COLUMBUS, Ohio – A three-judge panel declined to issue arrest warrants for Donald Trump and JD Vance in a case brought by a citizen seeking their arrest and trial over their unproven claims about Haitian immigrants in Springfield eating pets, which resulted in a barrage of bomb threats and hate group activity in the town.
Instead, the Clark County Municipal Court judges referred the matter to Clark County Prosecutor Daniel Driscoll for further investigation.
Guerline Jozef, cofounder and executive director of the San Diego-based Haitian Bridge Alliance, used an Ohio law that allows private citizens to file criminal charges. She filed her first affidavit against the Republicans on Sept. 24, accusing the pair of nine criminal violations, both felonies and misdemeanors.
Jozef’s affidavit came after Vance claimed that the Haitians illegally moved to Springfield and were eating residents’ dogs, cats and wild geese. Trump followed up by airing the unsubstantiated rumors during his debate against Kamala Harris.
Haitians are in the U.S. legally under temporary protected status, and Gov. Mike DeWine, and city and state wildlife officials have said there’s no proof to them eating the animals.
After Trump, Vance and other Republicans amplified the rumors, 33 bomb threats were called into schools, health care facilities and other Springfield sites. Neo-Nazis gathered outside the mayor’s home. The Ku Klux Klan distributed flyers, urging white residents to join the fight against immigration. A local businessman who praised the work ethic of Haitians on national television received death threats.
READ MORE: Springfield court gets more documentation that could tie Trump, Vance to threats over Haitians
The Clark County Municipal Court judges – Valerie Wilt, Stephen Schumaker and Daniel Carey – considered the case en banc, or together as a group because “this is a serious matter of significant public interest,” they said in their Friday decision.
The decision to decide the case en banc was criticized as irregular by Jozef’s Cleveland attorney, Subodh Chandra.
“Instead of doing what one might ordinarily expect of a court, which is to have the clerk’s office assign the matter by random draw, the court referred the matter to all the judges,” Chandra said. “That’s not only generally unheard of for a trial court, it diffuses individual judicial responsibility. It also affords special treatment for Donald Trump and JD Vance that no other citizens would be afforded.”
Chandra also said the judges’ overall ruling was disappointing, saying parts of it were even condescending and cruel to Haitian immigrants.
The judges wrote that there wasn’t probable cause to issue the arrest warrants. They noted the candidates had the right to political speech.
“All of the conduct alleged in the Affidavit centers around the statements made by either Donald Trump or JD Vance,” the decision states. “Freedom of speech is among our most precious and protected constitutional rights. It is enshrined in the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution. Indeed, the United States and the Ohio Supreme Court have recognized the importance of speech, even when it stirs people to anger.”
The judges didn’t weigh in on whether Trump and Vance lied. They said there are occasions when the First Amendment doesn’t guarantee absolute protection to a person. But any case involving criminalization through a constitutional right must undergo a rigorous standard of review known as strict scrutiny.
And given the political nature of the case, they wrote they wouldn’t issue arrest warrants without further investigation.
“The presidential election is less than 35 days away,” the decision states. “The issue of immigration is contentious. Due to the proximity of the election and the contentiousness concerning the immigration policies of both candidates, the Court cannot automatically presume the good faith nature of the Affidavits.”
That’s not to say Jozef’s allegations are untrue, but “whether the conclusions the Affiant reaches – that being that Donald Trump and JD Vance’s political speech constitute the alleged crimes – could be influenced by her personal experiences, as opposed to an objective analysis of the alleged speech, the constitutional protected afforded to that speech, the alleged conduct occurring within that community, and a claimed nexus between the speech and that conduct,” the ruling states.
For probable cause to support a prosecution, the ruling states, the totality of the circumstances must prove that Trump and Vance are not entitled to First Amendment protection, the statements are completely false, and they’re the direct and proximate cause of the bomb threats and other activities in Springfield.
Schumaker wrote a concurring opinion that he said was to further document his reasoning. He wrote that the material submitted makes no specific allegation that Springfield, Ohio, is the proper venue for the case to be tried in.
He also took issue with the characterization that there are no credible reports of Haitians eating cats and dogs. The lawsuit only relies on statements from Gov. Mike DeWine and local officials who have dispelled the allegations.
“The statements from the officials repeatedly indicate the following very similar statements – ‘We wish to clarify that we have not been able to verify any credible reports’ – ‘they’ve found no credible evidence’ – ‘they have no evidence of that at all’ – ‘no verifiable evidence or reports to show this was true’ – ‘we have no verifiable claim that this actually happened’ –and many similar statements,” Schumaker writes. “The Court acknowledges the difficulty of proving a negative. There is a significant difference however between stating that there are no verifiable reports that a statement is true and proof and/or probable cause that a statement is false.”
The affidavit should have included police reports or other materials that would articulate facts to justify the opinion that the reports are false. Otherwise, the court is left with speculation, which is not probable cause, he wrote.
One of the pieces of evidence Jozef submitted was a CNN interview with Vance, in which he says, “I say we are creating a story meaning we are creating the American media’s focus on it.” Jozef said that this is proof that Vance has lied about Haitian immigrants. But Shumaker wrote that he had watched the video numerous times and doesn’t see that as an admission of Vance making up harmful statements.
“There is nothing in the submitted materials indicating the officials, the media and/or Counsel for the Affiant are making any efforts to investigate the reports from the Senator’s constituents,” he wrote.
Shumaker quoted from the Ohio Rules of Evidence that are to be used by state courts, if a witness is not testifying as an expert, their testimony of opinions or inferences is limited.
Chandra, the attorney representing Jozef, described the concurring opinion as seeming to “rely on a fatal shrug about whether Trump and Vance really caused the harm to Springfield.”
The law allows circumstantial evidence and inferences, Chandra said in a statement in response to the decision.
“For example, if you go to bed when there’s no snow outside and wake up in the morning to snow on the ground, you’re permitted to infer that it snowed last night,” he wrote. “Similarly, there was no havoc in Springfield until Trump and Vance relentlessly and persistently spread falsehoods about Haitians. It is reasonable to infer that they are the ultimate cause, especially when they persisted after harm started and the harm got worse.”
Chandra further says that the court doesn’t acknowledge that Trump and Vance’s persistent claims that Haitians are here illegally is false.
“The decision is condescending and cruel to Haitian immigrants,” he said. “The concurring opinion seems to pretend that somehow, it’s a coin toss as to whether Trump’s and Vance’s lies about Haitian immigrants are true and whether the governor, mayor, and city manager truly said those lies are false.”
READ MORE: Here’s what Ohio Republicans have said about Haitian migrants in Springfield
The court ignored the harm that occurred in Springfield, Chandra said.
“Because prosecutors haven’t acted to protect the Springfield community from Trump’s and Vance’s relentless falsehoods about the Haitian community, the Bridge (the Haitian Bridge Alliance nonprofit) is skeptical about whether they will do so now, especially when the court is giving them ‘cover’ not to act,” he said. “It’s not just the Haitian community that is victim to this indifference. It’s Springfield as a whole, including its government, schools, public officials, and colleges.”
- 1 in 4 students is chronically absent. Find out the cultural shift causing it, and your district’s rate here.
- New highs and lows: Ohio medical marijuana patients satisfied with state program, though patient numbers fell as rec sales began
- Springfield court gets more documentation that could tie Trump, Vance to threats over Haitians
- Women traveling to Ohio for abortion care increased in 2023: Capitol Letter
Laura Hancock covers state government and politics for The Plain Dealer and cleveland.com.
