We are all aware of Carolyn Flynn Shireman’s felony indictment yesterday, and most of us are aware that two camps of thought have formed: Shireman Zealots supporting her at every turn and the rest of us wondering if we are stuck in a strange Twilight Zone episode. I contend that those in the latter category are more likely to include individuals with intact critical thinking skills and rational decision-making processes, and the former consists of those with emotionally charged brains and underdeveloped frontal lobes. Mrs. Shireman can be argued to be many things, but most would agree that she is polarizing. Because of this, it is hard to view Mrs. Shireman with an objectively unbiased perspective. She is innately polarizing, and our collective opinions can significantly influence the fairness of her trial.

Say what you like about Carolyn and her actions, but her one accomplishment is making herself a household name. In this city, you will likely throw a stone and hit someone who knows Mrs. Shireman. The notoriety she has gathered, whether intentional or not, has sparked a conversation about how she should be treated. It is uncertain if Mrs. Shireman intentionally uses fabricated claims and public deception to mislead and misconstrue the perception of local relationships between political proponents, public figures, and the Courts or if she suffers from delusions of grandeur with a fabricated false reality. As Bucyrus Law Director Gobrecht stated, she needs a “firm hand” to understand her actions and the consequences thereof; however, due to her inability to grasp the gravity of her situation or that her actions directly cause her current consequences, we—the public—must be vigilant in ensuring that our criticism of her does not tarnish her right to due process. Because of the current discourse, I am concerned about her ability to have a just and equitable trial with the Courts.

This is not a slight towards the Court’s ability to differentiate their personal feelings from their private ones. If they are inundated as I am with unsolicited conversation about Mrs. Shireman, it is a fact they have formulated their own opinions of her; furthermore, due to the number of contentions she has raised about individuals in the Court, I argue she cannot have a fair trial without a visiting judge. Our government was established on the premise that everyone is issued due process. Unconscious bias regarding Mrs. Shireman could lead the Court to decide more harshly than intended. Conversely, it may cause the opposite effect by overcompensating and leading to a positively biased outcome for Mrs. Shireman due to the Court’s attempt to prevent the impression of impropriety, whether it is the perceived impropriety from the fabricated claims or the theoretical delusions of Mrs. Shireman or the theoretical overanalysis from the Court. It can be argued through the Courts that it is procedurally unjust for our current judges to preside over her case.  

We have due process and equal protection via the 14^th Amendment, even if the court of public opinion has deemed the person unworthy. The 14^th Amendment demands an unbiased, detached, neutral Court arbiter – such as a judge or magistrate. We can theorize that Mrs. Shireman’s defense team could argue that either scenario presented above is a reason to ask for corrective action from the courts, which could prolong or threaten the validity of the outcome of her case. The other concern is whether she can have a neutral and impartial jury. In my personal opinion, I believe that despite many people knowing who Mrs. Shireman is, some do not concern themselves with city politics and lack a social media presence, which would make for a neutral and detached pool of applicable fact-finders, known as the Jury Pool. It could be argued under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment that based on personal opinions, attacks, and speculation from Mrs. Shireman, the local Court arbitrators could not treat her equally or may be perceived as not treating her equally.

In summary, it’s clear that if anyone should want Mrs. Shireman to eat her just desserts, it would be me. However, asking for just legal practices for all is a matter of principle. Much of the online discourse has far-reaching ramifications for this case’s perception. We operate in a fishbowl in Bucyrus. Whether that is our intent, we are all bound to bump into and influence each other. Asking for a visiting judge is not uncommon for politicalized trials. If the Court recuses themselves by asking for visiting judges, it would validate Mrs. Shireman’s trial outcome regardless of whether she is guilty or innocent. Mrs. Shireman cannot argue that her case was swayed by the “Good Ol’ Boys Club” giving preferential treatment and deference to the prosecutor, the sheriff’s department, and the Board of Developmental Disabilities. In a small town, everyone is connected in some way, and despite my personal feelings towards Mrs. Shireman, my opinion of guilt or innocence is irrelevant. That is for the jury to decide. Let’s ensure we can settle this case properly and–once and for all–close the chapter of Mrs. Shireman’s relevancy in our local government.