UPDATE: Ohio’s Senate Bill 295, which seeks to extend the time courts have to restore mental competency for murder defendants, is facing fierce opposition from public defenders statewide. This urgent legislation is advancing through the Ohio Senate despite concerns that it could exacerbate delays in mental health treatment and infringe on defendants’ rights.
Public defenders are rallying against the bill, arguing it is unnecessary and could further burden an already strained mental health system. The proposed legislation, which would allow courts up to five years to restore competency for aggravated murder and murder cases, is currently in the Senate Rules and Reference Committee after passing through the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The catalyst for this bill is the case of De’Lawnte Hardy, a man diagnosed with schizophrenia who is accused of killing his grandmother and Cleveland police officer Jamieson Ritter last year. Hardy, who pleaded not guilty, was deemed incompetent to stand trial and refused medication, complicating his restoration process within the current one-year legal timeframe.
If enacted, the proposed bill would pause the competency restoration timeline during any medication refusals and require state hospitals to notify courts within 14 days of such refusals. These provisions have raised significant alarm among public defenders, who argue the current system is functioning adequately without the need for such drastic measures.
Cuyahoga County Public Defender Cullen Sweeney expressed his strong disapproval, stating, “The current system does not require alteration.” He emphasized that defendants like Hardy can still be prosecuted after the one-year window if they are restored to competency. Elizabeth Miller, Ohio Public Defender, echoed these sentiments, labeling the bill as excessive and advocating for a more precise approach.
Miller pointed out alarming statistics from the Ohio Department of Behavioral Health, noting that state hospitals are operating at over 96% capacity, with around 90% of beds allocated for forensic patients. She warned that SB 295 could worsen the existing strains on the mental health care system, leading to longer waiting times for critical treatment.
Adding to the urgency, Zachary Miller, a legislative officer with the state public defender’s office, cautioned lawmakers that extending the restoration period could infringe upon defendants’ due process rights, asserting that five years of involuntary confinement before a conviction is excessively lengthy.
Meanwhile, support for the bill is emerging from some officials. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Michael O’Malley testified in favor of SB 295, claiming that the existing law is unfair to victims. This sentiment was echoed by Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, who argued in a letter that the bill would prevent defendants from “abusing the system.”
The emotional weight of this debate was underscored by the testimony of Ritter’s parents, who expressed their fears that swift justice for their son is slipping away. Jonathan Ritter implored the committee to act decisively in favor of the bill.
As this critical legislation moves forward, the implications for Ohio’s judicial and mental health systems hang in the balance. Public defenders are urging the Senate to reconsider the potential fallout of extending competency restoration periods while advocates for the bill push for more substantial protections for victims.
Stay tuned for updates on this developing story as it unfolds in the Ohio Senate.
