Melody Stewart

I serve as the Ohio Supreme Court liaison to the Ohio Access to Justice Foundation, am on the Ohio State Bar Association Advisory Council on Diversity and Inclusion, take on as many law student externs as possible, judge moot court and mock trial competitions, administer oaths of office to elected officials across the state, perform marriage ceremonies and preside over other types of ceremonial occasions, and speak to groups about the judiciary.

Past contributions include: being a Juvenile Diversion Program volunteer magistrate; serving on the Ohio Criminal Justice Recodification Committee, chairing the Capital Case Attorney Fee Council and the Board of Planning and Zoning for the City of Euclid; serving on a certified grievance committee; and serving on many community, educational, legal and civic boards of trustees.

Yes, I have had relatives who have gone through the system as offenders and as victims. The way in which it informs my views is that it is a constant reminder that people who offend, or in one instance were wrongfully accused of offending, are people first and should always be treated as such. This has always been my view as far back as I can remember, but the point is made clearer when you actually know someone and know that he or she is so much more than the persona created by the system after having been charged with, and/or convicted of, a crime. From the victim perspective, the system seems to fail to appreciate the harm done to victims too when someone is wrongfully convicted.

I take an oath to uphold the constitution and the laws of the U.S. and of Ohio. That’s what I do every day regardless of any personal views. I do not approach hot-topic cases any differently from how I approach other cases. One can’t get an appeal heard in the Supreme Court as a matter of right for most cases. Our criteria for accepting discretionary appeals is that the appeal involves: a substantial U.S. or Ohio constitutional question, a felony, or a question of public or great general interest. So based on the criteria we use to accept appeals, how our decisions affect the lives of others, regardless of whether their life experiences are different from mine, is considered from the case’s genesis in the Supreme Court.

On the 8th District Court of Appeals, I authored a dissent to a judgment and decision rendered in a post-conviction DNA case, State v. King, 2012-Ohio-4398. I found the record to be clear that the defendant was wrongfully convicted of murder. I was surprised by the majority decision to affirm the judgment that denied Mr. King’s release from prison after the evidence obtained because of post-conviction relief demonstrated that he was not the perpetrator. I poured over every page in the record. Although dissents have no precedential value, I pointed out every single mistake and wrongful analysis in the case. Years later, Mr. King was exonerated. That solidified for me that every case deserves this type of attention because you never know what impact it might have down the road, especially from the perspective of a higher court.