From left, John Gamble sits with his defense attorneys Ron Yarwood and John Juhasz during opening statements in his criminal trial in Columbiana County Municipal Court for four counts of complicity to violate Ohio’s Little Hatch Act, which prohibits classified employees from participating in partisan political activity. The case involves a photo of classified police officers with him during his failed 2020 campaign for county prosecutor. By the end of Wednesday, two of the counts were dismissed by the state. The trial is continuing this morning. (Photo by Mary Ann Greier)

LISBON — The jury trial in the criminal complicity case against John Gamble over a 2020 campaign photo when he ran for Columbiana County prosecutor is continuing this morning, but with two less charges against him.

After the state finished with its witnesses Wednesday afternoon in county Municipal Court, after the jurors were dismissed for the day, Senior Assistant Ohio Attorney General Dan Kasaris moved to dismiss two of the four counts against Gamble.

Specifically, he asked to dismiss the counts of complicity dealing with soliciting two classified East Liverpool city police officers to take part in politics by having them pose for the photo. The defense did not object and the motion was approved.

“There’s been no evidence of procuring,” Kasaris said.

Pending this morning are decisions by Visiting Judge David Stucki on whether to admit certain key pieces of evidence for the state, including the photo and screenshots of the Facebook page John Gamble for Prosecutor.

Also pending is a decision on whether to just dismiss the case now, as requested by the defense, claiming the state hasn’t proven its complaint.

“There is zero evidence here that John Gamble aided and abetted anything,” defense attorney John Juhasz argued.

The two remaining counts alleged that Gamble aided and abetted the two named police officers in violating Ohio’s Little Hatch Act, which prohibits classified employees from participating in partisan political activity. The counts alleged that the photo in front of the courthouse was then allegedly used on the Facebook page for Gamble’s campaign, with the words that police officers endorsed him and had his back like he had their’s for 30 years.

The case began on Aug. 4, 2020 when the Ohio Attorney General’s Office filed the four misdemeanor counts against Gamble for complicity to violate Ohio’s Little Hatch Act. At the time, Gamble was the county chief assistant prosecutor, which is an unclassified position.

When the photograph of Gamble with several area police officers appeared on his alleged campaign Facebook page with the statement that they supported him, county Republican Party Chairman David Johnson took issue with it. He attempted to get Gamble to take it down, then when he didn’t, Johnson contacted Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a fellow Republican, with his complaint.

Yost wrote a letter to Gamble, advising of the violation since some of the officers were classified employees and telling him to cease and desist. When he didn’t, the charges were filed.

Kasaris and defense attorneys Juhasz and Ron Yarwood spent much of the morning selecting the jury of four men and four women, with one male alternate. The jury pool included 50 potential jurors. Questions asked included their party affiliations, whether they voted in the 2020 election for prosecutor and whether they knew anyone associated with the case.

During opening statements, both Kasaris and Juhasz said the case was about following the law, but they had different definitions for what that meant. According to Kasaris, the classified police officers took part in partisan politics by posing in a photo for a political ad. He went through the timeline of the photo being posted on July 16, 2020, the complaint by Johnson, the letter from Yost dated July 24, 2020 and then the filing of charges on Aug. 4.

Juhasz noted that Gamble couldn’t be charged with violating the Little Hatch Act and the police officers weren’t charged, just Gamble with complicity, what he referred to as an “end around.” He said the case is about the First Amendment.

“Nothing more was done than freely expressing personal opinion,” Juhasz said regarding the officers.

Witnesses for the state included Jane Miller, who’s now retired and previously worked as the secretary of the Civil Service Commission in East Liverpool, St. Clair Township Police Chief Brian McKenzie, East Palestine Police Detective Dan Haueter, Bureau of Criminal Investigation criminal analyst Andrea Bujorian via a videotaped deposition, and BCI special agent Jon Lieber. Miller testified about the list of classified employees for East Liverpool in 2020, both McKenzie and Haueter, who are both unclassified employees, testified about being in the photo but both indicated they didn’t know what the photo was for when they went. Bujorian testified about taking screenshots of the Gamble for Prosecutor Facebook page with the photos and posts for his campaign and Lieber testified about his investigation and the timeline for filing charges.

Both officers had long relationships with Gamble through their positions in law enforcement, with Haueter calling him a friend and saying he supported him. He didn’t cooperate initially when contacted by Lieber in 2020, but then was interviewed in 2023.

During questioning by Kasaris, Lieber said the claim that he didn’t investigate before filing the charges was not true. He said he viewed the Facebook page, identified some of the officers and checked to see if any were classified employees.

“We just never file charges without probable cause,” he said.

During the testimony, Kasaris reviewed several of the state’s exhibits with him. When a photo was put up on the television behind him, Yarwood objected, noting that he never asked if he could show it to the jurors. He also objected to multiple exhibits of the state, saying they weren’t authenticated. Juhasz also raised an objection over a letter from Yost, saying that Lieber wasn’t the custodian of the record so the letter shouldn’t be introduced. There was also no evidence offered that Gamble even received the letter.

Juhasz and Yarwood also questioned whether there was any proof that Gamble had control of the Facebook page, making it one of the arguments for dismissal because there was no evidence of who was posting the information.

Kasaris said the evidence was circumstantial, because Gamble was in the photo, it was his campaign.

Another question by Juhasz was whether the administrative code, which lists what classified employees can do regarding campaigns, was reviewed at all. Lieber said it wasn’t.

This is the second trial in this case, with Stucki dismissing it the first time around, but then 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 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.

mgreier@mojonews.com