Some Truth About the Kirkland Case

The details trickling out regarding the murder of thirteen year-old Esme Kenney are grisly. Whomever committed this crime engaged in an unspeakably horrific act against humanity. If that person is Anthony Kirkland--the man under arrest and accused of the murder--he will most likely face the harshest sentence allowed under Ohio law, the death penalty.


A trio of commentators have emerged today to use this week's events as an opportunity to raise the possibility that systemic failures in the criminal justice process paved the way for Esme's death. But the Enquirer editorial board, Peter Bronson, and several members of City Council all seem prone to histrionics, exaggeration, and outright falsehoods. So let's see if we can clarify the question they all raise: Why was Kirkland free?


The Enquirer reports that Kirkland was convicted in 1987 of killing his girlfriend and then setting fire to her body. That's obviously a horrible, horrible offense, and perhaps a foreshadowing of the most recent allegations against him. He was sentenced to serve 7 to 25 years in prison. He served 16, and then was paroled. From the editorial board:

Convicted of that killing, he received a 7-25 year sentence, which seems a light sentence given the grisly details of the case. He was paroled in 2003 and released from probation 13 months later. That's one big crack [in the system] - 16 years for intentionally immolating someone.

Should Kirkland have been paroled in 2003? I don't know. I wasn't at the parole hearing. I don't know what influenced the parole board to let him go. (The fact that he spent 16 years in prison for an offense committed while he was a teenager was probably considered by the board.) But this is why Ohio sentencing law changed in the mid-1990's in favor of "truth in sentencing." We don't want parole board members deciding how long a defendant should serve; that's a judge's job. These kinds of indefinite sentences no longer exist. When we hear about people being released early for parole, we're hearing about "old law" cases--that is, offenses committed prior to 1996.


So, what about the years since Kirkland was released from prison? In 2005, he was charged with rape and aggravated burglary. But he went to trial, and a jury found him not guilty. I'm unwilling to fault "the system" for that. In 2007, he was twice charged with crimes. The first time, he was charged with two counts of kidnapping, inducing panic, and endangering children. This is where Bronson jumps the shark:

But he wound up serving just 115 days on two counts of unlawful restraint. One of the charges that was dropped was "endangering children."

Usually, when people talk about charges being "dropped," they're referring to the prosecution dismissing charges. But that's not what happened here. Instead, Kirkland went to trial and was acquitted of endangering children and inducing panic. He was found not guilty of kidnapping, but
guilty of the lesser included offense of unlawful restraint, a misdemeanor.

Later that year, he was arrested for importuning, a felony, and public indecency, a misdemeanor. Again, Kirkland went to trial. He was acquitted of public indecency, but convicted of importuning. And this is where the Enquirer editorial board's handle on the facts goes awry:

He went back to jail for about a year before being paroled again - another crack.

Umm, wrong. He didn't serve his sentence in "jail," he spent it in prison (at least the part of it he hadn't already served by the time his case went to trial). What's more, he was sentenced to the maximum sentence: one year. He was also classified as a sex offender as a result of that conviction. He was not released on parole--parole no longer exists. Instead, once he served his full sentence, he was placed on post-release control, or PRC. PRC is supervised by the Adult Parole Authority and begins after certain offenders have completed their sentence. It is not an alternative to prison. When an offender violates the terms of PRC, the Parole Authority has the option of returning him to prison for up to nine months or half of his prison term, whichever is greater.

And now we get to Kirkland's recent conduct and abode. While on PRC, he was ordered to live at the Volunteers of America halfway house. City Council has complained in the past (and does so again today) of sex offenders being relocated to Cincinnati to live at the VOA. But this isn't what happened in this case. Kirkland was from Cincinnati. Once he served the one-year sentence, he would have returned to Cincinnati. While our leaders are right to be concerned about Cincinnati becoming a "dumping ground" for sex offenders from across the state, that trend did not impact the Kirkland case. And wasn't placing him in the VOA, under at least marginal supervision, a better choice than no placement at all? City Council members question the propriety of permitting a "serial killer" to reside at the VOA, but that's not quite right. He wasn't known to be a serial killer at the time of his placement, and he wasn't being supervised in connection with the 1987 murder any longer.

Everyone raises a valid point about the VOA's ridiculously bad judgment back on February 29th, when Kirkland apparently was expelled from the facility for fighting with a fellow resident. It appears that the VOA didn't notify Kirkland's parole officer for three days that Kirkland had been kicked out. I cannot fathom why. The parole officer would have immediately reached out to Kirkland, and if he couldn't have found him, a warrant would have issued. Did those three days make a difference? We'll never know.

Cases like this rightly cause us to evaluate and re-evaluate our criminal justice system and its strengths and weaknesses. But such evaluation should be based on facts, not half-truths and fear.

Sorry for the long post.

Why Are There Two Convention Centers?

Instead of discussing combining convention bureaus, I wonder why the Sharonville convention center exists? Why on Earth would it expand? Who would ever want to have a convention there? If you want a small trade shows that feeds on local businesses/residents, OK, I can maybe see that, but who would travel on purpose to Sharonville for a convention, seriously? Gun Show, yeah, out of town convention, no.

GOP Still Hates the City

When you can't field more than 5 candidates for Cincinnati City Council it is clear your party either just doesn't care about the city or just down right hates it and cares only about the burbs. There are months ahead before candidates have to collect enough signatures and the local GOP is done endorsing. Sure, if you want to actually be a winning candidate, you need to be raising money now to have a reasonable chance, but not everyone has a chance anyway. Major political parties that are serious about a political race actually play to win it. The GOP I contend, at least those I'll label "the powers that be," would like to see the city fail, much like many want to see President Obama fail. Those living in the suburbs, the money base for most things GOP in the area, are not inclined to fund anything in the City, even a GOP candidate. Sure a few might, but most don't care to fund their own local township races, so the city is like a foreign political county.

No, I am not saying all Republicans want the city to fail, just those with the power. Those with the power would rather see the city slide into the river so attention and power and federal funding for the area could be reentered in the burbs. That would build up their power more, which yeah, is the goal of nearly every person ever labeled as part of the "powers that be."

I will applaud all 5 of the GOP endorsed candidates for City Council: Leslie Ghiz, Chris Monzel, George Zamary, Charlie Winburn, and Amy Murry. All I believe care about the city and in ways I may not agree with, want the city to succeed. Yes, that even goes for Charlie Winburn!

All of that said, sure there is a method to a short slate. When you want to try and gain a seat or two, then a short slate is logical plan to get you there. That hurts in the long run. You don't build up a big enough bench, which is a massive GOP problem right now that shows no signs of changing.

CincyFringe 2009 Line Up Announced

The 6th annual Cincinnati Fringe Festival has announced it's line up.

The festival runs May 26th through June 6th. More details are here from the Enquirer.

For the 3rd year in a row, TheConveyor.com is planning on wall to wall, beer to beer, and play to play coverage of festival. We'll have reviews and more here. The Fringe Blog will be back again and so will the overabundance of cheeky commentary from Fringe participants.

Visual and Film Fringe are still accepting applications until March 27th, so get full details at www.cincyfringe.com.

Bigotry in Butler County

Yes, the headline is a broken record, but adoption policy in Butler County discriminates against Gays. Guess who the bigot is: Mike Fox, former Butler County Commissioner. I guess he needs more bad press to counter the bad press his scandals got him. What better way to rally support than to tap into a subtle bigotry.

'Round The Cinciblogosphere: End of an Era

Well, Jean-Robert at Pigall's is no more. I'm fortunate to have eaten there once, for a three-course lunch a few years ago. I remember distinctly two things: the best scallops I've ever had, and my only experience with purple potatoes (mmm....potatoes and purple, together).

I kept waiting for Griff to invite Jack, Julie, and me out to Pigall's to mark the closing but alas, the perks of blogging aren't what they used to be.....so I've had to settle for reading about other bloggers' last meals there.

Kate's random thoughts on a final four-star meal are here. Graham ate at Jean Robert's this week (okay...it was a couple weeks ago, but I'm trying to get his blog's name into the sentence). And go read which of Jean Robert's morsels got into Liz's belly here (yes, Liz blew it in her review of Adriatico's, but her terrific recounting of her Pigall's meal--as well as her great story on a foray into a sort of extreme-cuisine-meets-fine-dining-purgatory--has caused me to stop frothing at the mouth.

I'm sorry to see the restaurant go. I'm not sure how such restaurants fit into markets outside of New York and Los Angeles, particularly in the present economy. But such restaurants remind us why the phrase "culinary art" exists. Jean Robert, when he's at his finest, isn't just dishing up sustenance; he's creating art and memories. And I hope that downtown restaurant gets another opportunity to support a four-star dining experience).

CPS School Board: Not At The Head Of The Class

Dumb, dumb, dumb. That's the only way to describe the continued failure of the Cincinnati school board to respect the spirit, intent, and (frankly) the text of the Public Records Act. As we noted last month, CPS hatched a scheme to shield the names of applicants for the vacant superintendent position from public scrutiny: the board rented a post office box for the reception of applications, and won't open them until March 16, at which time it will attempt to hire someone as quickly as possible.

CPS has held its ground. And so has the Enquirer, which today filed a lawsuit in the Hamilton County Court of Appeals to force the board to release the applications in response to Public Records Act requests.

I recognize that there is at least one good reason to permit applicants' names to be immune from public disclosure: good candidates might be discouraged from applying given that there's a guarantee that their present employers will learn they're seeking work elsewhere. But the only way to fix that is for the General Assembly to change the statute.

Besides being fairly illegal, the board's decision is also bad practice. Trying to compress the consideration of applications for its top job into as little time as possible leaves them with a wide margin for error. Moving into a time period in which (a) money will be tight and (b) the state's educational system may undergo fundamental changes, the board needs a strong, competent leader. But its process is making it less likely that one will be hired.

The Enquirer is represented by Jack Greiner, a partner at Graydon Head & Ritchey. It looks like Mr. Greiner has been practicing for about 25 years. My guess is that he bills at a rate of $350 or $400 per hour (perhaps more). Assuming I'm correct and the Enquirer wins its suit, CPS will be on the hook for his fees (the Public Records Act contains a "fee-shifting" provision, permitting a successful litigant to collect attorney's fees and costs).

HamCo GOP Chair Alex Triantafilou says his party will field "qualified" candidates in the next school board race. Given the current board's short-sightedness on this rather easy issue, I'll be leaning heavily towards casting my ballot for some "R's" in those races.

Finally, for those of you who were wondering why the lawsuit was filed in the appeals court, rather than in the Common Pleas court (our trial level courts): it's because of the nature of the suit. The Enquirer is seeking a writ of mandamus--essentially, an order compelling a government official to obey the law. Ohio law says that such suits, unlike ordinary suits for damages, may originate in any court--the applicable Common Pleas Court, a Court of Appeals, or even the Ohio Supreme Court.