Disclosure worry complicates case

By D.a. Wilkinson

LISBON — A judge will have to rule in the latest request by the state in a case that has local law enforcement officials up in arms because they must come up with more information.

Judge C. Ashley Pike of Columbiana County Common Pleas Court recently ordered more disclosure by the county prosecutor’s office in a pending murder case.

Judge Pike’s ruling came after Wellsville authorities failed to mention a statement purportedly made by Eric Dillard, 30, of Commerce Street, after he was charged with murder.

Dillard was charged with shooting an acquaintance, Jamie A. Farley, 35, of East Liverpool, on Commerce Street in Wellsville about 10 p.m. April 22, 2008. He is claiming self-defense.

Authorities have said the two men were acquainted.

John Gamble, an assistant county prosecutor, has asked the judge to review the statements of state witnesses privately. Gamble asked that if the judge released the material, the defense team be barred from disseminating the information.

Gamble argued that Dillard is free on bond, and some of the witnesses live in Dillard’s neighborhood. Gamble wrote that the case created “a likelihood of witness intimidation and coercion.”

Gamble also asked the judge to privately review the defense’s case to make sure all information has been turned over to prosecutors.

Dillard’s lawyers, James Hartford and Douglas A. King, pointed out in court documents that Dillard is at his home but is wearing an electronic monitoring device.

The defense brief to the judge states, “It is further submitted that recent protestations [over open discovery or disclosure] by local law enforcement officials in local newspapers are similarly unfounded in all likelihood.”

Open discovery requires prosecutors to share evidence with defense lawyers before a defendant goes on trial. The defense also must share its evidence with the prosecutor’s office.

But some county law enforcement officials have said they feel they will have to spend more of their time doing background checks on everyone connected to a crime, a process that could be an additional financial burden for some departments.

The defense brief to the judge said that police and the prosecutor’s office have easy access to computerized background checks.

More open disclosure of evidence in cases is an issue that has been looked at by the Ohio Supreme Court and judges in other counties.