Login | April 19, 2025
9th District holds oral arguments at Buchtel High
BENJAMIN WHITE
Associate Editor
Published: December 23, 2013
The dozens of students in Buchtel Community Learning Center’s year-old auditorium fell oddly silent listening to Judge Carla Moore’s measured voice.
“You are for all intents and purposes in the 9th District Court of Appeals,” she said. “We just happen to be sitting in Buchtel High School.”
“These are real cases with real lawyers, and they affect the lives of real people,” she said.
Last month, a 9th District panel consisting of Judge Moore, Judge Jennifer Hensal and Judge Eve Belfance held two oral arguments before a crowd of senior-level government classes at the Copley Road high school.
The 9th District court has held oral arguments at high schools in each of the four counties in its jurisdiction for over five years, according to Judge Moore. She said she was not surprised at the rapt attention the teenagers gave the proceedings.
“Their government teachers fully appreciate how important this process is and how serious we take it,” she said.
Judge Moore and Jeffrey James, the attorney for the appellant in the first case argued, both graduated from Buchtel and received loud applause after informing the crowd.
The first case argued, State v. Mack, addressed the question of whether the Summit County Court of Common Pleas erred by failing to give cautionary jury instructions regarding the testimony of an alleged accomplice to methamphetamine production.
The trial court convicted Daniel Mack of illegal manufacture of drugs largely because of the testimony of Kaitlyn Carpas, his ex-girlfriend and roommate. Dion Seminitor, their landlord who happened to be an Akron police officer, received complaints about loud fighting between the two, and in October 2012 he witnessed Mack packing his things with the help of another female.
Shortly thereafter, a maintenance worker noticed unusual drug-related activity at the apartment, and Akron police Lt. Brian Simcox arrived to investigate a drug complaint on an anonymous tip. He found virtually all the components of a meth lab, some of which strewn in Mack’s former bedroom.
The record – which drew laughs from the high schoolers – described Carpas as “almost hysterical” from the breakup, a “skinny, ratty-looking little thing with pasty white skin.” She quickly pled guilty to the manufacture of meth and agreed to a plea deal to avoid a maximum of eight years in prison. She testified that Mack had also manufactured meth at their apartment.
James, who represented Mack, argued that Carpas’s testimony required cautionary instruction under R.C. 2923.03(D), as she was an alleged accomplice acting in complete self-interest with a grudge against Mack.
“All the testimony relating to Mr. Mack’s participation in the manufacture of methamphetamine came from Miss Carpas,” he said. “No one has any direct evidence that Mr. Mack was involved.”
He also noted that the prosecution introduced no physical evidence because of the dangerous nature of the chemicals involved in cooking meth.
Richard Kasay, an assistant county prosecutor, countered that testimony placed the “building blocks” of meth in Mack’s bedroom. He also brought up letters from Mack to Carpas after their arrests in which he said “my choices led us to where we are.”
Kasay argued that the state’s case against Mack would have held even without Carpas’s testimony.
“I’m not saying we have overwhelming evidence – I’m saying that we have sufficient evidence to convict him, and the letters are part of that,” Kasay said.
The second case, the state’s side of which was also argued by Kasay, dealt with Fourth Amendment concerns surrounding a traffic stop during a drug investigation.
Valerie Kunze, the attorney for appellant Rayshawn Robinson, described the backdrop of the story: policed stopped a Cleophus Thompson for driving in a stolen car, and he offered to give police information on an impending drug deal. He told detectives he was about to buy 6 grams of crack cocaine from Robinson. He gave police detailed information about Robinson’s residence, vehicles and “white girlfriend who carried drugs for him.”
Members of the Akron police narcotics unit used the tips to find Robinson’s vehicles parked behind his apartment on Neville Road near South Arlington Street. They then instructed Thompson to call Robinson and arrange to meet at a nearby South Arlington Taco Bell– the unrecorded conversation did not include any mention of drugs.
Police watched as Robinson left his apartment and stopped at a nearby drive-through to purchase a drink. As soon as Robinson exited the drive-through, police were ordered to stop him. Both marked and unmarked cars approached, and a seemingly spooked Robinson turned back onto his street, never directly approaching Taco Bell.
After pulling him over, police found crack, marijuana, a scale and other paraphernalia they then used to obtain a search warrant for his apartment, where they found 38 grams of cocaine, cash and weapons. After the court denied his motion for suppression, Robinson was convicted and sentenced to seven years in prison for trafficking in cocaine and other charges.
Valerie Kunze of the state public defender’s office argued that since Robinson never actually turned directly toward the Taco Bell, police had no reason to stop him.
“Police officers need to have reasonable suspicion in order to make this kind of stop,” she said. “Unfortunately they relied on a tip from someone they had never worked with and had his interest in mind while sitting in the back of a patrol car.”
The state relied upon Alabama v. White, a U.S. Supreme Court case that surrounded an anonymous tip that a person would leave a certain apartment and drive to a particular motel with cocaine. Police stopped the vehicle after numerous “turns and movements” but just short of the motel. The high court held that the tip provided reasonable suspicion for the stop.
Kunze argued that case to be different because Robinson never clearly headed toward the Taco Bell.
“They saw that the vehicle was turning back into the apartment complexes and said, ‘wait a minute – we’ve got to stop this,’” she said.
Though Kasay contended that Thompson’s description of the vehicles along with the high-crime area helped meet the minimum requirement for reasonable suspicion, Judge Moore grilled him over the lack of specific evidence.
“He’s just telling him things that are common knowledge. This is where he lives, these are the cars he drives,” she said. “How does any of that give reasonable suspicion of illegal activity?”
“It’s a close case – I’ll make no bones about it,” Kasay replied.
Many of the students seemed as invested in the arguments as the attorneys. Judge Moore said the panel picked two of the more interesting cases from the docket to keep the kids interested.
After the arguments, both the attorneys and judges answered questions (what exactly is reasonable suspicion?) from teachers and students.
“It’s bringing the process outside the confines of the courtroom. You’ve got teachers involved,” Judge Moore said.
“If you think about it, how many high school students have an opportunity to really see the process work?”