A woman named “HeatherN” wrote a blog here:
…about Nicholas Alahverdian, a man I’ve been honored to work with and try to help as he deals with gross violations of his fundamental civil rights. HeatherN is obviously an ideological feminist (she calls herself “an evil feminizi from space”) and thus looks upon everything that is published at AVFM with doubt. She refuses to analyze the facts, look at the court transcript (which I have done), speak to the employers of Nicholas including current and former state legislators in Rhode Island who are also high ranking police officers (which I have done), speak to his former classmates at Harvard (which I have done) and conduct even the most rudimentary investigation into this case. Instead, she casts broad, inept legal arguments and wails about a blog that she purports “doxxs” Mary Grebinski, Alahverdian’s accuser. Apparently blogging about a person who has severe credibility issues (after review of hundreds and hundreds of court documents) is cause for castrating anyone who would dare do so, at least to HeatherN.
Her unscholarly and incoherent drivel is enough to make me puke. She speaks authoritatively about the U.S. Constitution even though she admits she is not a lawyer, and is destroyed in the comments section of that article when an actual lawyer does confront her on her ineptitude.
In this 21st century world, blogging or responding to someone as plainly stupid as HeatherN boosts their credibility and makes them appear as if they matter. They do not. But for the sake of Nicholas Alahverdian’s name and verified good character based on multiple interviews from people across the span of Alahverdian’s life, I want to make a brief statement about how bombastic blog posts from this incredibly single-minded individual are ridiculous, unfounded, and incorrect.
And I don’t even have to make an argument because one of the commenters already did it for me:
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in State versus Williams that sex offender registration is a penalty. That is 15 years of an additional penalty attached to the misdemeanor offense. Because this misdemeanor is a serious and not a petty offense, it is mandated that the defendant be tried by a jury as per rule 23 of the Ohio rules of criminal procedure.
It is retroactively applicable because his case was pending on appeal when the Ohio supremes made its decision in the Williams case.
As far as I can surmise, in the trial transcript it shows the public defender did not present any witnesses or evidence and did not seem familiar with the case. The judge did not heed the jury demand (there is no waiver in the online docket) that was automatic and needed to be waived (because it is a serious crime). The judge also seems to prevent the defendant from speaking or firing his public defender.
That is probably the source for resorting to allegations of misconduct: the denial of an automatic jury trial without a waiver of the same as well as an attorney who did not adequately represent his or her client and was not allowed to be dismissed.
Your point about a traffic ticket jury trial is well taken. That would be frivolous and unnecessary. But SCOTUS has precedent that instructs lower courts to weigh the severity of a crime (eg, moral turpitude) when considering an automatic or “right of” jury trial. Because the penalty is extensive, the court which the defendant was tried in had to defer to the legislature as to whether or not a penalty was sufficiently severe for a crime to be considered serious. Because the crime is serious based on the penalties the legislature has attached, it is not frivolous and unnecessary to have a jury trial for an alleged crime that the Supreme Court and the legislature considers serious. A fine for a traffic ticket (or even jail for assault) for misdemeanors do not require jury trials. But the excruciating consequences of the sex offender registration, as held by the OH Supremes, shatter the “petty crime” glass due to the effects of the penalty, and a jury is required lest a waiver is submitted.
Clearly, Nicholas Alahverdian was charged with a serious crime. In my opinion, Mary Grebinski is a false accuser and should be publicly known as such. If you don’t like it, too bad. Indeed, Nicholas deserves a jury trial because:
1) He never waived his right to a jury trial after he was charged with a serious crime;
2) He and his defense counsel (a public defender who never interviewed him or Grebinski prior to the case) were not provided with important pages of the police report and Grebinski’s handwritten statement (another man was recently granted a new trial for that very problem: http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/12/anthony_lemons_gets_new_trial.html);
3) Nicholas Alahverdian was never read his Miranda rights;
4) Nicholas was never informed of the police officer (Ken M. Quatman) having a significant disciplinary history with honesty deficits.
There are many other issues with the case, including gross inconsistencies in Mary Grebinski’s story, that need warrant a new trial. HeatherN’s incoherent drivel wears horse blinders that impede upon her ability to see why this is an important case, where the misconduct comes into play, and why Nicholas was and is entitled to a jury trial. She has no credibility and is incredibly bombastic with her claims, not being trained legally and not understanding precedent in the slightest.
If you have any doubt, feel free to read what Alahverdian’s actual attorney wrote. And if you ask me, that’s some pretty great legal argument right there. Let’s see how the courts respond: I guarantee that within five years he will be innocent.