A nonprofit news organization covering the U.S. criminal justice system
About
Feedback?
support@themarshallproject.org
Lisa Forbes' responses to questions from the community.
When not on the bench, I help provide access to opportunity to some of Cuyahoga County's most vulnerable residents through my service on the combined boards of The Centers (formerly the Center for Families and Children), Circle Health (formerly the Free Clinic), and Cleveland Christian Home for children. I just completed a two-year term as chair of the boards.
My service to the community also includes participation in the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association’s bar applicant admissions committee and as a Rights, Responsibilities, and Realities teacher. Additionally, before becoming a judge, I regularly volunteered on Election Day so that every registered voter was able to cast a ballot and have it count.
No one close to me has experienced going through the criminal justice system.
On the Ohio Supreme Court, I will apply the law to protect the rights of all Ohioans. As a judge, my duty is to the law, without regard to my personal views. I will not engage in result-oriented decision-making. Where the law is clear, I will apply it. Where the law is ambiguous, I will use standard tools of interpretation, starting with the plain language of the text. I will not redefine words to serve my own purposes or to achieve a particular outcome. Legislating from the bench leads to uncertainty and erodes respect for the court. The high court should act with integrity, issuing opinions that explain the rationale behind any decision, and articulate the points of law and facts that drive each decision.
State v. Sealey, 2021-Ohio-1949, which I wrote, found the Reagan Tokes Law to be unconstitutional for failing to provide due process when nameless, faceless bureaucrats decide whether certain prisoners go home on their presumptive release dates or are further detained in prison to serve some or all of the “tail” imposed at their sentencing. After Sealey was released, the discussion changed. No longer did anyone argue that the statute afforded due process, and the idea that due process was required was accepted. How I handled this case shows how I will approach being on the high court. I thoroughly researched the novel question to ensure I had a full understanding to enable me to make a well-reasoned decision.