Editorial: Trust him? Henry County judge's push for private trial is bad for Ohioans

A judge’s order in Henry County needs to be watched closely by anyone who values an open society and free press. If it is not overturned by a higher court, it will set a dangerous precedent that likely will be pursued by others in Ohio.

Common Pleas Court Judge Keith P. Muehlfeld has issued an order prohibiting the media from reporting on the trial of Jayme Schwenkmeyer, who is charged with involuntary manslaughter and endangering children. The charges involve the death of her young daughter, 13-month-old Kamryn Gerken, who somehow ingested a fatal dose of oxycodone. The prescription painkiller has become a popular and addictive drug among drug abusers.

The toddler was found dead at an apartment in Napoleon occupied by Schwenkmeyer and her former boyfriend, David E. Knepley. He faces similar charges.

The two trials have been scheduled a week apart. Judge Muehlfeld wants to make sure the public does not read or hear about the mother’s trial because the court will need to seat an impartial jury for the ex-boyfriend the very next week.

Simply put, Judge Muehlfeld’s action is “unconstitutional.”

Neither the United States Supreme Court nor the Ohio Supreme Court has ever approved an order preventing the media from reporting on events that occur in a public trial. Both the First and Sixth Amendments provide the media the right to report on trials as a representative of the public. It is paramount the public knows what all transpired in the courtroom, how decisions were made and on what basis rulings were issued. This is part of the process of ensuring that a court case is fairly prosecuted, defended and tried.

The judge claims his order is simply “damage control” to keep the ex-boyfriend’s jury pool from being tainted. In rural areas such as Henry County, he points out, it is harder to find people who haven’t heard of a high-profile case. The county has a population of just under 29,000.

We don’t buy that, and believe Judge Muehlfeld is looking for an easy way out. Call it judicial laziness, if you want. The defendant’s rights to a fair trial does not need to trump the First Amendment. There are safety nets built into the court system as well as alternatives a judge can use to ensure trials are conducted fairly and in open court. Among them:

• The judge could schedule both cases simultaneously by seating a jury for one case in the morning and seating a jury for the other in the afternoon.

• During the process of seating a jury, attorneys have voir dire, which allows them to weed out potential jurors who can’t push the news coverage out of their minds.

• Once a jury is seated, the judge can instruct the jury to put what they’ve heard out of their minds. The court system is built on the fact that usually works.

• Finally, the trial can be moved to another county if the judge feels an impartial jury cannot be seated. While this can be expensive, it guarantees court proceedings will be done in view of the public.

Judge Muehlfeld says he will stand by his decision unless another court tells him otherwise. His decision to do that is one of the worst decisions by a judge we have heard in years.