The sheriff thinks an argument led to the assistant prosecutor's complaint.

The sheriff thinks an argument led to the assistant prosecutor's complaint.
By PATRICIA MEADE
VINDICATOR CRIME REPORTER
YOUNGSTOWN -- Michael Budd jeopardized the prosecution of a deputy accused of a sex crime because he lacked investigative training for a case of its magnitude, withheld evidence and appeared deceitful at the grand jury, an assistant county prosecutor said.
The allegations made by Jay Macejko are contained in a seven-page letter sent to Mahoning County Sheriff Randall A. Wellington titled: "Internal affairs complaint against Maj. Michael Budd." The letter is dated March 14, 2003.
"I must conclude that no one is less deserving of your trust or the trust of the people of Mahoning County than Michael Budd," Macejko said near the end of his long complaint. "He is incompetent, malicious and dishonest. ... Never in my career have I witnessed more unprofessional, unlawful and shameful conduct in a case of this importance."
Macejko said Budd violated several of the sheriff's department general orders and asked Wellington to appoint an independent investigator.
The same day Macejko's complaint was delivered, he sent a fax to the sheriff withdrawing it "at this time," saying he was instructed to do so by his supervisor.
The Vindicator obtained the documents from Prosecutor Paul J. Gains after making a public records request.
Indicted
Budd, 43, of Boardman, is under indictment, charged with violating the civil rights of inmates by using excessive force. He has been demoted to deputy and placed on paid leave.
Macejko's complaint was sent about a week after a plea that had been worked out with then-Deputy Mark Dixon fell apart (March 5, 2003) and after Budd invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination before a grand jury (March 6, 2003).
The sheriff's department investigation of Dixon began in November 2002, when an inmate said Dixon forced her to perform oral sex in her cell.
Gains, meanwhile, said that he ordered Macejko to withdraw the complaint because the sheriff said he wanted the FBI to look into how the prosecutor's office handled the case against Dixon. Gains said he didn't want the complaint to have a negative impact on a federal investigation.
Wellington said Tuesday that he received but didn't open the envelope containing Macejko's complaint letter because Gains wanted it back immediately. The Vindicator supplied Wellington with a copy of Macejko's complaint Tuesday.
Wellington read it, then said he wasn't prepared at this time to give the newspaper a report Budd wrote that chronicled his version of what happened in the Dixon case.
"All I can say is I know there was major argument before going into the grand jury room, vulgarity thrown by both sides," the sheriff said. "I think that's what precipitated this," he said of Macejko's complaint.
During an interview with The Vindicator on March 14, 2003, the sheriff questioned why, four months after the alleged crime, the prosecutor's office had entered into plea negotiations with Dixon's attorney for a reduced charge instead of presenting evidence of a rape to a grand jury. It was that day, the day of Macejko's memo, that the sheriff said he wanted an FBI probe of the prosecutor's office.
Wellington told the newspaper at the time: "I want the federal authorities to come in and investigate this case. There is definitely a civil rights violation here. The victim is not being accorded her constitutional rights."
He said Tuesday that nothing has happened as a result of his request to the FBI. The FBI would not comment.
Dixon, who is no longer on the sheriff's department payroll, was indicted in March 2003 and charged with sexual battery. A pretrial is scheduled for Friday afternoon in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court, but his lawyer has asked that the hearing be reset.
Dixon is also under federal indictment in the civil rights inmate-beating case that includes Budd and six others.
What letter said
Macejko said in his letter that Budd focused on charging Dixon in the sex case rather than taking an objective approach and waiting for the evidence to develop. The assistant prosecutor added that Budd failed to provide evidence in a timely manner and Budd referred to the prosecutor's office as a "clown operation."
If a law enforcement officer withholds evidence from a prosecutor, the prosecutor is just as culpable in the eyes of the court as the law enforcement officer directly responsible for the withholding, Macejko wrote.
Budd placed the prosecutor's office in a position where it must defend his nearly indefensible conduct, Macejko wrote. The ramifications of the major's conduct could range from discovery sanctions to outright dismissal of the case, the letter says.
"Simply stated, Major Budd violated established constitutional principles in order to obtain a conviction," Macejko wrote.
Complaints
Macejko said he requested all the Dixon evidence Jan. 28, 2003, but Budd provided "merely" a videotape of the victim's statement.
Macejko said he tried to obtain additional information March 5, 2003, the day Dixon was set to plead guilty, but Budd, despite a promise to provide the information, did not and arrived late. The major explained that he was delayed because he had to respond to the scene of an accident involving a county cruiser, the complaint letter states.
The assistant prosecutor said it wasn't until March 6, 2003, that he obtained a complete copy of the file and that was only accomplished when Budd was subpoenaed to the grand jury.
Macejko said a comparison of the evidence file turned over to the prosecutor's office with files later received from Budd showed that Budd withheld 18 items, including the suspect's written statement and records that show the victim went to the medical unit after reporting visual and auditory hallucinations. "This evidence bears directly upon the defendant's right to a fair trial and my obligations of timely disclosure of evidence," Macejko said in his complaint letter.
At the grand jury March 6, 2003, Budd did not present evidence impartially and provided evasive answers, Macejko wrote. Budd then invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, which, under the circumstances, was entirely improper, the assistant prosecutor wrote.
Budd presented copies of a medical cell log to the grand jury that contained obvious alterations, Macejko wrote. He added: "Major Budd never brought this to the attention of prosecutors and never provided an adequate or credible explanation of the alterations prior to its presentation."
Macejko wrote that Budd conducted the videotaped interview with the victim in the medical area of the jail but never told the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation crime scene technician that the crime scene had not been immediately sealed and preserved. Numerous people had gone into the area, potentially destroying or contaminating evidence, Macejko said, calling it further evidence of incompetence.
meade@vindy.com