Aisha’s Law encounters legislative realities
Aisha’s Law, COLUMBUS — what seems like a simple bill offered up earlier this year to better protect domestic violence victims, still could be months away from getting to the finish line in the Ohio General Assembly.
A number of issues have delayed Ohio House Bill 3 — starting shortly after sponsor Rep. Janine Boyd, a Cleveland Heights Democrat, announced her proposal in February.
The original idea was simple: require police to use a simple, 11-point assessment to determine the risk that an accused abuser would later murder the victim, get more victims help, create tougher penalties for alleged abusers and make them accountable so they won’t abuse again.
Early on, prosecutors voiced concerns about restrictions on plea deals in domestic violence cases. She met with them. And it wasn’t until May that the bill was introduced.
Boyd said she also met with domestic violence advocates, representatives of Gov. Mike DeWine’s office, the courts and others to work out their objections and consider provisions they thought would make the bill work better.
Now public defenders are dead-set against the bill and the ACLU of Ohio has come out against part of it.
Though even opponents say they understand the intent behind Aisha’s Law — sparked by the murder case involving a former Cuyahoga County judge accused of killing his ex-wife — the bill’s passage is a long way off due to the complications of having so many groups involved.
Aisha’s Law has had three committee hearings. Lawmakers are off for a summer recess and likely won’t consider the bill again until the fall.
“It’s still a priority bill,” said Boyd, who is sponsoring the measure with Cincinnati-area Republican Rep. Sara Carruthers. “I’m not interested in passing uninformed policy that could have unintended consequences.”
Aisha Fraser
HB 3 is named after Aisha Fraser, a beloved Shaker Heights teacher who was fatally stabbed in November. Authorities said she was stabbed by her former husband, Lance Mason — a former Cuyahoga County Common Pleas judge and former state lawmaker.
Mason has pleaded not guilty to aggravated murder and other charges, and remains jailed on a $5 million bond. No trial date has been set.
In 2015, Mason went to prison after he was convicted of beating Fraser in the car while their children were in the back seat.
That time, he punched her 20 times, slammed her face into the car’s dashboard repeatedly, pushed her when she tried to escape the car at a stoplight and choked and bit her.
Research shows that after each time an alleged abuser has a point of contact with the court system, violence against the victim will escalate. Boyd said her wide-ranging bill is aimed at better addressing these situations and preventing murder.
Violation of the 6th Amendment?
HB 3 would allow prosecutors to use certain text messages, social media posts and remarks from an alleged victim that are considered “hearsay” and not normally admissible in court — without requiring victims to face the accused in the trial, Cuyahoga County Public Defender Mark Stanton said.
That provision is a violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Stanton said. The right generally allows the accused or their attorneys to cross examine their accusers, who would usually be the alleged victims in domestic violence trials.
The hearsay changes in House Bill 3 would change the rules of what is admissible — known as the Rules of Evidence — but only in domestic violence cases, Stanton said. That creates a two-tier system: One for domestic violence defendants and another for all the other defendants, he said.
“It’s inherently unconstitutional,” Stanton said. “You’re saying a person who is charged with domestic violence has less of a right to a fair trial than anyone else.”
Public defenders are also concerned that it’s the legislature — and not the Ohio Supreme Court — that is changing the Rules of Evidence. A rules committee at the Supreme Court makes those changes, and it has that right under the Ohio Constitution, said Niki Clum of the Office of the Ohio Public Defender.
But Boyd, HB 3’s sponsor, said the hearsay changes aren’t that unique. Other states allow the remarks and statements without requiring the victim to be present in court.
Domestic violence cases frequently unravel under the current system because the victims are too scared to testify, she said.
The bill has parameters around the hearsay: The statement must attempt to describe the threat or infliction of physical injury against the victim, it must be made at or near the time of the alleged violence and “the statement was made under circumstances that would indicate its trustworthiness,” among others.
The system doesn’t work for victims, Boyd said, and it’s time to start thinking about them.
“I’m tired,” he said. “I really am legitimately genuinely tired of women and victims in general not being believed and not being supported and not having the full protections of the law available with them.”
Boyd also said she’s submitted a recommendation to the Ohio Supreme Court that the Rules of Evidence change to align with what she’s trying to do in the bill. She said the proposal is under consideration.
Death penalty
The ACLU of Ohio is opposed to the part of the bill that expands aggravated murder charges. Aggravated murder convictions result in life in prison or the death penalty, and the ACLU opposes the death penalty, its chief lobbyist, Gary Daniels, said.
Under HB 3, a person can be charged with aggravated murder if the victim was a family or household member and if the offender had previously been convicted of domestic violence.
“Capital punishment just by itself we believe has more to do with race and geography and income than it does having to do with justice,” Daniels said. “And then when you look at cap punishment in Ohio, we’ve had numerous botched executions and them we’ve had nine exonerated from death row.”
Boyd said her mind goes back to the victims.
“I’m not pro-death penalty,” she said. “I’m tired of seeing women undervalued. And women are the majority of victims in domestic violence situations. And the kind of torture, we had a hearing for all testimony — opponents, proponents — I listened to survivors and victims of domestic violence tell their stories.”
Evolving bill
Boyd said Aisha’s Law is a work in progress and nowhere near being heard on the House floor.
The bill has already been significantly altered, she said.
The bill originally included new penalties for committing domestic violence in the presence of one or more children under age 18. But people on both sides of the bill told her it would result in more kids going to foster care, so it was removed, she said.
Other parts of the bill are still not yet finalized. For instance, Boyd wants to increase penalties for domestic violence strangulation, since it too is associated with later homicides. She’s doing research on what other states do and what advocates recommend.
Boyd said she doesn’t want any provision of the bill to end up in the final version without it being fully vetted.
That said, she also believes everyone in the system needs to do things differently — from domestic violence programs to prosecutors, defense attorneys, the police and the courts.
“Something has to change,” she said. “These people are being murdered.”
Domestic violence cases frequently unravel under the current system because the victims are too scared to testify.