FRANKFORT, Ky. - A Kentucky lawmaker is hopeful that a bill that would help improve outcomes for women in prison soon will be approved by the House.

Sen. Julie Raque Adams, R-Louisville, co-sponsored Senate Bill 133, which she said would address unfavorable conditions for women in prison, including access to basic health and hygiene services. The state's correctional facilities were originally built for men, she said, and are ill-equipped to handle the recent rise in the female population.

"Our female prison population is struggling to get the personal items they need, feminine-hygiene products, and there's even a lot of problems with them having undergarments that are appropriate," she said. "And in Kentucky, we still shackle women while they're giving birth."

Adams said one in four women entering the prison population either has an infant or is pregnant, and some are struggling with drug addiction. SB 133, which she called the "Dignity Bill," also would allow pregnant women in prison to enter drug treatment to help them deliver a healthy baby, and end the practice of shackling pregnant women during labor.

Jennifer Hancock, president of Volunteers of America Mid-States in Louisville, which provides addiction services for mothers and pregnant women, predicted that the bill would promote quicker access to treatment services for women who otherwise may spend their pregnancy behind bars. She contended that it's needed now more than ever.

"Some of the drugs of the past, still highly addictive, but women were able to more successfully remain abstinent during their pregnancies," she said, "and that game has changed in the face of the opioid crisis."

Some opponents have said allowing pregnant women to be released from jail for drug treatment could be problematic, opening a window for drug crimes. However, Adams argued that it will help break the cycle of addiction in families, and thus is a good return on investment.

"Delivering a baby that has been stepped down and is not a neonatal abstinence syndrome baby, that saves the state hundreds of thousands of dollars," she said. "And so, not only is this the right thing to do, it saves taxpayer money."

SB 133 passed the Senate earlier this month and recently was sent to the House Rules Committee. Details of the bill are online at lrc.ky.gov.


get more stories like this via email

Kentuckians continue to be charged, jailed and fined for cannabis-related offenses at high rates, despite dramatic shifts in public opinion, according to a new report.

Kaylee Raymer, policy analyst at the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy, said many people might not view a cannabis misdemeanor as a big deal. But hundreds or thousands of dollars in criminal fines and fees along with a record appearing on background checks can affect people financially and make finding employment difficult.

She noted depending on a person's criminal record, they could find themselves on probation.

"What the data shows us is people are being charged with this," Raymer observed. "They're being prosecuted, and more than half of them are being convicted. So these consequences are real for a lot of Kentuckians."

Kentuckians in 120 counties have faced cannabis offenses, but Western Kentucky is the region with the highest conviction rate, followed by the Appalachian region and Louisville. Before a newly passed medical cannabis law goes into effect in 2025, possession, trafficking and cultivation of cannabis remain illegal.

Raymer argued any legislation to legalize cannabis in Kentucky should also include provisions such as expungement and other measures to would address the criminal justice effects.

"For people who have been affected by this in the past, like these 300,000 people we're talking about," Raymer urged. "So that they don't continue to be harmed by these collateral consequences."

In addition to calling for the legalization, taxation and regulation of cannabis, the report called on state lawmakers to take steps to remedy the disproportionate effect such convictions have on communities of color, noting legalization policies should include proactive steps to ensure any potential tax revenue generated by the cannabis industry is invested back into affected communities.

A set of controversial reforms to Illinois' cash bail system went into effect this week, changing a decades-old system of holding people in jail until their trial begins when they can't afford to pay bail.

Backers of the change hope it will eliminate a hardship which has fallen primarily on marginalized communities. Social justice groups, some elected officials and others have hailed the Pretrial Fairness Act as a breakthrough.

Sen. Don Harmon, D-Oak Park, president of the Senate, said it should help thousands of people who often lost their jobs, housing and even custody of children because they couldn't afford bail.

"Risk-based detention takes effect, people who -- I will remind you, are considered innocent in the eyes of the law -- will now forfeit their freedom based on the threat they pose," Harmon explained. "They will not forfeit their freedom because they lack the cash to buy it."

Opponents of the act, including prosecutors and other law enforcement officials, warned it could put dangerous criminals back on the street. The new law gives judges more latitude to look at a suspect's background and other factors to consider their likelihood of committing more crimes if they return to the community.

Implementation of the act was delayed several months by a court challenge, which was recently resolved. Under the previous system, thousands of people faced financial and family consequences when they could not afford to pay for their release from jail.

Rep. Chris Welch, D-Westchester, Speaker of the House, predicted the measure will help keep families together.

"Today is the day that we stop criminalizing poverty," Welch emphasized. "Today is the day we end a system that keeps you in jail solely because you lack resources."

The Pretrial Fairness Act is part of a sweeping package of criminal justice reforms approved by the Illinois General Assembly in 2021. The law contains a number of changes affecting policing and the court system, including pretrial detention and bail, sentencing and corrections.


get more stories like this via email

By Mark Puente for The Marshall Project.
Broadcast version by Nadia Ramlagan for Ohio News Connection reporting for the Marshall Project-Public News Service Collaboration

Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Judge Leslie Ann Celebrezze violated court rules when she steered a contentious but lucrative divorce case involving a longtime friend to her own docket, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled.

The ruling bars Celebrezze from overseeing the case, in which she has faced numerous bias allegations from attorneys for Jason Jardine, a Strongsville businessman who is getting divorced. The allegations raised questions about the friendship between Celebrezze and receiver Mark Dottore.

Dottore is the judge’s lifelong family friend, who has been paid more than $500,000 in fees since 2017 for working as a court-appointed receiver in divorce cases in Celebrezze’s courtroom.

Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy’s decision permanently removes Celebrezze from the divorce case of Jardine. It does not yet affect Dottore’s assignment as receiver.

Kennedy didn’t consider Jardine’s bias allegations. Instead, the judge found the point moot because Celebrezze violated court policy when she unilaterally moved Jardine’s case to her docket after another judge recused herself.

Kennedy disqualified Celebrezze to avoid an appearance of impropriety, the ruling states.

“Judge Celebrezze was not randomly assigned to Jardine’s case. The failure to randomly assign the case was in violation of the local rules,” Kennedy wrote in her ruling released Friday.

“Therefore, to allay any concerns about the integrity of the underlying case, and to ensure to the parties and the public the unquestioned neutrality of an impartial judge, Judge Celebrezze is disqualified.”

Celebrezze declined to comment. The Jardine case, according to the court’s online docket, has been reassigned to Judge Diane Palos, who joined the court in 2009.

In a written response to the allegations seeking her removal, Celebrezze said that it was her practice to reassign complex and contentious cases to herself. Kennedy balked at the claim.

“Each judge of that court is presumed competent to handle any assigned case, even complex and contentious matters,” Kennedy wrote.

“Regardless of Judge Celebrezze’ s intention, the purpose of randomly reassigning cases after one judge recuses is defeated when the administrative judge handpicks a case to keep for herself.”

Kennedy also ruled that Judge Tonya Jones violated local rules when she recused herself from Jardine’s case in August 2022 and reassigned the case to Celebrezze.

Jones stepped aside because “her former staff attorney left employment with the court and accepted employment with” Jardine’s attorney, the court previously said.

“Judge Jones was without authority to issue an order recusing from the case and reassigning the matter to Judge Celebrezze,” Kennedy wrote.

Jones also declined to comment.

Meanwhile, the controversy around Celebrezze and Dottore has widened.

Georgeanna Semary, Celebrezze’s judicial assistant since 2009, contends she was transferred out of the judge’s office in April and forced to take a $20,000 pay cut after she allowed The Marshall Project - Cleveland to review public records involving Dottore or his company, court records show.

Semary provided a reporter with copies of billing invoices from Dottore’s firm contained in the public file.

After the demotion and pay cut, Semary retained the Chandra Law Firm, which specializes in civil rights cases. In anticipation of a lawsuit, Chandra Law attorneys earlier this month requested copies of court policies, emails, pay records and other documents to better understand why Semary was demoted after The Marshall Project - Cleveland published a story about Celebrezze.

“This should also include any documents that reflect why Ms. Semary’s job was changed on or about the day that The Marshall Project published an article about Judge Celebrezze,” attorney Subodh Chandra wrote in a request to the court

“If Ms. Semary did something wrong that merited adverse actions against her, we expect to receive the records that document that.”

Earlier this summer, The Marshall Project - Cleveland reported that the volume of work Celebrezze gave to Dottore raises questions over whether the judge usurped case assignment policy to drive lucrative cases to her friend.

The Marshall Project - Cleveland noted that the court’s rules state: “When it is necessary for a case already assigned to a judge to be reassigned due to a recusal, the administrative judge will reassign a judge, at random, and record the reassignment on the docket.”

Additionally, three of the court’s other judges each told The Marshall Project - Cleveland that they have never seen the need to appoint receivers in divorce cases.

In complex divorce cases, judges can appoint receivers — often charging couples thousands of dollars — to act as neutral parties to control marital property, including real estate, cash and businesses. Receivers have the sole authority to manage the businesses and assets at their discretion throughout the litigation.

Kennedy temporarily removed Celebrezze from the Jardine divorce case on May 18 after Jardine’s attorneys filed an affidavit of disqualification to remove her from the case.

Celebrezze has known Mark Dottore most of her life. Dottore has served as a receiver on cases in her courtroom, as well as many other area judges, on numerous occasions. He also served as campaign treasurer when she ran successfully for her judgeship in 2008. Her campaign headquarters is listed under his business address.

Government watchdogs have suggested that the close relationship raises questions about transparency in Celebrezze’s courtroom and whether she rules without bias in cases involving Dottore and his company.

Kennedy’s ruling marks at least the second time since 2009 that Celebrezze has been removed from a divorce case in which Dottore was assigned as receiver.

Celebrezze made headlines that year after the Ohio Supreme Court ordered her removal from a divorce case involving Marc Strauss, a wealthy real estate developer. Dottore was also the receiver in the case and cited as a reason to disqualify Celebrezze, The Plain Dealer reported in May 2009.


Mark Puente wrote this article for The Marshall Project.

This collaboration is produced in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.


get more stories like this via email