Members of public can make own decisions on court case

The public is getting a long-over- due look at why prosecutors thought it was important to pursue criminal charges in what came to be known as the Oakhill Renaissance Place criminal conspiracy case.

It is information that the defendants argued mightily to keep out of the public eye. In a decision that this newspaper characterized as wrong-headed from the start, visiting Judge William H. Wolff Jr. took the extraordinary step of sealing key documents in that case. The Vindicator and 21 WFMJ-TV hired Columbus Atty. Marion Little to force the unsealing of those documents, and this week the Ohio Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion doing so.

The public is now getting to see some of the specific accusations against Anthony M. Cafaro Sr., the Cafaro Co., of which he is former president, county Commissioner John A. McNally IV, county Auditor Michael V. Sciortino, former county Treasurer John B. Reardon and former county Job and Family Services Director John Zachariah. Theirs was an effort stretching over years to block Mahoning County from moving JFS offices from a Cafaro-owned property to a county-owned building.

The spin being put on those documents now by the defendants in that case or their mouthpieces is that the release is inconsequential.

Joe Bell, director of corporate communications for the Cafaro Co., said the documents “really don’t relate to anything but a case that doesn’t exist.” The tone is not unlike that of Cafaro lawyers, who last year characterized the state’s case as “pathetic.” We wondered then why Cafaro and the other defendants wouldn’t welcome the release of documents which, if they were as thin as the defense claimed, would have exposed prosecutors for having pursued a case that should have never been.

Who was being served?

Members of the public can now decide for themselves whether their interests were being served by the prosecutors or by public officials who were so busy currying favor with Cafaro that it is impossible to know where their loyalties lay.

The Vindicator and 21 WFMJ-TV were seeking insight into how the public’s business was being conducted by whom and for whom. We were convinced that the public had a right to know what the prosecutors were alleging in documents known as the bill of particulars. We argued on these pages and our lawyers argued in court that sealing such documents was an abuse of discretion by the judge. It is gratifying to know that the Supreme Court agrees.

This ruling will shine light on this case; it also sends a welcome message from the state’s highest court that Ohio courts are to operate in as public a manner as possible.

It would have been better if the Oakhill case had gone to trial, but defense lawyers successfully argued that they were entitled to information gathered by federal agents in a parallel investigation. Because the Justice Department was not willing to provide that information, the state case was dismissed.

Perhaps some day everything will become clear — either through the federal courts or though a reopening of the state case. But until then, any member of the public who is interested can see what state prosecutors wanted to prove in court by going on Vindy.com and reading the bills of particulars.

It was — and is — all about the public’s right to know.