HAMILTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO
Plaintiff
vs.
TRACIE HUNTER
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

NO.: B1400110
(JUDGE NADEL)
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

On January 10, 2014 Judge Tracie Hunter was indicted by the Hamilton County
Grand Jury in a nine count Court Indictment alleging forgery, tampering with
evidence, unlawful interference with a public contract, theft in office and misuse of a
credit card. On October 14, 2014 she was convicted of one count of having an unlawful
interest in a public contract. The remaining counts resulted in a hung jury and are still
pending. The offense of conviction occurred while the defendant was serving as Judge
of the Juvenile Court and involved her duties as Judge. As an elected Judge, she held a
public office and a position of trust and her position of trust facilitated the offense.
A court that sentences an offender for a felony shall be guided by the overriding
purposes of felony sentencing. The overriding purposes of felony sentencing are to
protect the public from future crime by the offender and others and to punish the
offender using the minimum sanctions that the court determines accomplish those
purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on state or local government
resources. To achieve those purposes, the sentencing court shall consider the need for
incapacitating the offender, deterring the offender and others from future crime,

rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution to the victim of the offense, the
public, or both. R.C. 2929.11(A)
A sentence imposed for a felony shall be reasonably calculated to achieve the two
overriding purposes of felony sentencing set forth in division (A) of this section,
commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offenders conduct
and its impact upon the victim, and consistent with sentences imposed for similar
crimes committed by similar offenders. R.C. 2929.11(B)
Except as provided in division (B)(1)(b) of R.C. 2929.13, if an offender is
convicted of or pleads guilty to a felony of the fourth or fifth degree that is not an
offense of violence or is that a qualifying assault offense, the court shall sentence the
offender to a community control sanction of a least one year. R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(a)
The court has discretion to impose a prison term upon an offender who is
convicted of or pleads guilty to a felony of the fourth or fifth degree that is not an
offense of violence or that is a qualifying assault offense if the offender held a public
office or position of trust, and the offense related to that office or position; the
offenders position obligated the offender to prevent the offense or to bring those
committing it to justice; or the offenders professional reputation or position
facilitated the offense or was likely to influence the future conduct of others. R.C.
2929.13(B)(1)(b)(viii)
Unless otherwise required by section 2929.13 or 2929.14 of the Revised Code, a
court that imposes a sentence under this chapter upon an offender for a felony has
discretion to determine the most effective way to comply with the purposes and
principles of sentencing set forth in section 2929.11 of the Revised Code. In exercising
that discretion, the court shall consider the factors set forth in divisions (B) and (C) of
2

this section relating to the seriousness of the conduct, the factors provided in divisions
(D) and E) of this section relating to the likelihood of the offenders recidivism, and the
factors set forth in division (F) of this section pertaining to the offenders service in the
armed forces of the United States and, in addition, may consider any other factors that
are relevant to achieving those purposes and principles of sentence. R.C. 2929.12(A)
The sentencing court shall consider all of the following that apply regarding the
offender, the offense, or the victim, and any other relevant factors, as indicated that
the offenders conduct is more serious than conduct normally constituting the offense.
R.C. 2929.12(B)
(1)

The offender held a public office or position of trust in the community, and

the offense related to that office or position. R.C. 2929.12(B)(3)

(a)

The offenders occupation, elected office, or profession obliged the

offender to prevent the offense or bring others committing it to justice. R.C.

2929.13(B)(4)
(D)

The sentencing court shall consider all of the following that apply

regarding the offender, and any other relevant factors, as factors indicating that the
offender is likely to commit future crimes. R.C. 2929.12(D)
R.C. 2929.13(B)(4)
(D)(5) The offender shows no genuine remorse for the offense. R.C.
2929.12(D)(5)
Simply put, a sentencing court should fashion a sentence which protects the
public from future crime by the offender or others and punishes the offender using the
minimum sanctions available. However, while considering these factors, the Court
must pass a sentence which is commensurate with and not demeaning to the
3

seriousness of the offenders conduct and its impact upon the victim and it must be
consistent with sentence imposed for similar conduct.
While nonviolent fourth degree felonies traditionally require a sentence of
community control, with various sanctions, there are exceptions, specifically
enumerated when a public official commits a crime that is related to their office. In
determining the appropriate sentence, a sentencing court should consider many things
including whether or not the offender shows genuine remorse for her conduct and the
impact her conduct has had on the victim of the crime.
The Defendant was not only an elected official, but was a Common Pleas Court
Judge when she committed the offense of conviction. Her position facilitated the
commission of the crime. Indeed, the only way this offense can be committed, is by a
public official. The legislature created this law with the express purpose of holding
public officials to a higher standard than the general public and to protect the public
from the self dealing of public officials. All public officials are on notice that they are
held to this higher standard when they seek public office.
Public officials are elected to do the publics business and they must act in the
best interest of the public they serve at all times. At no time should a public official
seek personal gain as a result of their elected position.
In this case, the Defendant violated the trust by seeking an advantage for a family
member in an employment matter.
Tracie Hunter has no prior criminal convictions. She is well educated and is both
an attorney, judge, and minister. Presumably, she has done good works in the
community. All of this, however, is overshadowed by her conduct that led to her
conviction, her violation of the public trust for personal gain, her conduct before,
4

during and after her trial, her failure to accept responsibility for her actions and, more
importantly, her total lack of remorse for her conduct. She has shown nothing but
contempt for our system of justice before she was elected, while she served as a judge,
after she was indicted, throughout the trial and even after the trial, finally
commencing with a personal and public attack on a juror. Her conduct is even more
egregious when one considers that there was no basis in fact or law for the allegations
and accusations of misconduct made by Tracie Hunter against a citizen juror in this
case. Simply stated, her utter contempt for our system of justice is breathtaking.
When determining the appropriate sentence in this case, it is respectfully
suggested that there are many issues that must be considered.
1.

Does the fact that Tracie Hunter was a public official when she committed

these offenses outweigh the fact that she has no prior criminal history? While the
answer to that question is somewhat subjective, one must consider certain factors in
making that determination.
1)

Should public officials be held to a higher standard than the general

2)

Are public officials traditionally held to a higher standard when

public?

they commit wrongdoing?

3)

Are public officials on notice that they will be held to higher

standards than the general public?

The answer to these questions is obvious. Certainly, public officials are and
should be held to a higher standard than the general public and they are on notice of
that higher standard. Tracie Hunter is not only a judge, but she is also an attorney.
She took an oath of office which requires her to faithfully discharge her duties in
5

accordance with the laws of the State of Ohio. Over the course of her tenure as a
judge, she blatantly and aggressively ignored her sworn duty and not only failed to
faithfully discharge her duties as a judge, but in the process committed violations of
law.
In this county, public officials who violate the law face severe consequences for
their conduct. Traffic clerks who steal small amounts of public money are routinely
placed in prison. Police officers who violate the law are routinely placed in prison.
Attorneys are held to a higher standard and are often incarcerated when they violate
their oath. All elected officials are held to this higher standard and are routinely
incarcerated when they violate the public trust by committing crimes while in office.
Should Tracie Hunter be treated any differently? Clearly the answer is no. Not
only is she an attorney and an elected official, but she is a Common Pleas Judge who
swore to uphold the law but instead manipulated and gamed the system to her own
advantage. What possible justification is there for treating her more leniently that the
others?
It must also be remembered that Tracie Hunter is the first and only Judge in
Hamilton County to have been convicted of crimes that resulted from conduct while in
office.
The next issue that should be considered is whether there is any possible
justification for placing Tracie Hunter on probation? Probation is intended to
rehabilitate offenders, provide needed vocational or educational service and mental
health or addiction treatment if required. Tracie Hunter has no interest in
rehabilitation because she feels she is the victim in this case. She refuses to accept
responsibility for her conduct and has shown absolutely no remorse of any type.
6

Instead, she has spent the last two years blaming others for her problems. The list of
those she blames is long and distinguished and includes the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, The First District Court of Appeals, Judge John Williams, Your
Honor, Prosecutors Joe Deters, Jim Harper, Chris Schaeffer and Charles Lippert,
attorneys Firooz Namei, James Brogan, Jay Clark, Magistrate Connie Murdock, docket
clerk Lisa Miller, Curt Kissinger and special prosecutors and finally and most
arrogantly, a juror in this case.
What possible reason would there be to place an unrepentant convicted felon on
probation?
Perhaps the biggest question of all is what message would be sent to the general
public if Tracie Hunter were to be placed on probation? Would not the message be
that its alright for a judge to arrogantly ignore her oath of office without fear of
reprisal or punishment, that its alright for an indicted Judge to make a mockery of the
system by appearing late every day for court, parading around with bodyguards,
commandeering elevators, showing an utter and complete lack of respect for Your
Honor, texting throughout the trial and, finally, and perhaps most telling, viciously
attacking a citizen juror who simply answered her duty to serve?
Tracie Hunter has always played by her own set of rules, ignoring the laws of
Ohio, her ethical obligation as an attorney and her oath of office. She does this in the
most public fashion. The entire community has watched her and her impact on our
community and system of justice for the past 2 years. They have watched her ignore
and defy authority, refuse to carry out her oath of office, and violate criminal statutes
as a sitting Judge and attempt to make a mockery of our system of justice with her
conduct throughout the trial.
7

The community believes and knows that the average citizen could not behave in
this fashion without suffering severe consequences.
If Tracie Hunter does not receive sufficient punishment, it will only confirm to
the community what Tracie Hunter believes; she is above the law and for whatever
reason, is allowed to play by a different set of rules than the rest of us.
Before and during the trial, counsel for the State of Ohio were willing to take no
position on sentencing in this case. That was based upon our assumption that after
having been convicted by a jury of her peers, Tracie Hunter would accept
responsibility for her actions and show genuine remorse for her conduct that caused
embarrassment and ridicule to not only herself, but our entire court system. Instead
of accepting responsibility for her actions and showing some degree of remorse,
however slight, Tracie Hunter doubled down on her attacks of others and made the
unprecedented move of attacking a juror. Not only has her contempt for our system
continued, but her conduct has escalated.
The Defendants self proclaimed truculent conduct elevated itself from bullying
tactics, to unethical behavior, to criminal conduct. The Defendant has no one to blame
but herself. Had she chosen a different course of conduct, the Defendant had the
potential for being a life long Judge and a positive influence on children. But instead,
the Defendant chose to pursue a self confessed attitude of confrontation and attacked
everyone within target range. She was merciless in her abuse. As a result of her
truculence, the children of Hamilton County suffered.
The Defendants scorch and burn strategy in and of itself should warrant a
deviation from normal sentencing considerations. Acceptance of responsibility is
one thing, a strategy of arrogant deliberate defiance is another.
8

Judges as a whole are dedicated public servants. Judges provide a tremendous

public service, often at substantial personal sacrifice. Our system of justice depends
on public confidence in and respect for our Judges.
Every judge in Hamilton County and the State of Ohio has suffered collateral
damage as a direct result of this Defendants outrageous conduct. The public at large
questions the competence of the entire judiciary as a direct result of this Defendants
behavior. It is impossible to state succinctly and concisely the extent of the damage
this Defendant has caused to the reputation of the judicial community in Hamilton
County, State of Ohio. The reputation of the judiciary in Hamilton County deserves
more than to be besmirched by the conduct of this Defendant.
It is respectfully submitted that over the past two years, Tracie Hunter has defied
authority, refused to follow the law, made a fool of herself and disgraced her position
as a judge of the Common Pleas Court. In the process, not only has she violated laws
of the State of Ohio, but she has brought disrespect in the most public way to our
system of justice.
It is now time for her to face justice and it is respectfully submitted that a
substantial prison sentence should be imposed.
The State of Ohio respectfully objects to any stay of execution in this case.
Tracie Hunter has been afforded every opportunity to defend herself in this case.
She was given a fair trial by any standard. Although given a fair trial, she conducted
herself in a manner which was defiant and disrespectful to our system of justice.
There are no appellant issues in this case which would warrant a stay.
Additionally, if Tracie Hunter is granted a stay it will again send a message to the
community that she plays by a different set of rules. When was the last time a
9

defendant conducted herself as Tracie Hunter has throughout their trial, been found
guilty by a jury, attacked the jury and been granted a stay of execution without
significant identifiable appellant issues?
After sentencing the Court of Appeals gains jurisdiction over this case. It is
respectfully submitted that the Court of Appeals should make the decision on a stay of
execution and bond.

________________
Merlyn D Shiverdecker
Reg. No.: 0008047
817 Main St., Ste. 200
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Tel: (513) 651-5651
Fax: (513) 345-5565
Email: carrshiverdecker@yahoo.com
Special Prosecutor for State of Ohio

____________________
R. Scott Croswell III
Reg. No.: 019726
1208 Sycamore Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Tel: (513) 241-5670
Fax: (513) 929-3473
Email: rscroswell@gmail.com
Special Prosecutor for State of Ohio

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument was delivered by regular
U.S. Mail to Clyde Bennett, II, Attorney for the Defendant, 119 E. Court Street,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 this 4th day of December, 2014.
______________
R. Scott Croswell III
Special Prosecutor for State of Ohio

10