Judges won’t issue arrest warrants for Trump and Vance in Springfield case; refers it to the district attorneys

The judges wrote that there was no probable cause to issue the arrest warrants. They noted that the candidates had the right to political expression.

“All of the conduct alleged in the affidavit revolves around the statements of Donald Trump or JD Vance,” the decision says. “Freedom of expression is one of our most precious and protected constitutional rights. It is enshrined in the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. In fact, the United States and the Ohio Supreme Court have recognized the importance of speech, even if it incites people to anger.”

The justices have not weighed in on whether Trump and Vance lied. They said there are cases where the First Amendment does not guarantee a person absolute protection. But every case involving criminalization based on a constitutional right must be subjected to a rigorous standard of review called strict scrutiny.

And given the political nature of the case, they would not issue an arrest warrant without further investigation, they wrote.

“The presidential election is less than 35 days away,” the decision said. “The issue of immigration is controversial. Given the proximity to the election and the controversies surrounding both candidates’ immigration policies, the court cannot automatically assume that the affidavits are bona fide.”

That’s not to say that Jozef’s allegations are untrue, but “whether the conclusions Affiant reaches—namely, that the political speeches of Donald Trump and JD Vance constitute the alleged crimes—could be influenced by her personal experiences, in contrast.” “to an objective analysis of the alleged acts of speech, the constitutional protection afforded to that speech, the alleged conduct within that community, and an alleged connection between the speech and that conduct,” the ruling states.

Probable cause for prosecution, according to the ruling, must show the totality of the circumstances that Trump and Vance are not entitled to First Amendment protections, that the statements are completely false, that they are the direct and proximate cause of the bomb threats, among others Things to do in Springfield.

Schumaker wrote a concurring opinion, which he said served to further document his argument. He wrote that the material submitted does not constitute a specific assertion that Springfield, Ohio, is the appropriate place to try the case.

He also disputed the narrative that there were no credible reports of Haitians eating cats and dogs. The lawsuit relies only on statements from Gov. Mike DeWine and local officials who have refuted the allegations.

“Officers’ statements consistently point to the following very similar statements – ‘We want to be clear that we were unable to verify any credible reports’ – ‘They found no credible evidence’ – ‘They have no evidence to support this.’ “everything” – “no verifiable evidence or reports showing this to be true” – “we have no verifiable claim that this actually happened” – and many similar statements,” Schumaker writes. “The court is aware of the difficulty of proving a negative statement. However, there is a significant difference between saying that there are no verifiable reports that a statement is true and providing evidence and/or probable cause that a statement is false.”

The affidavit should have included police reports or other materials that would present facts to justify the opinion that the reports were false. Otherwise, the court will remain with speculation that is not probable cause, he wrote.

One of the pieces of evidence Jozef presented was a CNN interview with Vance in which he said, “I say we are creating a story, that is, we are creating the focus of the American media on it.” Jozef said this was evidence for saying Vance lied about Haitian immigrants. But Shumaker wrote that he had watched the video several times and did not view it as an admission that Vance made damaging statements.

“There is no indication in the materials submitted that Affiant’s officials, the media and/or counsel are making any effort to investigate the Senator’s constituents’ reports,” he wrote.

Shumaker quoted from the Ohio Rules of Evidence, which state courts must apply: Unless a witness testifies as an expert, his testimony of opinion or conclusion is limited.

Chandra, the attorney representing Jozef, described the consensus opinion as seemingly “based on a fatal shrug of the shoulders about whether Trump and Vance really did the damage to Springfield.”

The law allows circumstantial evidence and inferences, Chandra said in a statement responding to the decision.

“For example, if you go to bed when there is no snow outside and wake up in the morning to see snow on the ground, you can assume it snowed last night,” he wrote. “Similarly, there was no chaos in Springfield until Trump and Vance tirelessly and persistently spread falsehoods about Haitians. One can reasonably conclude that they are the root cause, particularly if they persisted after the damage began and the damage worsened.”

Chandra goes on to say that the court does not recognize that Trump and Vance’s continued claims that Haitians are here illegally are false.

“The decision is condescending and cruel to Haitian immigrants,” he said. “The consensus seems to act as if it is a coin toss whether Trump and Vance’s lies about Haitian immigrants are true and whether the governor, mayor and city manager have actually said those lies are false.”

READ MORE: Here’s what Ohio Republicans said about Haitian migrants in Springfield

The court ignored the damage done in Springfield, Chandra said.

“Because prosecutors have not acted to protect the Springfield community from Trump and Vance’s relentless falsehoods about the Haitian community, Bridge (the Haitian Bridge Alliance nonprofit) is skeptical that they will do so now, especially if the court agrees with them. “Cover’ not to act,” he said. “It is not just the Haitian community that is the victim of this indifference. It is Springfield as a whole, including its government, schools, officials and colleges.”

Laura Hancock covers state government and politics for The Plain Dealer and cleveland.com.