Dismissal of murder charges in Mahoning County is toxic

We’ve heard the song before: The prosecutor’s office will be hosting a county-wide seminar on investigative techniques to address “the quality of investigations and the need for better attention to detail in all our cases.”

But the singer this time is Robert E. Bush Jr., chief of the criminal division. In the past, Prosecutor Paul Gains has delivered various versions of the song when his office has faced the same dilemma that confronts it today: Dismissal of murder charges.

Indeed, Gains first started singing in the 1996 election. At the time, he was a criminal defense lawyer, but more significantly, was a former Youngstown city police officer. Likewise, Bush is a former city police officer, having served as chief, and was a criminal defense attorney.

In subsequent elections, Gains responded to criticism about the cases that fizzled with a call for seminars to teach law enforcement types about the finer points of investigating crimes, especially homicides.

What’s gone wrong?

That’s why the collapse of several murder cases since the beginning of the year caught our attention. We wonder whether the seminars hosted by the prosecutor’s office just aren’t effective, whether those conducting them aren’t very good teachers, or whether police officers and sheriff’s deputies just aren’t willing to learn.

But beyond what Prosecutor Gains and Assistant Prosecutor Bush view as inadequate investigations, there is the question of the prosecutor’s office going forward with murder cases that appear to be based on tissue-thin evidence.

Here’s an example: On March 10, Visiting Judge Thomas P. Curran of Mahoning County Common Pleas Court dismissed an aggravated murder case and ordered defendant Melvin E. Johnson Jr. released from prison after a key prosecution witness denied seeing the fatal shooting and denied identifying Johnson in a police lineup.

Johnson was charged in the shooting death in November 2007 of Marvin L. Hodges on Jackson Street in Campbell.

Sole witness

Judge Curran pointed out in his dismissal of the case that the sole witness presented by the prosecution denied that his signature appears alongside the picture of Johnson in a photo lineup.

“The voluntary statement that he gave [police] appears to be in two different handwriting,” the judge said. “One is in cursive, and the other is essentially in black printing. He denies that the black printing is his signature.”

To citizens trapped in high-crime areas who are inclined to toward a “toss them in prison and throw away the key” system of justice, the judge’s observation of the prosecution’s case does raise eyebrows.

Indeed, the admission by the assistant prosecutor that the “investigation in total was bare,” raises this question: Why pursue the case?

The other murder cases that were dismissed since the beginning of the year reveal other problems.

We understand the desire of the prosecutor’s office to show that it is tough on crime, but when Vindicator stories reveal systemic problems, then Gains must know that the reputation of his office is suffering.

Perhaps being a ex police officer makes Gains reluctant to publicly criticize cases presented to his office by law enforcement agencies that are deficient. But it may be time for some tough talk.

And, if police investigators believe that the prosecutor’s office is inept, they have a responsibility to the taxpayers to make that known.