Prosecutors refute argument for dismissal of Yavorcik indictment
CLEVELAND
Prosecutors in the Oakhill Renaissance Place criminal conspiracy case argue a motion from the attorney representing Martin Yavorcik, one of the three defendants, to dismiss the indictment is factually wrong.
In a Friday filing, Christopher Schroeder, a Cuyahoga County assistant prosecutor, disputes a claim by Mark Lavelle, Yavorcik’s attorney, in a Jan. 5 court filing that the Ohio Elections Commission has “exclusive initial jurisdiction of alleged election law violations.” Prosecutors asked Judge
Janet R. Burnside of Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, who is overseeing the Oakhill case, to reject the motion.
Included in Schroeder’s filing is a three-page affidavit from Philip C. Richter, OEC’s executive director and staff attorney, who wrote: “It is my position that a prosecutor is permitted to seek and obtain an indictment,” and that “there is no requirement that the prosecutor” in Yavorcik’s case “was required to present any of the allegations against Mr. Yavorcik before the Ohio Elections Commission prior to seeking and/or obtaining an indictment.”
In a Jan. 5 motion, Lavelle asked Judge Burnside to drop the 27-count indictment against Yavorcik, contending the court doesn’t have jurisdiction over the matter. Also, Lavelle wrote that the indictment violates state law and the double-jeopardy clause in the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.
Lavelle specifically pointed to Title 35 of the Ohio Revised Code that “lays out the requirements of candidates and their campaign committees to record and report all campaign-related contributions and expenditures.”
“The problem with Yavorcik’s argument is that the state is not prosecuting” him for Title 35 violations, Schroeder wrote.
Read more about the issue in Saturday's Vindicator or on Vindy.com.