[Cite as State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hunter, 2013-Ohio-5895.] 

 

Original Action in Prohibition and Mandamus 

 

Judgment of the Court: Writ of Prohibition Granted; Writ of Mandamus Denied 

Date of Judgment Entry: December 24, 2013 

Frost Brown Todd LLC, Jill P. Meyer and Monica L. Dias, for Relator, 

McKinney & Namei Co., LPA, Firooz T. Namei and James F. Bogen, for Respondent. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. SCRIPPS 

MEDIA, INC., d.b.a. WCPO-TV, 

 Relator, 

 vs. 

HON. TRACIE M. HUNTER, JUDGE, 

HAMILTON COUNTY JUVENILE 

COURT, 

 Respondent. 

:

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CASE NO. C-130241 

 

 O P I N I O N.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2

CUNNINGHAM, Judge. 

{¶1} This is an original action in which the relator, Scripps Media, Inc., 

d.b.a. WCPO-TV (“WCPO-TV”), a local television station, seeks writs of prohibition 

and mandamus involving the respondent, the Hon. Tracie M. Hunter, a judge of the 

Hamilton County Juvenile Court. 

{¶2} The relator seeks to prevent the respondent from enforcing blanket 

restrictions on WCPO-TV’s access to and ability to report on juvenile delinquency 

proceedings instituted against six juveniles accused of the vicious beating of a local man. 

WCPO-TV alleges that Judge Hunter has imposed the restrictions, often without 

notice to WCPO-TV, without conducting an evidentiary hearing at which WCPO-TV 

could appear and challenge the restrictions, and without making the findings 

required to justify her actions. 

{¶3} We grant the writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Hunter from 

enforcing the access and reporting restrictions without conducting an evidentiary 

hearing and without making the required findings. 

{¶4} WCPO-TV also seeks a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Hunter to 

follow the mandates of the federal and Ohio constitutions, and the Ohio Supreme 

Court with regard to future access. Because mandamus will not issue to require a 

judicial officer to prospectively observe the law, or to remedy the anticipated 

nonperformance of that duty, we deny the writ of mandamus. 

The North College Hill Cases 

{¶5} In August 2012, six 13- and 14-year-old juveniles beat and severely 

injured a 45-year-old North College Hill man. The delinquency proceedings were
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3

 assigned to Judge Hunter for resolution.1 

{¶6} The North College Hill cases generated considerable public interest. 

Newspapers and television media organizations endeavored to cover the cases. At the 

commencement of the proceedings, attorneys for the alleged juvenile offenders moved 

to close the proceedings or to limit media coverage. 

{¶7} On August 24, 2012, counsel for WCPO-TV appeared before juvenile 

court Magistrate David M. Kelley, along with counsel for other news organizations, 

and the juveniles’ defense counsel to respond to the motions. The assembled counsel 

informed the magistrate that they had arrived at “an agreed resolution” of the issues 

surrounding the media’s access to the courtroom and limitations on its coverage in 

the courtroom. The magistrate questioned the parties to ensure that there was an 

agreement. While some counsel expressed reservation about some of the terms, 

there appeared to be general agreement as to the contours of the resolution. 

{¶8} Through its counsel, Monica L. Dias, WCPO-TV agreed not to televise 

the face or identifying marks of the juveniles when they were in the courtroom. 

WCPO-TV was to be permitted to televise the faces of anyone seated in the 

spectators’ gallery, including the juveniles’ parents. The news organizations, 

including WCPO-TV, would be permitted to televise the faces of attorneys, 

courtroom personnel and the judge, but not other individuals standing in front of the 

gallery and before the bench, unless unique or newsworthy events occurred such as 

an altercation between family members. 

 1 The North College Hill cases consist of the following delinquency proceedings in the Hamilton 

County Juvenile Court: In Re: Tyree Mizell, Case Nos. 12-7285 and 12-7305; In Re: Terrel Mizell, 

Case Nos. 12-7288 and 12-7306; In Re: Michael James, Case Nos. 12-7279 and 12-7308; In Re: 

Antonio Hendrix, Case Nos. 12-7366 and 12-7367; In Re: Lamont Champion, Case Nos. 12-7278 

and 12-7307; and, In Re: Daquan Cain, Case Nos. 12-7304 and 12-7303. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

4

{¶9} The parties agreed that since the names of the juveniles had been 

released by the police department and had been reported in the Cincinnati Enquirer, 

the names were a matter of public record. Thus no blanket prohibition on printing, 

reporting, or using the names of the juveniles or their parents was imposed as part of 

the agreement. At least one television station stated nonetheless that it would not 

use the juveniles’ names as a matter of editorial policy. WCPO-TV maintained that it 

could use the names but would try to avoid referring to the juveniles by name while 

playing audio recordings of their testimony. The parties agreed that none of these 

restrictions would apply outside the courtroom. The parties acknowledged that if the 

status of the case changed, then the agreement would be revisited. 

{¶10} Magistrate Kelley thanked the parties for reaching a workable 

agreement and stated that he intended to reduce the agreement to writing by the 

next day. That, however, never occurred. 

{¶11} In early September 2012, the state filed a notice of intent to pursue 

serious youthful offender status for the juveniles. And that notice of intent 

transferred the proceedings from Magistrate Kelley to Judge Hunter’s courtroom. 

Pursuant to Juv.R. 27(A)(1), serious youthful offender hearings shall be open to the 

public. 

{¶12} On September 6, 2012, WCPO-TV submitted a request to obtain a 

transcript of the August 24 proceedings before Magistrate Kelley that had 

memorialized the terms of the agreed resolution. On February 19, 2013, Judge 

Hunter denied the request for a transcript of the proceedings based upon a literal 

interpretation of Juv.R. 2(Y) and Loc.R. 10(C) of the Hamilton County Juvenile Court 

and her conclusion that the media were not parties to the proceeding and thus were not 

entitled to a transcript. Ultimately, on August 1, 2013, this court ordered the 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

5

administrative judge of the juvenile court, the court’s ex officio clerk, to cause the filing 

of the transcript of the August 24 hearing in the record of this action. 

{¶13} In the first two weeks of September 2012, various WCPO-TV 

employees, including managing editor Jana Soete, signed and submitted applications 

requesting permission to televise courtroom proceedings. The application forms 

contained standard language that permission to televise was contingent on the 

applicants following “the conditions established by the Supreme Court of Ohio.” The 

application did not contain restrictions on filming the juveniles’ parents or persons 

who do not object to being filmed. It contained no blanket proscription against 

naming or identifying the juveniles or their parents. 

The Disputed Access Orders 

{¶14} On September 17, 2012, Judge Hunter entered orders imposing 

significant new restrictions on WCPO-TV’s coverage of the North College Hill cases. 

The orders, captioned “Application Requesting Permission to Broadcast, Televise, 

Photograph, or Record Courtroom Proceedings,” provided that: 

The person(s) below hereby request permission to broadcast, televise, 

photograph, or otherwise record proceedings in the above captioned 

case under the provisions of Ohio Superintendence Rule 12. We 

hereby certify that the conditions for recording established by the 

Supreme Court of Ohio and such rules as are established by this Court 

will be complied with and any cost arising therefrom shall be borne by 

the undersigned applicant(s). 

{¶15} The orders then provided a line upon which the applicant could 

acknowledge the order. These orders contained the typewritten acknowledgement: 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

6

 Channel 9 (WCPO)

 Applicant 

{¶16} Immediately below the acknowledgement, the document continued as 

follows: 

 The Court, upon consideration of the above request, hereby 

grants its authorization to broadcast, televise, photograph, or 

otherwise record judicial proceedings in the above captioned matter, 

subject to the following conditions: 

 All persons approved to broadcast, televise, photograph, or 

record courtroom proceedings must comply with Ohio Rules of 

Superintendence, Rule 12 attached to this application / order. 

 All persons approved to broadcast, televise, photograph, or 

record courtroom proceedings must comply with Ohio Rules of 

Superintendence, Rule 12. 

 Broadcasts, videotape, photographs and recordings may include 

full images and sound of the judge and all courtroom staff. 

 In accordance with Superintendence Rule 12, all victims and 

witnesses may object to being filmed, videotaped, recorded, or 

photographed; and if they do object, they MAY NOT be filmed, 

videotaped, recorded, or photographed. 

Juvenile Defendant may only be videotaped below the waist. 

Names of the defendants and their parents are barred from 

publication or broadcast for all current and future proceedings 

regarding this matter. Photographs of the defendants’ parents are 

prohibited, as it may compromise the safety of the juveniles. If 

Defendants object at any time, a closure hearing will be conducted. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

7

Otherwise, this journalization reflects the policy for all future 

proceedings in the above referenced matter. 

Seek permission from the prosecutor and defense counsel 

regarding filming them. 

{¶17} The document was signed and dated by Judge Hunter, and was 

entered on the journal in four of the North College Hill cases. 

{¶18} In their affidavits, both Dias and Soete state that no employee or 

counsel of WCPO-TV had signed or typed the name of the television station in the 

applicant acknowledgement line. The September 17 order limiting WCPO-TV’s 

access and coverage in Judge Hunter’s courtroom was not served on WCPO-TV. 

WCPO-TV received a copy of the order only on March 29, 2013, after its counsel had 

obtained the document through a public-records request. 

{¶19} On February 19, 2013, Judge Hunter entered additional orders 

restricting WCPO-TV’s coverage. The orders contained language very similar to the 

September 17, 2012 orders. They were journalized in each of the 12 cases. But the 

February order, again captioned “Application Requesting Permission to Broadcast, 

Televise, Photograph, or Record Courtroom Proceedings,” now provided that all persons 

approved to broadcast, televise, photograph, or record courtroom proceedings must 

comply with “Rule 14 of the Rules of Practice of the Hamilton County Juvenile Court,” in 

addition to Ohio Rule of Superintendence 12. WCPO-TV again maintains that it did not 

sign the application although the typewritten name “WCPO-TV Channel 9” appears on 

the acknowledgement line. 

{¶20} WCPO-TV’s planning editor Jillian Parrish stated in her affidavit that on 

March 22, 2013, she signed an application containing restrictions like those in the 

February 19 application. She stated that she signed the application because Judge 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

8

Hunter’s courtroom personnel had told her that WCPO-TV reporters would not be 

permitted to enter the courtroom, even without cameras or recording equipment, unless 

she signed the application. 

{¶21} Finally, on March 25, 2013, Judge Hunter entered another order on the 

journal of four of the North College Hill cases. These orders, bearing the same caption, 

reprised the restrictions of the September 17 and February 19 orders but added a 

statement that: “If media applicant violates this order, the Judge may revoke violator(s) 

permission to broadcast, videotape, photograph, or record all future courtroom 

proceedings; and additionally may take any other actions available under law.” 

(Emphasis added.) 

{¶22} WCPO-TV again maintains, in managing editor Soete’s affidavit, that it 

did not sign the application although the handwritten name “WCPO ABC 9” appears on 

the acknowledgement line. 

The Petition for Writs

{¶23} On April 19, 2013, WCPO-TV filed a petition in this court seeking a writ 

of prohibition to prevent Judge Hunter from exercising judicial power by enforcing the 

September 17, 2012, February 19, 2013, and March 25, 2013 access orders imposing 

blanket restrictions on WCPO-TV’s access to and ability to report on the North 

College Hill cases. The restrictions include a ban on naming or identifying the 

alleged juvenile offenders and their parents, the imposition of overly broad 

restrictions on WCPO-TV’s coverage in Judge Hunter’s courtroom, and a requirement 

that WCPO-TV reporters sign and submit an “Application Requesting Permission to 

Broadcast, Televise, Photograph, or Record Courtroom Proceedings” as a condition of 

admittance even if the reporters do not intend to broadcast but merely listen to the 

proceedings. WCPO-TV alleges that Judge Hunter has imposed the restrictions 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

9

without conducting an evidentiary hearing at which WCPO-TV could appear and 

challenge proposed restrictions, and without making the findings required to justify 

her actions. 

{¶24} WCPO also sought a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Hunter’s future 

observance of controlling law on courtroom access. It also sought to recover attorney 

fees and the cost incurred in bringing the petition. 

{¶25} On May 28, 2013, Judge Hunter, although represented by the 

prosecuting attorney of Hamilton County as statutory counsel, filed pro se a motion for 

leave to move to dismiss WCPO-TV’s petition. On June 3, 2013, we sua sponte struck 

the pro se motion finding that it was “not a permissible pleading.” Because Judge 

Hunter was being sued only in her official capacity as a judge of the Hamilton County 

Juvenile Court, her right to representation was prescribed by law and, thus, we held that 

Judge Hunter was obligated to comply with relevant provisions of R.C. 305.14(A) and 

309.09(A). 

{¶26} On June 6, 2013, Judge Hunter, now acting through her statutory 

counsel, moved for summary judgment on WCPO-TV’s petition for writs. The motion 

raised only legal arguments that WCPO-TV had waived its right to challenge her 

courtroom restrictions. She also argued that WCPO-TV’s applications to broadcast were 

nullities because they had not been signed by WCPO-TV’s legal counsel. 

{¶27} Three weeks later, WCPO-TV also moved for summary judgment. The 

motion was supported by the affidavits of Dias, Soete, and Parrish, filed with the 

petition, a subsequent affidavit of Dias, and a new affidavit of Griffin Frank, a WCPO-TV 

producer. Additional responsive pleadings were filed, and this court heard oral 

argument on the summary-judgment motions. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

10

{¶28} Argument on Judge Hunter’s behalf was made by her current statutory 

counsel. Though counsel had been substituted for previous counsel on August 30, 2013, 

he relayed upon inquiry by the court that he had received no response to his requests to 

meet or speak with Judge Hunter during the intervening two weeks. Counsel stated that 

communication from Judge Hunter had consisted only of one email that he had received 

approximately 40 minutes before the hearing. 

A Writ of Prohibition: The Proper Challenge to Judge Hunter’s Orders

{¶29} A writ of prohibition directs a lower court to refrain from exercising 

authority over a matter beyond its jurisdiction. It is the proper action to challenge a 

juvenile court’s interlocutory orders limiting access to court proceedings or restricting 

the recording or photographing of those proceedings. See State ex rel. Plain Dealer 

Publishing Co. v. Floyd, 111 Ohio St.3d 56, 2006-Ohio-4437, 855 N.E.2d 35, ¶ 26; see 

also State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Geer, 114 Ohio St.3d 511, 2007-Ohio-4643, 

873 N.E.2d 314, ¶ 14 and 20. 

{¶30} To be entitled to a writ of prohibition, WCPO-TV must establish that 

Judge Hunter has or is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, that the 

exercise of that power is unauthorized by law, and that it lacks an adequate remedy in 

the ordinary course of law. See State ex rel. Doe v. Capper, 132 Ohio St.3d 365, 2012-

Ohio-2686, 972 N.E.2d 553, ¶ 10; see also State ex rel. Levin v. Sheffield Lake, 70 Ohio 

St.3d 104, 106, 637 N.E.2d 319 (1994). 

{¶31} A petition seeking prohibition is a civil action. See Civ.R. 1(A) and 1(C). 

Thus it may be resolved on summary judgment. E.g., State ex rel. Denton v. 

Bedinghaus, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-000819, 2002-Ohio-3273. Summary judgment 

is appropriate if (1) no genuine issue of material fact exists for trial, (2) the moving 

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) reasonable minds can come 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

11

to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party, who is 

entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly in his or her favor. See Civ.R. 

56; see also Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996). The parties’ 

election to address the issues by cross-motions for summary judgment demonstrate 

that both parties believe that no genuine issue of material fact is in dispute and that 

this court is free to render a decision as a matter of law. See Cincinnati v. Ohio 

Council 8, Am. Fedn. of State, Cty. & Mun. Emp., AFL-CIO, 93 Ohio App.3d 162, 

164, 638 N.E.2d 94 (1st Dist.1994). 

Balancing Juvenile Offender Protection with Courtroom Access

{¶32} Juvenile court delinquency proceedings are “neither presumed open 

nor presumed closed.” Floyd, 111 Ohio St.3d 56, 2006-Ohio-4437, 855 N.E.2d 35, at 

¶ 27, citing State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Geauga Cty. Court of 

Common Pleas, Juvenile Div., 90 Ohio St.3d 79, 734 N.E.2d 1214 (2000). Thus the 

important interest in furthering the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders by protecting 

them from the harsh glare of public scrutiny must be balanced against the interests 

of the news media and the public in access to and accurate reporting of delinquency 

proceedings. The interest in closure is “less compelling in delinquency cases than in 

cases involving an abused, neglected, or dependent child because the ‘delinquent 

child is at least partially responsible for the case being in court.’ ” Geauga Cty. Court 

of Common Pleas, Juvenile Div., at 84, quoting In re T.R., 52 Ohio St.3d 6, 16, 556 

N.E.2d 439 (1990). The news media and the public “play an important role—and 

have certain rights—regarding the closure of juvenile-court proceedings.” In re 

Disqualification of Hunter, 137 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2013-Ohio-4467, 997 N.E.2d 541, 

¶ 6. Their access to juvenile delinquency proceedings can “serve as a check on 

potential abuse of power by judges and other public officials, and publicity might 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

12

prove beneficial to the juvenile and society by deterring future acts of delinquency 

and alerting parents to responsibilities toward their minor children.” Geauga Cty. 

Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Div., at 84. 

{¶33} In balancing these interests, WCPO-TV argues that Judge Hunter 

indulged her personal predilections rather than employing the analysis identified by 

the Ohio Supreme Court. We agree. 

WCPO-TV Not Bound by the Kelley “Agreed Resolution” 

{¶34} On June 6, 2013, Judge Hunter moved for summary judgment on 

WCPO-TV’s petition for prohibition and mandamus. She argues that WCPO-TV had 

waived certain rights, including the right to publish the names of the alleged juvenile 

offenders and the right to unrestricted filming of them, when its attorneys reached 

the agreed resolution with the juveniles’ counsel during the August 24, 2012 hearing 

before Magistrate Kelley. Although Judge Hunter refused to provide WCPO-TV with 

a copy of the transcript of the proceedings before the magistrate, she now maintains 

that those proceedings reveal the terms of an enforceable agreement between 

WCPO-TV, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and counsel for the juvenile offenders. 

Therefore, she argues that WCPO-TV may not now seek to vindicate the rights to 

access and restriction-free reporting it bargained away. We disagree. 

{¶35} It is undisputed that Magistrate Kelley never reduced the agreement 

to writing. While magistrates are authorized to enter orders necessary to regulate 

the proceedings before them, those orders must be reduced to writing, signed by the 

magistrate, and served on the parties or their counsel. See Juv.R. 40(C)(2) and 

40(D)(2)(a)(ii). 

{¶36} And a magistrate’s order cannot, by itself, bind the juvenile court. A 

magistrate’s “oversight of an issue or issues, even an entire trial, is not a substitute 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

13

for the [trial court’s] judicial functions but only an aid to them.” Hartt v. Munobe, 

67 Ohio St.3d 3, 6, 615 N.E.2d 617 (1993) (construing the analogous provisions of 

Civ.R. 53); see Juv.R. 40(C)(1). 

{¶37} Here there is no evidence of record that Judge Hunter adopted the 

unwritten terms of the agreed resolution. Her access orders make no reference at all 

to the proceedings before Magistrate Kelley. By journalizing the three challenged 

access and reporting orders, Judge Hunter effectively superseded any terms of the 

agreed resolution. The eviscerated agreement cannot be the basis of any alleged 

waiver by WCPO-TV of its rights to attend and to report on the North College Hill 

cases. 

{¶38} We note that on May 10, 2013—before either party had moved for 

summary judgment—this court granted WCPO-TV’s motion for an emergency stay. 

On the limited record then available, we ordered that WCPO-TV should have access 

to the North College Hill proceedings upon the terms and conditions delineated in 

the agreed resolution reached before Magistrate Kelley. Because it is now clear that 

Judge Hunter’s access and coverage orders vitiated any agreement that had been 

reached, we vacate our May 10, 2013 order. 

{¶39} Judge Hunter’s final argument in favor of summary judgment, that 

the “applications” to attend and to report court proceedings filed on September 17, 

2012, February 19, 2013, and March 25, 2013, are legal “nullities” because they were 

not signed by counsel, is feckless. There is no basis in law for requiring legal counsel 

to sign the written requests “for permission for the broadcasting, televising, 

recording, or taking of photographs.” See, e.g., Sup.R. 12(A) and Loc.Juv.R. 14. To 

adopt Judge Hunter’s reasoning would require every reporter to be accompanied by 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

14

counsel each time he or she entered the courtroom. We will not sanction placing that 

additional burden on reporters. 

{¶40} Judge Hunter’s motion for summary judgment is overruled. 

Judge Hunter’s Blanket Access and Reporting Restrictions

Are Unauthorized by Law

{¶41} WCPO-TV also moved for summary judgment on its petition for the 

writs. The gravamen of its argument is that Judge Hunter exercised judicial power to 

restrict WCPO-TV’s access to and ability to report on the North College Hill cases 

without conducting an evidentiary hearing or making the findings required by precedent 

to justify her actions. She continues to impose these blanket restrictions. And WCPOTV lacks any other adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 

{¶42} A juvenile court is required to examine, in each case, the competing 

interests of confidentiality and access before ordering closure or restrictions on news 

media reporting. Blanket or standing orders to restrict access are not authorized by 

law. See Floyd, 111 Ohio St.3d 56, 2006-Ohio-4437, 855 N.E.2d 35, ¶ at 29. Neither 

are orders based upon the “self-evident harm” to an accused juvenile, or upon a 

judge’s personal presumption of closure. See Geauga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 

Juvenile Div., 90 Ohio St.3d at 87, 734 N.E.2d 1214. 

{¶43} A juvenile court may not restrict news media and public access to a 

delinquency proceeding unless the court entertains “evidence and argument on the 

issue, [and then] finds that (1) there exists a reasonable and substantial basis for 

believing that public access could harm the child or endanger the fairness of the 

adjudication, (2) the potential for harm outweighs the benefits of public access, and 

(3) there are no reasonable alternatives to closure.” Floyd, 111 Ohio St.3d 56, 2006-

Ohio-4437, 855 N.E.2d 35, ¶ at 27, citing Geauga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

15

Juvenile Div., 90 Ohio St.3d at 85, 734 N.E.2d 1214. The burden of establishing 

these factors is on the party seeking closure of the delinquency proceeding and not 

on the news organization seeking to cover the court proceedings. See Floyd at ¶ 27. 

{¶44} The same hearing-and-findings requirement applies to a juvenile 

court order restricting the manner in which the news media may televise or 

photograph an alleged delinquent offender. See Geer, 114 Ohio St.3d 511, 2007-

Ohio-4643, 873 N.E.2d 314, at ¶ 17 and 19. 

{¶45} The Floyd/Geer hearing requirement is echoed in R.C. 2151.35(A)(1), 

which provides that the juvenile court “may exclude the general public from its 

hearings in a particular case if the court holds a separate hearing to determine 

whether that exclusion is appropriate.” (Emphasis added.) Even if the court 

excludes the general public, “the court still may admit to a particular hearing or all of 

the hearings relating to a particular case * * * those who demonstrate that their need 

for access outweighs the interest in keeping the hearing closed.” Id. Similarly, 

Juv.R. 27(A)(1) provides that while serious youthful offender hearings shall be open 

to the public, in “all other proceedings, the court may exclude the general public from 

any hearing, but may not exclude * * * [p]ersons who demonstrate, at a hearing, a 

countervailing right to be present.” News media organizations are parties that can 

argue for a countervailing right to be present. See Floyd, 111 Ohio St.3d 56, 2006-

Ohio-4437, 855 N.E.2d 35, at ¶ 33. 

{¶46} Even the Hamilton County Juvenile Court’s own local rules 

contemplate a hearing before closure. Loc.Juv.R. 15 permits a party to a proceeding 

to request closure. The party’s “written or oral motion * * * shall be made as far in 

advance as is reasonably possible to allow the court to conduct a hearing and rule on 

the request without unnecessarily delaying the proceedings.” 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

16

{¶47} Where a juvenile court enters an order restricting access to or media 

coverage of a delinquency proceeding without conducting an evidentiary hearing and 

making the required Floyd/Geer findings, which are properly supported by the 

evidence adduced, the court’s order is unauthorized by law. See Floyd, 111 Ohio 

St.3d 56, 2006-Ohio-4437, 855 N.E.2d 35, at ¶ 32; see also Geer, 114 Ohio St.3d 511, 

2007-Ohio-4643, 873 N.E.2d 314, at ¶ 20. A writ of prohibition will issue to prevent 

the judge from enforcing that order and from “entering a future restriction without 

allowing all parties affected to have the opportunity to respond to the possibility of a 

restriction before the order is entered.” Geer at ¶ 20; see Floyd at ¶ 36. 

{¶48} Here, it is undisputed that Judge Hunter exercised judicial power by 

entering the September 17, 2012, February 19, 2013, and March 25, 2013 access orders. 

The orders compelled WCPO-TV to photograph the alleged North College Hill offenders 

only “below the waist.” WCPO-TV was prohibited from photographing the juveniles’ 

parents. They required WCPO-TV to seek permission from the prosecutor and defense 

attorneys prior to photographing counsel. They barred WCPO-TV from publishing or 

broadcasting the names of the juvenile offenders “for all current and future proceedings 

regarding this matter.” And Judge Hunter’s courtroom personnel required WCPO-TV 

reporters and editors to sign an “Application Requesting Permission to Broadcast, 

Televise, Photograph, or Record Courtroom Proceedings,” containing all the challenged 

restrictions, before being permitting to enter the courtroom even when the reporters 

carried no cameras or recording devices. 

{¶49} It is also undisputed that Judge Hunter entered the access orders 

without holding an evidentiary hearing at which WCPO-TV was given the opportunity to 

respond to the proposed restrictions, and without making the Floyd/Geer findings. The 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

17

September 17, 2012, February 19, 2013, and March 25, 2013, access orders were thus 

unauthorized by law. 

Juvenile Court Rules Do Not Authorize a Blanket Restriction on Naming 

An Alleged Offender in a Delinquency Proceeding 

{¶50} Judge Hunter does not dispute that she did not hold a hearing at which 

WCPO-TV was given the opportunity to challenge the access and reporting restrictions. 

Judge Hunter nonetheless argues that WCPO-TV is not entitled, as a matter of law, to 

summary judgment on that portion of its petition seeking to prohibit enforcement of her 

blanket restriction on publishing or broadcasting the names and identities of the alleged 

North College Hill offenders and their parents. Judge Hunter argues that Sup.R. 12, 

“Conditions for Broadcasting and Photographing Court Proceedings,” and Loc.Juv.R. 14, 

“Broadcasting, Televising, Photographing, or Recording of Proceedings,” provide 

authority to impose this restriction on the news media. 

{¶51} WCPO-TV argues that the blanket ban is an overly broad and 

unconstitutional prior restraint on news organizations, and that the superintendence 

and local rules do not give Judge Hunter the power to enforce these restrictions. By 

their express terms, the access orders bar WCPO-TV from publishing or broadcasting 

the names of the alleged juvenile offenders and their parents “for all current and future 

proceedings regarding this matter.” WCPO-TV argues that the orders would authorize 

sanctions against WCPO-TV if it reported the names of the juveniles or their parents 

even if WCPO-TV had obtained the names outside the courtroom through public 

records, from the police, or from community members. 

{¶52} We have recently granted another news organization a writ of 

mandamus compelling Judge Hunter to release the full names of the alleged North 

College Hill offenders. See State ex rel. The Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hunter, 1st Dist. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

18

Hamilton No. C-130072, 2013-Ohio-4459. We held that the rules of 

superintendence provide for public access to juvenile court delinquency records, and 

that Judge Hunter’s blanket claim that juveniles in delinquency cases are entitled to 

confidentiality could not limit the newspaper’s request for a copy of the judge’s 

docket including the full names of the juveniles, not just their initials. See id. at ¶ 12. 

{¶53} Moreover, Sup.R. 12 and Loc.Juv.R. 14(D) provide no justification for 

Judge Hunter’s blanket restrictions on naming the alleged North College Hill 

offenders and their parents. Sup.R. 12(A) provides, in pertinent part: 

The judge assigned to the trial or hearing shall permit the 

broadcasting or recording by electronic means and the taking of 

photographs in court proceedings that are open to the public as 

provided by Ohio law. 

(Emphasis added.) 

{¶54} The only express limitation contained in subsection (A) is that 

requests for permission to broadcast, record, or photograph in the courtroom must 

be made in writing. See Sup.R. 12(A). The rule provides that “[a]fter consultation 

with the media, the judge shall specify the place or places in the courtroom where the 

operators and equipment are to be positioned.” Id. The resulting order of the judge 

must be made a part of the record of the proceedings. See id. 

{¶55} The remainder of the rule discusses what equipment and operators 

are permitted in the courtroom and where they may be positioned. Its clear purpose 

is to afford access to and coverage of court proceedings while minimizing any 

interference with the orderly administration of justice. For example, Sup.R. 12(B)(7) 

requires that still photographers and television and radio representatives shall be 

afforded clear views within the courtroom but generally may not be permitted to 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

19

move to different locations during the proceedings. Subsection (C) states certain 

prohibitions about what and who may be photographed. For example, the judge is 

required to inform victims and witnesses that they have a right to object to being 

filmed. See Sup.R. 12(C)(2). Sup.R. 12(D) provides that violations of the conditions 

prescribed by the rule or the judge may be punished by revocation of “permission to 

broadcast or photograph the trial or hearing.” 

{¶56} Nowhere in the rule is there specific authority upon which Judge 

Hunter could rely to ban the naming of the juveniles or their parents. The rule is not 

even a sufficient basis to enforce Judge Hunter’s below-the-waist-only restriction on 

the photographing of the juveniles. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that none of 

the exceptions to Sup.R. 12 bar photographing a juvenile’s face in a delinquency 

proceeding. See Geer, 114 Ohio St.3d 511, 2007-Ohio-4643, 873 N.E.2d 314, at ¶ 17. 

{¶57} Similarly, the Hamilton County Juvenile Court local rules do not 

provide any basis for Judge Hunter to bar WCPO-TV from publishing or 

broadcasting the names of the alleged juvenile offenders or their parents. The first 

three subsections of Loc.Juv.R. 14 parrot the permission process and logistical sweep 

of Sup.R. 12. Loc.Juv.R. 14(D), however, provides: 

The filming, videotaping, recording, or photographing of a victim, 

witness, or juror is prohibited without specific authorization of the 

court. If the subject matter of the proceeding is a child, the name or 

identity of any party, witness, child, parent, or participant shall not be 

disclosed unless by specific authorization of the court. 

(Emphasis added.) 

{¶58} The first sentence of the rule clearly prevents the filming of victims, 

witnesses, and jurors without prior permission. But Judge Hunter construes the 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

20

second sentence of the rule, proscribing publication of the name or identify of nearly 

every juvenile court participant save court personnel or counsel without judicial 

authorization, to apply in all juvenile court proceedings, including abuse, neglect, 

dependency, custody, and delinquency proceedings. Although the rule simply 

requires prior judicial permission to name participants, Judge Hunter has placed a 

blanket denial of permission in her access orders and has predicated news media 

attendance on compliance with that proscription. WCPO-TV argues that Loc.Juv.R. 

14(D) does not apply in delinquency proceedings. 

{¶59} In construing a rule or statute, we must assume that words are not 

inserted by the drafters without some purpose. See Cheap Escape Co. v. Haddox 

LLC, 120 Ohio St.3d 493, 2008-Ohio-6323, 900 N.E.2d 601, ¶ 16. The drafters chose 

to include the introductory phrase, “If the subject matter of the proceeding is a 

child,” and we must afford those words some meaning. The only logical 

interpretation is that the phrase limits the use of the broad naming proscriptions to 

abuse, neglect, custody and dependency proceedings. In those cases the subject 

matter is indeed a child and his or her familial relationships and custody status. The 

broad restrictions against naming any party, witness, child, parent, or participant make 

sense in those proceedings where protection of the child from public scrutiny is 

paramount. To hold as Judge Hunter does, that the naming proscriptions apply in 

delinquency proceedings as well, would render the introductory phrase meaningless. 

And it would contradict the Ohio Supreme Court’s position that the need for 

confidentiality is less compelling in delinquency cases than in cases involving 

abused, dependent or neglected children. See Geauga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 

Juvenile Div., 90 Ohio St.3d at 84-85, 734 N.E.2d 1214. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

21

{¶60} Therefore, it is undisputed that Judge Hunter entered orders barring 

WCPO-TV from publishing or broadcasting the names of the alleged juvenile offenders 

and their parents “for all current and future proceedings regarding this matter,” without 

holding a hearing at which WCPO-TV was given the opportunity to respond to the 

proposed restrictions, and without making the Floyd/Geer findings. That portion of the 

September 17, 2012, February 19, 2013, and March 25, 2013 access orders was thus 

unauthorized by law. 

{¶61} As we are able to grant WCPO-TV the remedy its seeks—removal of the 

blanket ban on naming the juveniles and their parents—on the basis of Judge Hunter’s 

failure to follow the Floyd/Geer precedent, we need not address its constitutional, priorrestraint argument. See Smith v. Leis, 106 Ohio St.3d 309, 2005-Ohio-5125, 835 N.E.2d 

5, ¶ 54 (“courts decide constitutional issues only when absolutely necessary”). 

No Prior Permission is Required Merely to Attend a Delinquency 

Proceeding 

{¶62} In support of its motion for summary judgment, WCPO-TV also states 

that its reporters were compelled by Judge Hunter’s courtroom personnel to sign an 

“Application Requesting Permission to Broadcast, Televise, Photograph, or Record 

Courtroom Proceedings,” containing all the challenged restrictions, before being 

permitted to enter the courtroom even when the reporters carried no cameras or 

recording devices. WCPO-TV editors stated in their affidavits that they were compelled 

to sign the application to enter the courtroom even when they did not intend to 

broadcast, televise, photograph or otherwise record the proceedings. And, WCPO-TV’s 

planning editor was required to certify that the restrictions would be complied with. 

WCPO-TV argues that Judge Hunter may not require any person, reporter or not, to 

request permission to merely attend an otherwise open delinquency hearing. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

22

{¶63} This matter arises on WCPO-TV’s motion for summary judgment. 

WCPO-TV has discharged its initial burden of demonstrating that Judge Hunter’s 

courtroom personnel required reporters to complete an application as a condition of 

entry into her courtroom. See Civ.R. 56(A). Thus Judge Hunter cannot rest on the 

allegations or denials in the pleadings. To defeat WCPO-TV’s motion she must set forth 

specific facts, by the means listed in Civ.R. 56(C) and 56(E), showing that triable issues 

of fact exist on WCPO-TV’s claim. See Dresher, 75 Ohio St.3d at 293, 662 N.E.2d 264. 

{¶64} In State ex rel. The Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hunter, 1st Dist. Hamilton 

No. C-130397, 2013-Ohio-4567, we recently denied a writ of prohibition to a newspaper 

on virtually the same issue. The newspaper had alleged that Judge Hunter was 

requiring the media to seek permission merely to attend court proceedings in the North 

College Hill cases. We denied the writ, in part, because the record lacked evidence that 

Judge Hunter had a standing order enforceable by her courtroom personnel requiring 

members of the media, not seeking to electronically record the proceedings, but merely 

to listen, to request permission to attend a hearing. See id. at ¶ 8. This conclusion was 

bolstered by the affidavit of Judge Hunter’s staff attorney, filed in support of the judge’s 

motion for summary judgment, in which the attorney indicated that she had sought 

clarification from Judge Hunter to see if the reporter could attend “after learning that 

[the reporter] merely wanted to listen to the hearing.” Id. 

{¶65} Here Judge Hunter has produced no evidence of any kind to dispute 

WCPO-TV’s claim that the courtroom personnel were carrying out Judge Hunter’s 

directive requiring the media to seek permission prior to attending proceedings in her 

courtroom. See Dresher, 75 Ohio St.3d at 293, 662 N.E.2d 264. And this court is free to 

enter judgment as a matter of law. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

23

{¶66} We agree with WCPO-TV that there is no basis in law for requiring any 

person to request permission merely to attend an otherwise open delinquency 

hearing. By their own terms the access applications and the orders created from 

them apply only to those who seek “permission to broadcast, televise, photograph, or 

otherwise record proceedings.” As we have explained above, neither Sup.R. 12 nor 

Loc.Juv.R. 14 place any limitation upon mere attendance at an otherwise public 

proceeding. 

{¶67} Therefore, as enforced by her courtroom personnel, Judge Hunter’s 

directive requiring an application merely to attend court proceedings served to restrict 

access to WCPO-TV reporters without a hearing and without making the Floyd/Geer

findings. The orders were thus unauthorized by law. 

{¶68} In summary, we hold that Judge Hunter’s imposition of access and 

coverage restrictions, via her September 17, 2012, February 19, 2013, and March 25, 

2013 orders that (1) compel WCPO-TV to photograph the alleged North College Hill 

offenders only “below the waist,” (2) prohibit WCPO-TV from photographing the 

juveniles’ parents, (3) require WCPO-TV to seek permission from the prosecutor and 

defense counsel prior to photographing them, (4) impose a blanket ban on WCPO-TV 

from publishing or broadcasting the names or identities of the alleged juvenile offenders 

and their parents “for all current and future proceedings regarding this matter,” and (5) 

require WCPO-TV reporters and editors merely attending court proceedings to sign an 

“Application Requesting Permission to Broadcast, Televise, Photograph, or Record 

Courtroom Proceedings,” are unauthorized by law. 

{¶69} Thus WCPO-TV is entitled to a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge 

Hunter from enforcing the September 17, 2012, February 19, 2013, and March 25, 2013 

access orders and to prevent her from imposing future restrictions without holding a 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

24

hearing and issuing findings in accordance with this opinion and the Ohio Supreme 

Court’s decisions in Floyd and Geer.

No Mandamus to Compel Prospective Observance of the Law 

{¶70} Finally, WCPO-TV has moved for summary judgment on its petition 

for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Hunter to follow the mandates of the 

federal and Ohio constitutions and the Ohio Supreme Court with regard to future 

access to her courtroom and coverage of the North College Hill cases. The writ thus 

seeks to control the prospective, quotidian operation of Judge Hunter’s courtroom. 

{¶71} But mandamus may only be employed to compel the performance of a 

present existing duty as to which there is a present default. See State ex rel. Home 

Care Pharmacy, Inc. v. Creasy, 67 Ohio St.2d 342, 343-344, 423 N.E.2d 482 (1981). 

Mandamus will not issue to require a judicial officer to prospectively observe the law, 

or to remedy the anticipated nonperformance of that duty. See id. at 343; see also 

State ex rel. Kay v. Fuerst, 156 Ohio St. 188, 188, 101 N.E.2d 730 (1951); State ex rel. 

City of East Cleveland v. Norton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98772, 2013-Ohio-3723, 

¶ 11. 

{¶72} While mandamus will not issue to compel the observance of the law 

generally, judges are not free to resolve matters in a vacuum. A principal obligation 

of any judicial officer is to “comply with the law,” including decisional law announced 

by superior courts. Jud.Cond.R. 1.1. Other remedies, including contempt 

proceedings, other extraordinary writs, and attorney and judicial discipline remain if 

a judicial officer persists in deviating from the law announced by this court and the 

Ohio Supreme Court. 

{¶73} Accordingly, we overrule WCPO-TV’s motion for summary judgment 

on its petition for mandamus. The writ is denied. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

25

Conclusion 

{¶74} We hold that WCPO-TV has established that Judge Hunter has or is 

about to exercise judicial power, that the exercise of that power is unauthorized by law, 

and that it lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. We therefore grant 

the requested writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Hunter from enforcing the 

September 17, 2012, February 19, 2013, and March 25, 2013 access orders and to 

prevent her from imposing future restrictions without holding a hearing and issuing 

findings in accordance with this opinion and the Ohio Supreme Court’s decisions in 

Floyd and Geer. 

{¶75} Because a writ of mandamus will not issue to require Judge Hunter to 

prospectively observe the law, or to remedy the anticipated nonperformance of that 

duty, we deny the writ of mandamus. 

{¶76} We allow no fees or costs in this initial action. We also vacate our 

May 10, 2013 order granting WCPO-TV’s motion for an emergency stay. 

{¶77} Having issued the writ of prohibition, Judge Hunter is hereby ordered 

to vacate each of the September 17, 2012, February 19, 2013, and March 25, 2013 access 

orders entered in the various North College Hill cases, and to verify her compliance 

with the writ by providing this court with a certified copy of her entries vacating the 

access orders no later than Tuesday, January 7, 2014. 

Writ of prohibition granted; writ of mandamus denied. 

HILDEBRANDT, P.J., and DINKELACKER, J., concur. 

Please note: 

 The court has recorded its own entry this date.