked for Justice Robert Jackson. This is a good place to start, as the reader quickly becomes familiar with the basic operations of the Court as Rehnquist learns his new duties.

At one point, after hearing criticism of his Justice, he describes his fellow clerks with commentary that is biting yet self-deprecating. “It would be all but impossible to assemble a more hypercritical, not to say arrogant, audience than a group of law clerks criticizing an opinion circulated by one of their employers. Their scorn – and in due time it became my scorn too – was not reserved for Justice Jackson but was lavished with considerable impartiality upon the products of all nine chambers of the Court.”

This is the author’s most compelling voice. Describing the rituals and inner workings of the Court – as Rehnquist does early on and again at the end – makes for effortless reading and substantial enjoyment. He also takes great care to explain the personal background of many of the justices, often pausing to insert a choice geographical or family reference. These mentions add character and show that the Chief Justice relishes detail.

But the rest of the book is more daunting. To fully appreciate Rehnquist’s lengthy interplay between American history and the many rulings of the Court, it helps to have a law degree or an extreme fondness for the details of legal history. Only those so situated will, for example, savor a 14 paragraph direct quotation from Chief Justice Marshall’s most famous opinion.

Yet even those who skip the drier passages will enjoy much of the legal discussion. From the drama of Marbury v. Madison through the politics surrounding FDR’s attempt to pack the court, to the expansion of individual liberties under the Warren Court, the Chief Justice skillfully interweaves the personalities, legal theory, and public pressures that molded the outcomes of our country’s most important cases.

Rehnquist’s writing skills go well beyond his primary subject. He artfully details the historical underpinnings of several of the cases at issue. For example, prior to examining the infamous Dred Scott decision, he provides a throughly readable exposition of the status of slavery in the 1850s. His short summary would do Bruce Catton proud.

The Chief Justice does more than recount Dred Scott. He picks the legal reasoning apart with a legal rapier. Yet he stops short of bowing to the view held by some that the decision indelibly stains the legacy of the court that endorsed it. Rehnquist calls Chief Justice Roger Taney’s holding “a serious mistake for the reasons I have earlier suggested, but that opinion should not be allowed to blot out the very constructive work otherwise done in his career.”

That’s not to say Rehnquist is charitable to all whom he covers. When the Civil War habeas corpus suspension case was argued, he points out that the attorney who argued in favor of Lincoln’s war measure (James Speed) was “surely one of the nation’s least-gifted attorneys general.” Ouch.

Rehnquist’s long court tenure and unique perspective give him license to comment on the historic cases he’s witnessed. Yet he refrains. His final chapter, “The Court in its Third Century,” is notable for its exclusion of any cases since Rehnquist joined the Court in 1972. Instead, he pens a summary and retrospective.

In fact, those who read this in hopes of discovering commentary on the recent Supreme Court ruling in the Florida recounts will be disappointed. The book went to print well before that episode was complete.

Yet as the inaugural of George W. Bush approaches, some who opposed his candidacy may choose to shower the Supreme Court with invective for their ruling in the election contest. Without ever knowing how cogent his point would soon be, Rehnquist offers them – and other court critics – valuable insight.

“Opinions may differ as to whether in a particular case the Supreme Court has read the Constitution too expansively or too narrowly. So long as the Court is involved, as it has been throughout its more than two centuries of existence, in helping to decide what kind of laws shall govern us, it is bound to draw criticism from those who are offended by its rulings.”

In just a few days, as Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist swears in the 43rd President of the United States, his perspective and view from the West Side of the Capitol building will encompass much of Washington’s terrain. But in “The Supreme Court,” he has encompassed much, much more.

###

Mark R. Weaver, former Ohio Deputy Attorney General, is an attorney with the Columbus law firm Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor.

Columbus Dispatch Book Review
Published in November 2000
Drudge Manifesto by Matt Drudge

EXTRA, EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT HIM

By Mark R. Weaver

If one of your computer’s Internet bookmarks is www.DrudgeReport.com, you’ll want to read Drudge Manifesto. A review of it simply won’t be enough to quench your thirst for all the Drudge that’s fit to print. But if the name Drudge is largely unfamiliar to you, read on and decide for yourself if this Manifesto is gospel or propaganda.

In Matt Drudge’s own words: “If I’m not interesting, the world’s not interesting. If the DRUDGE REPORT is boring, the world is boring.”

Extra. Extra. Read all about him. Matt Drudge — protagonist and antagonist of the Drudge Manifesto.

When the history of how the Internet changed journalism is written, there’s one name that will assuredly be highlighted. Only the self-deluded will deny that Matt Drudge will be front and center in that curriculum.

Just as the Internet music-swapping service Napster confounds the paragons of the music industry, Matt Drudge drives professional media types batty. He calls himself a “citizen journalist.” But that’s no hype.

He sports no fancy degrees in journalism or experience learning the news trade, yet Drudge reaches more readers in a day than the newspaper you’re holding reaches in a week. Whether he can even be called a journalist is a question likely to spark verbal fisticuffs with your friendly neighborhood scribe.

Not long ago, Matt Drudge was a self-acknowledged D-average high school graduate, working the cash register at the CBS gift shop in LA. Overhearing conversations, picking through office trash bins, and snooping for tidbits, he learned some of the inside stories of the mighty network.

Armed only with a Radio Shack computer (bought by his Dad, who feared a dismal future for his directionless son), from his shabby one-bedroom apartment, Matt Drudge began posting his Television City scoops on the Internet. Drudge recalls:

“One reader turned into five. Five into a hundred. And faster than you can say I NEVER HAD SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN, it was a thousand, five thousand, a hundred thousand.”

Drudge’s mention of Clinton is no passing reference. After scooping Hollywood, Drudge developed sources that helped him break the scandal that led to the first impeachment of an elected president. He’s quick to remind readers that he beat other media outlets by four days (including Newsweek, which had done the initial research on the story).

His scoops have gone well beyond the Clinton scandals. He beats the mainstream media on a weekly basis, and most of the time, he has his facts right. It’s that “most of the time” which sets his critics off. He’s often attacked for his refusal to follow the time-honored fact-checking guidelines of mainstream journalism.

He’s not apologetic about it, either.

“I’ve reported when, how, and what I’ve wanted. My only limitations have been those I’ve created. There’s been no editor, no lawyer, no judge, no president to tell me I can’t. And there never will be. Technology has finally caught up with individual liberty.”

Drudge may not be the best messenger for this news. He’s being sued by White House staffer Sidney Blumenthal for a scandalous allegation Drudge posted and later retracted.

The author Drudgingly admits that lightning-quick reporting sometimes leads to errors on his part. But when media sharpshooters target his goofs, he fires back with a well-aimed barrage of references to major media embarrassments like NBC’s Richard Jewell story, CNN’s Tailwind fiasco, and the Associated Press’ false report on an Anthrax scare in the Nevada desert. Mistakes, he says, come with the enterprise of reporting and Internet reporting is no different.

Whatever the debate over his methods, with a web page that boasts more than a million visits a day, the Drudge Report is now a must-read source for news and politics junkies around the world. The Manifesto is the hard cover version of the web site.

Written in a clipped, stream-of-consciousness style, Drudge Manifesto chronicles how his report came to be and, in the best parts, gives the reader a fascinating fly-on-the-wall vantage point of Drudge’s travels and travails.

In the worst parts, the prose is tedious and just this side of odd. The middle of the book loses focus, consisting mostly of a rat-a-tat romp through the incestuous world of media mergers.

But throughout, there are some innovative devices that redeem. As Drudge relates events leading to his scoops, he recounts how his cat counseled him, serving as the conscience that critics claim he lacks. His self-deprecating references also dampen the bluster factor in many of the achievements he outlines.

The book is part futurist rant, part techno-haiku. It takes some patience and a high tolerance for jargon and insider lingo to actually finish Manifesto. Those who make it though are rewarded with a full transcript of Drudge’s session in front of the National Press Club. The giants of journalism (Drudge fancies them dinosaurs) peppered him with questions about his accuracy rate, his credentials for reporting, and why he has no editor or other barrier between him and his readers. His responses to the brickbat queries are salient, funny, and forward-thinking.

Whether you like Drudge or not, he’s dead-on right when he predicts the future of Internet journalism in this quote:

“In the same way Gutenberg’s Bible hastened the End of The Church’s stranglehold on 15th-century Europe, in the same way Thomas Paine rallied troops to fight King George, in the same way Upton Sinclair cleaned up the meat packers with a single stroke, the Internet is liberating the Great Unwashed.”

A little dramatic and self-important, but correct.

A decade from now, Drudge Manifesto won’t be found on many bookshelves. But the impact of the Drudge Report will be felt as the media Goliaths of today are forced to adapt to the legions of net-based Davids shouting “Extra. Extra.”

####

Mark R. Weaver, former Ohio Deputy Attorney General, is a national political consultant and attorney in private practice.

A Case Study
Originally appeared in the November 2007 e-newsletter

Introduction

In 1977, an Athens County man brutally murdered his wife. She left behind two young daughters (pictured below). Since there was no death penalty available to prosecutors at the time, the murderer, William Clumm, was sentenced to life in prison.

Fast forward to April 2007. Imagine the shock and horror of these two daughters - now grown women - when they learned that their mother’s killer was about to be released from prison and sent back to the small college town of Athens, Ohio.

That’s when they called Mark Weaver. They knew Mark had experience as a criminal prosecutor and Deputy Attorney General and that he had successfully overturned a previous parole board decision to release a murderer. They were glad to have Mark’s experience as an attorney, but they also needed his expertise in communicating to the press and public.

While Mark led a team of attorneys from his law firm to handle the legal side of the case, Communications Counsel was utilized to create and implement an aggressive public relations campaign to help people understand the importance of keeping a killer sentenced to life in prison behind bars for his whole life.

Most lawyers seek only to win in court, when, in fact, winning in the court of public opinion can be just as important. Indeed, the two are often inextricably linked. In this case, the public relations campaign paid off as the parole board responded to public outrage and decided to reconsider their original ruling.

We employed numerous tactics, from the use of an engaging website and online petition to organizing press conferences and one-on-one news interviews. Importantly, each media tactic fit with the legal strategy to build a high-profile case to keep William Clumm locked up.

The hearing was a success beyond the hopes of the two daughters. After Mark argued the case, the family was amazed to learn of a unanimous reversal by the parole board - denying parole. Going further, the board denied Clumm the right to even apply for parole for another ten years.

Coverage of the case led TV newscasts in Columbus and was featured in newspapers and radio broadcasts around the state. Many wondered how we achieved such a stunning result. Here’s how we did it.

Our Challenge

The Ohio Parole Board approved parole of William Clumm without hearing testimony from the people who would be impacted most by his release - the victim’s family. Under Ohio law, the victim’s family is allowed to appeal a release decision, so it was up to Mark and the two daughters of the victim to make the case for keeping this murderer in prison.

Our Strategy

The objective was to focus public outrage on the Ohio Parole Board and encourage them to reverse the original decision to release an unrepentant murderer.

Our Tactics

We planned and carried out a wide-ranging effort utilizing traditional and new media tools and solid legal tactics. As legal counsel to the family, Mark Weaver first put together the legal case for keeping William Clumm in jail. The legal case revolved around portraying Clumm as the unapologetic convict that he is and also giving the Parole Board new evidence. The prisoner’s words - from his own press interviews - were used against him to illustrate how he had not been rehabilitated.

We developed a website to show widespread support for keeping William Clumm in jail. LifeMeansLife.org was branded to promote the idea that the Ohio Parole Board shouldn’t reduce the sentence of a convicted murderer sentenced to life. We connected an online petition to the website and gathered e-signatures in support of the effort to keep Clumm behind bars.

We generated earned media coverage of the effort that led to more signatures and also raised the profile of the case to the point where opinion leaders in state government became aware of what would have typically been a run-of-the-mill parole case.

Coverage of the case prior to the hearing could be found in most major Ohio daily newspapers, on blogs and wire service reports.

Our Results

The hearing was televised by four TV outlets and resulted in massive coverage in the media, including the following sampling (click on the link to read):

Columbus Dispatch

Canton Repository

Columbus Dispatch (after Parole Board Decision)

The website LifeMeansLife.org was visited thousands of times and the petition ended up with more than 2,100 signatures which were submitted to the Ohio Parole Board at the hearing.

The media coverage helped Mark’s legal team unearth some new and relevant facts. They discovered new witnesses who came forward to testify about Clumm’s sexually aggressive nature. Also, there was a new witness who wasn’t known to prosecutors at the original trial, but who overheard the murder as her family camped on the banks of the river where the victim was dumped. That witness told her chilling tale to the Parole Board as the packed room listened in horror.

There was also a compelling human interest story. Within hours of the murder, one of the daughters of the victim was placed in a foster home. In the confusion of the transition, she lost most of her belongings and all of her toys. The early news coverage of the case actually propelled a local family to come forward with a doll they had purchased at a yard sale in 1977. They returned the doll to the daughter (who is now in her 30s) and gave a local TV station a news hook and another interesting personal angle to cover.

Most importantly, the Parole Board reversed their original decision going so far, in fact, as to keep William Clumm behind bars for an unexpected ten more years without even the possibility of applying for parole.

Conclusion

The lessons that can be taken from this case are many, but one stands out: the importance of synergy. Arguing the law alone might not have won the day. The public relations effort would have fallen flat if not backed by a solid legal case. It was the legal strategy and communications strategy working in concert that brought about this stunning result.

We’re pleased to have played a positive role to help protect the two daughters of the murder victim. And as always we appreciated the opportunity to learn from and practice solid public relations strategies.

Columbus Dispatch

“DEMOCRACY DERAILED: Initiative Campaigns and the Power of Money”
author: David S. Broder

Reviewed by: Mark R. Weaver

Hold on to your republic! That’s the warning from veteran political reporter David S. Broder in a new book that examines how ballot issue campaigns can concentrate political power in the hands of a few individuals.

Broder is a sensible voice and a thoughtful scribe awash in a sea of yappy national political correspondents who seem to know more about television make-up and sound bites than they do about the Federalist Papers and John Locke. This worthwhile book distinguishes Broder even further.

Anyone concerned with the prognosis for representative democracy in the nation that has so admirable established it into the annals of world history ought to pay heed to Broder’s warning.

Yet this book isn’t for everyone. C-SPAN viewers and political scientists will enjoy it the most. Those with only a passing interest in public affairs may be daunted early on. In places, Broder’s work resembles a somewhat pedantic graduate course in early 20th century American political history. However, for those who persist, an important discourse emerges.

The early efforts of American Populists and Progressives were aimed at reducing the influence of the benefactors of the Gilded Age in the political process. The ballot issue – either initiative or referendum – was one of the primary protective shields employed by the activists of that era.

A century later, Broder persuasively, but with more than a nod toward objectivity, unfolds the sad irony that this shield has been slowly forged into a sword that is now wielded by millionaires and other moneyed interests.

Although California is best known for statewide propositions, Oregon leads the nation in such elections. This is appropriate, since the device first came into use when a gadfly of a reformer led the passage of an amendment to Oregon’s constitution in 1902. That activist, William U’ren, kindled what would eventually become a bonfire of ballot issues – an average of 14 per election cycle – in that state. 24 states, including Ohio, permit such ballot issues to be put to voters.

The examination of several ballot issue races in the last few years shows that the technique of approving public policy through a direct vote of the people exudes the appearance of American democracy. Yet several people argue that money – and the handful of people who are willing to spend truckloads of that money – really control these elections.

One glaring example surrounds recent attempts to allow medicinal doses of marijuana to be used for terminally ill patients. Among the support of several groups, Broder found just a few notable people who donated or personally raised millions to advance their personal belief in such a policy. The advertising and public relations waves created with this small fortune helped convince voters in five states that permitting the use of medicinal marijuana was sound public policy. The examples in the advertising focused on sympathetic figures battling deadly illnesses and credible medical professionals who cited the need for access to marijuana in limited cases.

Yet the voters may not have fully understood the broad sweep of the political agenda put forth by the wealthy few who bankrolled these initiatives. For example, in Arizona, the complex ballot language covered much more than just marijuana – leading to the legalization of the “medicinal” use of other drugs such as LSD, heroin, and PCP. It is beyond question that the majority of voters would have rejected this result had they been aware of it. Yet Broder discovered that voter confusion is characteristic of ballot issues.

When one ponders such an extreme and dubious result, it is difficult to imagine that a legislature – steeped in the detailed mechanisms of the legislative process – would have let such a blunder slip by. Yet the cry of those who support ballot issues is “Who better than the people? You want to leave it to the politicians?”

Broder’s question is salient. Has democracy been derailed by placing complex and sweeping public policy questions in the hands of a populace more interested in watching “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?” than determining the details of the ballot questions they are deciding? Chapter after chapter, example after example all suggest that the title was indeed well chosen.

Front and center in Broder’s case is the stark difference between the intent of ballot issues (to decentralize power) and the reality (it centralizes power). Broder writes: “The spectacle of three millionaires rewriting the laws of five states – including Oregon – is a far cry from what William U’Ren had in mind when he imported the initiative process from Switzerland and installed it in Oregon a century ago.”

Who best to govern? This is not an academic question to Ohioans. As term limits wash over a General Assembly facing some of the most complex and pressing issues of our times, ballot issues may become more common. If that occurs, the concerns raised in Democracy Derailed will resonate far and wide.

####

The Columbus Dispatch (Ohio)

November 12, 2007 Monday

Letter helped reveal ex-judge’s problems

To The Editor:

I read with dismay the Nov. 3 letter “Coverage of disciplinary hearings leaves out the truth,” from Carole Squire, former judge of Franklin County Domestic Relations Court. Sadly, her unfocused written rant sheds more light on the reasons for her disbarment rather than providing insight into her legal defense.

Most troubling was her false and unsubstantiated criticism of First Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Lori J. Brown. I know Brown and her work ethic, and I can say without qualification that she is an outstanding attorney with unparalleled integrity. As an attorney myself, I’m glad Brown and her colleagues are policing our profession and bringing charges where warranted.

If Squire wants the vindication her letter claims she seeks, I suggest that she stop pointing a finger at the public servants in the Ohio Supreme Court’s Office of the Disciplinary Counsel and instead begin a more honest self-evaluation.

Everyone makes mistakes. But the truly repentant refrain from shifting blame toward those whose job it is to clean up those mistakes.

MARK R. WEAVER Columbus

From the Columbus Dispatch

Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:03 PM
By Randy Ludlow

William Clumm The Ohio Parole Board reversed itself this afternoon, deciding to keep William Clumm behind bars for at least another decade for the 1977 murder of his wife.

Clumm will not receive another parole hearing until July 2017.

He was convicted of using ether to kill his wife, Francine Clumm, 35, and then dumping her body in Federal Creek in Athens County on April 16, 1977.

Clumm’s daughter and stepdaughter, who were 2 and 9 at the time of the crime, issued emotional appeals to the parole board to not free their mother’s killer.

They hugged one another, tears in their eyes, as the parole board decision was announced.

“At first, I was stunned … I feel very relieved. They did the right thing,” said Clumm’s 33-year-old daughter, Andrea.

The Dispatch is not using her last name because testimony was presented at the parole hearing that Clumm may have sexually molested her as a small child.

Janna Manes, 39, a New York City lawyer, said she is pleased that her stepfather will not present a danger to her and her half-sister, or the public, for at least another 10 years.

The parole board cited new information provided by witnesses in reversing its prior decision to free the 64-year-old Clumm.

Athens County Prosecutor C. David Warren lobbied parole board members to keep Clumm in the Chillicothe Correctional Institution.

“Mr. Clumm is the worst of the worst … Athens County would not be safe with him there,” Warren said.

Clumm has maintained that his wife, who was preparing to leave him, committed suicide.

Wendie Gerus, an assistant public defender representing Clumm, objected to the “media circus” surrounding the consideration of parole for Clumm.

“Nothing about this case has changed during the past four months,” she said, citing the board’s prior decision to release Clumm before his daughter and stepdaughter objected.

Clumm has been sufficiently punished for his crime and had no plans to contact his daughter or stepdaughter, she said.

What Was Rosie Thinking?
Photos of O’Donnell’s Daughter Have Fans in an Uproar
By EMILY FRIEDMAN
June 27, 2007 —

Politics can get ugly, especially when you’re Rosie O’Donnell.

The former co-host of “The View” is getting heat from fans after posting a photo on her blog — rosie.com — that depicts her 4-year-old daughter Vivienne wearing a toy ammunition belt.

Many are accusing her of inappropriately exploiting her daughter to further her own political beliefs. O’Donnell is known for being a staunch anti-war activist and has spoken out against the National Rifle Association repeatedly.

Vivienne’s photograph is accompanied by a slideshow that begins with the headline “Last Year a Princess” and displays images of her dressed up like a princess. Later in the slideshow, a headline reads “This Year a Soldier,” and the images change to Vivienne wearing the bullet belt, camouflaged clothing and a head scarf.

Are Children Effective Messengers?

Children have been used to add an emotional punch to political messages for years. Those efforts, however, haven’t had much success traditionally.
“People don’t like children being used for political messages because they know the children aren’t choosing to be involved,” said Mark Weaver, message strategist and professor at the University of Akron. “It reduced [Rosie’s] credibility and marginalizes the messenger’s effectiveness because people believe it’s one step too far.”

Gemma Puglisi, an assistant professor of communication and public relations expert at American University, told ABC News that making bold statements like Rosie’s can have harmful long-term effects for her image.

“She wants to make statements and when she does, she does them in a big way and they are controversial,” Puglisi said. “But the more she pushes the buttons the angrier she’s going to get people and they’ll be turned off.”

She added that O’Donnell, like other celebrities, are not getting away with as much as they used to.

“People are starting to say, ‘Wait a minute,’” said Puglisi. “People are fed up with it and after a certain point people have had it. I think it’s going to happen to Rosie eventually, and nobody is going to work with her because she is alienating people.”

“She will get a lot of press but it will be counterproductive in the long run for her viewpoint,” said Weaver. “Short-term gain, long-term loss.”
O’Donnell, Puglisi suggests, should apologize for exploiting her daughter and hope to find a job that allows her to be less confrontational and more humorous, much like how she appeared on her talk show, “The Rosie O’Donnell Show.”

Rosie Denies Political Message

A spokeswoman for O’Donnell said the photo was not planned or contrived, and the kids were merely playing soldiers when the snapshots were taken.
“There is no political message, the kids were playing,” said O’Donnell representative Cindi Berger. “It wasn’t meant to be controversial.”
Berger told ABC News that each week, O’Donnell’s children buy costumes ranging from princess costumes to medieval costumes and that the ammunition belt was “just one of the costumes.”

How Will Exposure Affect Viviane?

“Children at age 4 tend to be thinking in very concrete ways,” said Dr. Victor Fornari, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at the North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System. He added that young children are unable to understand such complex political messages.
Dr. Alvin Poussaint, a psychiatrist at the Judge Baker Children’s Center in Boston, gives O’Donnell a little bit more credit, and doesn’t think the photographs are all bad.

“This may be her way of calling attention to that children are exposed to violence at a very early age,” said Poussaint. “I don’t think she’s suggesting children be violent but suggesting that this is what society does to children.”

Both professionals agree that talking to children about violence is imperative, especially because it is nearly impossible to shield them from violence in the media.

Whether O’Donnell meant anything political or not, many fans are outraged by the photos and say she’s exploiting her daughter. Critics said they find the photos particularly offensive because Vivianne is probably too young to fully understand the undertones of the photographs.

Fans have posted their comments under another headline on O’Donnell’s site that reads “A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Posts.”

One fan who identifies himself as Jon E. wrote: “Not sure of the ‘message’ you are trying to send with that pic of Viv, but I guarantee many are not going to get it& Children with bullets, even fake&?? What are u thinking?”

Another fan appreciated the image, however disturbing it may be, and commented on the political undertones.

Jessika wrote: “Oh, WOW Vivi looks beautiful! The fact that U let her explore her imagination like that shows what a good mom U R. In some countries though, they are training terrorists that young, how sad is that?”

Rosie’s fan base is certainly dominated by mothers, many of whom have strong feelings regarding the latest posting.

Jill Kroog told ABC News in an e-mail, “I think that Rosie may have taken it a bit too far and wonder what she told her daughter as to why she was dressing that way.”

Alisha Bice, a mother of two who lives in Iowa, said that the photograph also gives soldiers representing our country a bad connotation. She added that she was surprised a mother would want to see her child’s face plastered across Web sites worldwide.

“I think it’s ridiculous that she even put a photo of her daughter on the Web site,” said Bice. “It’s frightening.”

Andrea Beaumont, another mother upset by O’Donnell said the photograph isn’t even effective, and considers it to be just another way for the celebrity to get media attention.

“Disturbing is the first word that came to mind when I saw the photo of Vivi,” said Beaumont.

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures