A domestic stalking case in Ohio turned heated when the defense team expressed shock and anger at the sentencing imposed by Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge David Matia, despite a plea deal that was supposed to avoid jail time.
The case involved Hannah Freeman, a 27-year-old educator accused of stalking her ex-boyfriend, which resulted in a tense courtroom argument between her attorney and the judge.
The Stalking Case and Plea Deal
Hannah Freeman was accused of stalking her ex-boyfriend, which included showing up uninvited at his workplace, stealing personal items, and running up charges on his credit card.
Surveillance and body camera footage from November 2024 captured Freeman’s behavior, including an incident where she followed the man to his apartment and took his belongings. The victim, in his statements to the police, claimed that Freeman had even stolen medications, his wallet, and a laptop.
As the case moved through the courts, Freeman agreed to plead guilty to several misdemeanor charges, including disorderly conduct, possession of criminal tools, and obstruction, in exchange for avoiding more serious felony charges.
Her defense attorney, Michael Kinlin, claimed that as part of the plea deal, prosecutors had agreed to a sentence of probation instead of jail time, considering Freeman’s lack of prior criminal history.
The Unexpected Sentence
However, when Judge Matia handed down the sentence on Thursday, it included seven days in jail, 18 months of probation, 90 days of house arrest with work release, mental health counseling, and a no-contact order with the victim.
The defense team was caught off guard by the jail time, and Kinlin immediately tried to withdraw Freeman’s plea, arguing that the sentence was not in line with the agreement made with prosecutors.
This led to an intense exchange in the courtroom. Kinlin attempted to explain that they had reached an agreement with the prosecution, but the judge was quick to respond, emphasizing that it was his responsibility to impose the sentence. Matia’s response was sharp: “You didn’t agree with me, Mr. Kinlin, and I am charged with sentencing.”
Tension in the Courtroom
As Kinlin insisted that the agreed-upon sentence should be respected, Judge Matia criticized the defense attorney’s actions. The judge pointed out that Kinlin had not made the effort to discuss sentencing with him prior to the plea deal, despite the lengthy time between Freeman’s indictment in December and her plea in June.
Matia expressed frustration, saying, “Your bad practice is not my problem,” and continued to dismiss the defense attorney’s objections.
Freeman, who had been visibly upset throughout the proceedings, seemed to finally come to terms with her sentence as the judge delivered his final remarks. The judge called the situation a “bizarro breakup” between two professionals and remarked that Freeman should have recognized the end of the relationship with the victim, who was now seeing someone else.
Legal Implications of the Case
This case highlights the importance of proper communication and preparation between defense attorneys and judges, especially when plea deals are involved.
Criminal defense attorney Diane Menashe pointed out that it’s common practice for attorneys to ensure that they are well-informed about a judge’s potential sentencing stance before entering a plea deal. By failing to discuss the matter with Judge Matia in advance, Kinlin may have put Freeman in a difficult position.
Menashe emphasized the role of the defense attorney in preparing their client for the maximum potential penalties, regardless of the terms of the plea deal. She suggested that Kinlin’s oversight in not communicating with the judge prior to the hearing contributed to the courtroom conflict.
Freeman’s Actions and the Public’s Reaction
Freeman’s case, which includes charges of stalking, theft, and identity fraud, underscores the serious consequences of domestic abuse and harassment. Despite Freeman’s lack of a prior criminal history, her actions were deemed severe enough to warrant jail time.
The judge’s remarks about her behavior, particularly his comment on her not recognizing that the relationship was over, reflect the gravity with which the legal system views such cases.
The courtroom exchange and Freeman’s sentence have raised questions about the effectiveness of plea deals, especially when the judge does not adhere strictly to the agreements made between defense attorneys and prosecutors.
This case also underscores the need for better communication and more careful attention to sentencing details during the plea negotiation process.
