Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold was removed from accused serial killer Anthony Sowell’s murder trial Thursday, April 22. [Photo by Gus Chan courtesy of The Plain Dealer]
Sowell is on trial for murder after the bodies of 11 women were found in his Imperial Ave. home in November.
The decision comes after a long, dramatic debate over comments left by a username on The Plain Dealer’s website.
The story gained national attention and some Clevelanders wonder what Saffold did to have her removed from the case.
• How it started
Saffold was assigned to the Sowell case after the first judge, Timothy McGinty, removed himself in December. He said due to his previous work in justice reform his judgment was biased.
“The appearance of justice is very important. We cannot have any conflict in these cases,” said McGinty.
E-mails surfaced that McGinty sent to The Plain Dealer before he was appointed to the trial. The e-mails contain very strong opinions about Sowell. The Plain Dealer believes these e-mails, though “off the record,” also played a role in McGinty stepping down.
• Saffold is assigned to case, drama ensues
Saffold was assigned the case two days after McGinty stepped down.
She made multiple decisions the press scrutinized.
Saffold ordered the arrest of Plain Dealer reporter Gabriel Baird. The decision came as a shock to many people.
She ordered the warrant after Baird failed to appear at a hastily scheduled court date. She wanted to question Baird about where he acquired Sowell’s mental health report. She suspected the report was acquired unethically.
McGinty later revealed he gave Baird the report.
• “Lawmiss”
Saffold’s personal AOL account was linked to numerous posts by the username “lawmiss” on The Plain Dealer’s website, cleveland.com.
The Plain Dealer published the first story that makes a connection between Saffold and the comments.
The origin of lawmiss was initially investigated after one comment mentioned something about the mental state of a Plain Dealer reporter’s relative.
The comments are found about stories ranging from sports to court cases. A full account of the comments is found here.
They include personal attacks on one of Sowell’s lawyers, Rufus Sims.
One of the comments reads "Rufus Sims did a disservice to his client. If only he could shut his Amos and Andy style mouth. What makes him think that is [sic] he insults and acts like buffon [sic] that it will cause the judge to think and see it his way. There are so many lawyers that could've done a much better job. This was not a tough case, folks. She should've hired a lawyer with the experience to truly handle her needs. Amos and Andy, shuffling around did not do it."
Video courtesy of cleveland.com
Lawmiss posted the comment November 21, 2009. It was removed for violating cleveland.com’s community rules. The site does not permit personal attacks.
Saffold vehemently denies she posted the comments.
The comments trace back to her e-mail account. She says her 23-year-old daughter, Sydney Saffold, made them.
Shirley Saffold says her husband, Oscar, created the e-mail account for the whole family to use.
Sydney came forward and took responsibility for "quite a few, more than five" of the over 80 comments left by lawmiss after the release of Shirley’s statement.
Sowell’s lawyers, Sims and John Parker, wanted a better explanation.
The comments potentially affected their client’s right to a fair trial.
“That just doesn’t make any sense to me. Someone else is using the judge’s account? Come on. Why would Sydney do it? I don’t get it,” said Sims.
• Why “lawmiss” is a problem
Many of the comments attack Sims and comment on cases similar to Sowell’s.
One lawmiss comment reads “All of these criminals committing crimes (murder) against women must stop. Sowell, Essa and now, this moron. None of them should get out of prison, EVER.”
The comments show bias toward both Sims and Sowell, making it almost impossible for Saffold to have an unbiased ruling if she is responsible for them.
• Saffold’s reaction
Saffold and her daughter filed a $50 million lawsuit against The Plain Dealer and affiliated companies. The suit came in response to the stories regarding the lawmiss comments.
The lawsuit claims the newspaper breached the site’s privacy policy when they published stories linking lawmiss’s comments to Shirley Saffold’s personal account.
Cleveland.com’s privacy policy was written by Advance Internet and states it has the right to release personal information for business, marketing and legal purposes.
It also includes a section warning the user nothing online is 100% secure. It says they cannot guarantee personal information won’t be accessed.
Susan Goldberg, the editor who cleared the story, believes it was The Plain Dealer’s right as a news source to report the connection between Saffold and lawmiss.
"What if it ever came to light that someone using the e-mail of a sitting judge made comments on a public Web site about cases she was hearing, and we did not disclose it? These are capital crimes and life-and-death issues for these defendants. I think not to disclose this would be a violation of our mission and damaging to our credibility as a news organization," said Goldberg.
Eventually, the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Saffold’s argument is one that is relevant since internet sites started offering the option to leave comments on stories.
Many computer users debate whether or not people who leave comments on stories online have the right to stay anonymous.
This is an issue when people are asked to take responsibility for their comments.
• Recusal from the case
Sims and Parker asked Saffold to step down after news broke of the pending lawsuit.
Video courtesy of cleveland.com
Parker and Sims respectfully asked Saffold to recuse herself during the hearing.
They did not feel that after the law suit filed by Saffold and allegations about the lawmiss comments she could make a fair, unbiased ruling. Saffold said the lawsuit and allegations had nothing to do with Sowell.
She also accused Sims of calling her a liar. This resulted in a very frustrated response from Sims.
Saffold still refused to step down. Sims and Parker took the issue to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Saffold wrote a letter to the Ohio Supreme Court defending her position. She asked not to be removed from the case.
However, acting Ohio Chief Justice Paul E. Pfeifer decided Saffold was removed from the case.
Pfeifer did not think Saffold made the comments. He did not think the lawsuit she filed causes her to have bias against Sowell.
He said they "created a situation that 'poses an impediment to the judge's ability to resolve any remaining legal and factual issues in a way that will appear to the parties and the public to be objective and fair."
“When the case becomes about the judge rather than the facts of the case and the law, it is time for the judge to step aside. . . I conclude that Judge Saffold should be removed from the underlying case to avoid any appearance of impropriety,” said Pfeifer.
Pfeifer also wrote in his order, "An objective observer who has read the online postings might reasonably question why comments about a defendant and defense counsel appearing before the judge were posted on the judge's personal online account, even if the judge did not make the comments herself."
Judge Dick Ambrose was randomly assigned to the case on April 23.
• In my opinion…
The Judge Saffold situation should not be an issue to begin with.
Saffold is a professional. She knows what is considered a threat to her ability to make a fair ruling.
Saffold should have stepped down as soon as the lawmiss comments were an issue. She lost all my respect when she insisted to stay on the case after she filed the lawsuit.
Pfeifer made the right call. I particularly agree with his statement, “When the case becomes about the judge rather than the facts of the case and the law, it is time for the judge to step aside.”
It should not have taken an Ohio Supreme Court ruling to take Saffold off the case. She proved that she does not have the proper judgment to decide when things have gone too far. For a Common Pleas Court judge to show lack of judgment is an embarrassment to the City of Cleveland.
This is the not last we will hear about the Sowell murder trial. However, I hope the next Sowell headline I see is about the case itself, not the incompetence of the judge.
