Carl J Mazzone

Question 1

List your judicial experience (courts and years)

n/a 

---

Question 2

What non-judicial legal experience qualifies you to be a judge?

Serving as an Assistant Prosecutor for the last 13 years, I have worked in our court system daily. I have seen what is working and what can be improved upon. I've handled nearly 3000 criminal cases, and I have tried almost 80 cases to verdict - 60 of which were tried ot a jury. While my practice has been entirely on the criminal side, I have been speaking with attorneys on both the civil plaintiff and civil defense sides to learn about best practices, and gain a better understanding of what their needs are and what can be improved upon to facilitate the resolutions of civil cases more efficiently.

Abbreviated Candidate Answers

---

Question 3

Why are you running for this particular court seat?

It has been my pleasure, and privilege to serve the people of Cuyahoga County for the last
thirteen years. I truly believe in public service. I truly believe our justice system can be
improved, and individuals truly passionate about that cause are necessary to bring about
those improvements. My experiences as an attorney who practices daily in the Justice
Center will enable me to bring a fresh perspective to the General Division Bench.
In my observation many of the issues confronting courts today are exacerbated by the
lack of practical experience on the bench. This year is a unique opportunity to turn over
one fifth of the General Division bench. As a practitioner, I want the Court to have a better
understanding and empathy for peoples’ time. This can only come from being a
practitioner understanding what it means to manage a docket, or have to deal with
multiple courtrooms – or multiple courts – on a daily basis. I want to bring a more
proactive approach to dealing with litigants on both the civil and criminal side so that I am
consistent, and people interacting with my courtroom generally know what to expect
when their case is assigned to me. I want to be the change I want to see.

Moreover, as a community, we have critical decisions to make about our County Jail, and
our Justice Center in the coming years. We need individuals who understand how those
institutions function (or disfunction as the case may be) now, to contribute ideas on how
to make them better in the future.

In the end, I have had a great impact on my community as an Assistant Cuyahoga County
prosecutor. I have helped hundreds of people along the way. But I believe that my skillset,
my passion, and my ideas for improving our system can give me the opportunity to have
an even greater impact on our community here in Cuyahoga County.
Generally speaking, my platform is to provide the people of Cuyahoga County with
greater transparency, consistency, and access to the court of common pleas.

DATA DRIVEN SENTENCING

I support a data-driven approach to sentencing. I support the idea of the statewide
sentencing database that Justice Donnelly has advocated for over the last several years.
While there are pros and cons in creating a database like this – for example, such a
database could be used for political purposes to say a judge is too hard on non-violent
offenders, or too soft on violent crime, or, on the other hand – become a de facto set of
sentencing guidelines similar to what is used in Federal Court which has its own issues.
In practice, each case has its own individual facts, and each individual defendant is his or
her own person. The judge has a lot of variables to consider when exercising his or her
wide discretion in sentencing. If two individuals have been convicted of the same crime,
but receive disparate sentences, the judge should be able to explain why, and keeping
data on each case can ensure the judge is consistent in sentencing individuals on his
own docket, and consistent among his or her peers within the County. This data is not
merely a “skin-deep analysis” of things like race, gender, age and prior criminal history.
After determining whether a conviction carries a mandatory prison sentence, or if the law

mandates a probation sentence, the Court should analyze things like: How many non-
merging counts, are there multiple cases, Are there priors? If so, How many? How did the

Defendant do on Court Supervised Release (if ordered), If prior probation, were there violations, were there periods of time where the Defendant was capias, was there prior
incarceration on a prior case. All these need to be considered in fashioning an
appropriate sentence for an individual – to say nothing of the input from victims under
Marsy’s Law.

That a Defendant’s outcome in Cuyahoga County has more to do with which judge they
draw at Arraignment than any other individual factor is not just an anecdote – there is
some truth to that maxim. I want to be consistent, both with my peers on the bench, but
most importantly with myself from case to case, and I want attorneys to be able to have
an idea of what to expect when they have a case in my courtroom.
Furthermore, I plan to utilize the Uniform Sentencing Entry developed by a committee
appointed by the Ohio Supreme Court. The Uniform Sentencing Entry not only ensures
that sentences are journalized properly as our sentencing code becomes increasingly
complex and cumbersome, but also assists in keeping data so sentencing outcomes can
be compared from county-to-county.

MODERN ACCESS TO THE COURT

I support remote hearings when they are appropriate. What we learned during the COVID-
19 pandemic is that the Court can conduct business to some degree remotely. Litigationcosts money, not just in time appearing before the court, but also travel time. I have no
issues with attorneys appearing by phone or video if it facilitates discussion or achieving
the end goal of the court appearance. In civil matters remote appearances can save on the
costs of litigation by cutting travel time – whether that be time spent traveling to or from
the courthouse, or arranging travel for out-of-town personnel.
Criminal cases are a little bit different. Defendants should appear in court for hearings
whenever practicable, but I do realize there are certain circumstances in which a
Defendant could appear via video conferencing (I’ve had cases where that was
appropriate), including if the Defendant is incarcerated out-of-state or within the ODRC
which would save on the costs of transport and logistics of bringing the Defendant in.
There are occasions where a Defendant is from out-of-state, and is out on bond – certain
hearings may be amenable to the Defendant appearing remotely. I should point out that
with a new county jail being located in Garfield Heights detached from the Justice Center
– whatever becomes of it in the future – we will likely see more minor hearings conducted
remotely, it worked when it was necessary during the pandemic, and will work in certain
contexts going forward.

If a motion for bond reduction is filed by a Defendant, a hearing will be held as soon as
possible, so, if bond can be reduced, and a defendant is employed, he can resume
working as soon as possible. I do not intend to have defendants who are out on bond appear at pretrials. Unless they need to appear for Court Supervised Release or are on probation with a regular reporting interval, a defendant will not need to be present unless there is a hearing, or a trial.

I plan to give trial dates at either the first or second pretrial. Parties can meet as many times as
they want between those dates. If the Court needs an attorney conference in the
meantime, that is fine. But the defendant need not be present. If the parties reach a
resolution, or need a hearing for any reason, the Defendant should appear then. But most pretrials are five-minute conversations between a prosecutor and defense attorney, with
no interaction with the Court. There is no need for a defendant to appear for that purpose.
I will not require crime victims to appear at any time unless they are subject to a lawful
subpoena.

STREAMLINED LITIGATION

I plan to utilize and adopt the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Associations Endorsed Civil
Case Management Order. This will allow me to provide civil litigants with timely rulings on
motions, access to the Court for legal arguments on appropriate request, and the best
opportunity to have a trial date certain.
I plan to start at a case management conference by selecting a trial date certain, and
working backwards from there. With parties, we will establish a dispositive motion date,
with a 30-day response time, and then a “definite ruling date” for the Court to rule on
dispositive motions. I would be amenable to an automatic continuance when a dispositive
motion has not been ruled upon by a certain number of days in advance of trial. Parties
should prepare for what is actually going to be presented at trial, not waste time and
resources preparing for something the judge will not allow, or will be dismissed in
Summary Judgment.
The Court should not hold itself to a different standard than the litigants. If the Court
expects the litigants to hold to certain deadlines, the Court should hold its end of the
bargain as well. Again, this is all about building trust in the institution, consistency
between cases, and transparency in the process. I will encourage parties to contact the
court and set up a meeting either in person on the record, or by teleconference to discuss
discovery issues before a motion to compel or something similar is filed in order to
facilitate a timely resolution to that issue and not unduly delay a trial date certain or
disturb the previously agreed upon deadlines.
Moreover, I feel compelled to state this, based on some of the things I have learned from
civil practitioners and other judges, parties should feel free to file any motion allowable
within the rules. Parties will not have to ask the court for permission to file motions which
they would otherwise be entitled to file under the rules of civil procedure, or guaranteed
by right.

Abbreviated Candidate Answers