The Cincinnati Beacon has obtained a copy of the transcripts for the hearing and decision for a temporary restraining order against Sheriff Leis to prevent him from further campaigning using county funds and equipment.  As seen in the transcript for the hearing, Judge Nadel states that he is a friend of Sheriff Leis, but he said that he could decide the case in an unbiased manner.  Unsurprisingly, he ultimately decided in favor of the sheriff, comparing his campaign for the jail to a United Way campaign.

There are two transcripts.  One is for the hearing itself, the other is for the decision on the next day.

As the hearing transcript shows, Judge Nadel twice referred to Sheriff Leis’s solicitation of his employees as similar to a solicitation from United Way.  (The sheriff’s jail letter mentioned the threat of layoffs—apparently his United Way appeals also threaten layoffs if one does not contribute.) The judge also pointed out that the parade season is over, so there is no real risk of the sheriff once again using county vehicles as a platform for signs in a parade until next year.

Judge Nadel also argued for the sheriff that he (Nadel) makes personal phone calls using the county’s phones, and one should not be overly strict in enforcing any regulations prohibiting public equipment being used.

Per the hearing transcript, the sheriff has stated that the letter was typed and put into his employees’ pay envelopes.  This seems to be at variance with the Beacon’s copy of the letter, which was composed in an electronic format and had electronic attachments to it.  It appears per the decision transcript that this aspect will be investigated further.

Although Judge Nadel stated that he has heard cases in the past involving the sheriff in his official capacity and that therefore he could hear this one, there is a large difference.  This case involves the sheriff in a very public way—in a parade, no less—that the other cases did not.  The actions of the sheriff are central to this case, not just incidental.  Therefore, this writer agrees with the plaintiff that the judge should have recused himself since he is a friend of the sheriff and should not have heard the case.

There will be another hearing on the 16th to determine if there should be a preliminary injunction against the sheriff.  Once again, Judge Nadel will preside.

Update: Transcripts are now available online:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/387665/Shrive-v-Leis1

http://www.scribd.com/doc/387666/Shrive-v-Leis2

• Share This Article!
Listen to this article

del.icio.us

Furl It

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can log in above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.