A Congressman on Trial – Part 2

           As soon as the indictment of Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was announced and a trial date was set for May 24, 1989, the calls started. All the major news outlets, including television and the press, contacted Franklin County Domestic Relations Court for information and to inform us that they would be covering the trial. Even in those days well before Cable News, it became apparent that we were going to be overrun by reporters and cameras.

            The first problem we had to solve was where to conduct the trial. None of the courtrooms available to us were sufficient to conduct a trial garnering this much attention. I contacted my friend, Judge Frank Reda of the General Division and asked to "borrow" his courtroom for the trial. It had plenty of seating and a jury box. He graciously agreed.

            Rep. Lukens hired Tom Tyack, another old friend of mine and one of the finest defense lawyers in Columbus, to represent him. Mike Miller, the Franklin County Prosecutor assigned Assistant Prosecutor Rita Mangini to the case. The two experienced, capable lawyers helped the case proceed as smoothly as possible.

            The alleged victim, Rosie Coffman, was clear concerning her recitation of the events that brought us to the trial. But the pivotal witness turned out to be J. D. Caudill, a private investigator hired by Lukens. Caudill testified that, during a conversation with Lukens, the Congressman admitted having sexual intercourse with Coffman, and generally corroborated Coffman's description of the evening's events.

            During his cross-examination of Rosie Coffman, Tyack attempted to enter into evidence her prior, and rather extensive, juvenile record, setting up the central legal issue in the case. Tyack's theory was that her juvenile record clearly indicated that she was unruly and delinquent prior to her involvement with Lukens; thus, he could not have contributed to her delinquency.

            I took a recess and did some research, which indicated to me that the proffered evidence was inadmissible. The concept of the "throwaway delinquent" – a child who was already so bad that she could not be made worse – had been rejected by the courts of Ohio. I knew that my ruling would be reviewed by the Court of Appeals, so I was very clear about my reasoning when I announced my decision from the bench.

            The jury was instructed and began its deliberations at 10:30 on May 26. At noon, the light above the jury room door lit up, indicating that the jury wished to communicate with the Court. Assuming that the jury members wanted to inquire about lunch, I sent my bailiff to inquire. She returned to my office rather breathlessly and said, "They have a verdict."