Trending
LISBON -- A jury trial remains set Aug. 16 in the criminal complicity case against John Gamble over a photograph from his failed 2020 campaign for Columbiana County prosecutor, with a decision on a defense motion to dismiss pending.
Visiting Judge David Stucki, who was assigned to handle the case in Columbiana County Municipal Court, said he was taking the arguments for and against the proposed dismissal under advisement. He's expected to rule on the motion in the coming weeks.
A former chief assistant prosecutor for Columbiana County, Gamble was running for county prosecutor as a Democrat when a photo with several area police officers appeared on his Facebook page with the statement that they supported him. Columbiana County Republicans questioned the use of the photo, prompting the office of Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost to file the criminal case against Gamble in August 2020.
Gamble was charged with four misdemeanor counts of complicity to violate Ohio's Little Hatch Act, which prohibits classified employees from participating in partisan political activity. The classified police officers appearing in the photo with Gamble were not charged with any violations. Gamble's position was considered unclassified. He lost the election to Republican Vito Abruzzino, the current county prosecutor.
Stucki previously dismissed the case, but the attorney general's office appealed the decision to the Seventh District Court of Appeals. The 11th District Court, sitting for the Seventh District, overturned the dismissal and ruled the trial court erred, noting the lack of a determination on whether Gamble could be charged with complicity since he couldn't be charged with a violation of the Little Hatch Act as an unclassified county employee.
Gamble's attorneys, Ron Yarwood and John Juhasz, appealed the ruling to the Ohio Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case, sending the case back to county Municipal Court for Stucki to hear again. Senior assistant Ohio Attorney General Dan Kasaris is representing the state.
During the motions hearing Friday, Yarwood said the whole case comes down to the photograph and whether it violates the Little Hatch Act. He argued that every citizen has a right to free speech and that's what this was, an expression of free speech. He said a person can't be complicit to someone else doing what they want to do and "can't be complicit to something that was non-criminal."
He again referred to the photograph as the single issue, saying a picture is said to be a thousand words.
"We have free speech and we're allowed to use our words and say what we think," Yarwood said.
Kasaris argued against the motion to dismiss, saying "whether or not a crime occurred is an issue of fact," one that should be up to a jury. In his answer against the motion to dismiss, he said Gamble "does not have a First Amendment right to solicit others to break the law, or to aid others in breaking the law. He lawfully can be charged with complicity in this case."
Stucki asked questions of both Kasaris and Yarwood related to their arguments. He also asked if there were any pretrial issues that needed to be addressed, with Yarwood questioning if they received any evidence of the deal made with officers to not charge them.
Kasaris said he spoke with the union representative for the officers in question and said if the case got to trial and they testified, they would be given immunity for violating the Little Hatch Act. He said that was in a written email.
The judge also discussed jury instructions briefly, asking the attorneys to notify him if they had anything they wanted included.