LISBON — John Gamble's aborted criminal lawsuit against police as part of his 2020 campaign for prosecutors could end up in the Ohio Supreme Court.
Attorneys Ronald Yearwood and John Juhas, representing Gamble, the former assistant attorney general for the District of Columbia, filed an appeal and a memorandum of support Monday in the Ohio Supreme Court to hear the case.
They intend to appeal the recent decision by the Seventh Circuit Court, which dismissed Gamble's acquittal on all four counts of aiding and abetting and ordered the case remanded to the city district court.
Visiting Judge David Stuckey, who heard the case in the city court, agreed Wednesday to proceed with a hearing scheduled for Nov. 4 on the status of the Ohio Supreme Court appeal.
Gamble, a Democrat, is running for district attorney in 2020 after a photo of the officers appeared on his Facebook page declaring his support. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost's office filed a criminal complaint against Gamble in August 2020 after Republicans in the District of Columbia questioned the photo's use.
Gamble was charged with all four counts of aiding and abetting the violation of Ohio's Little Hatch Act, but no charges were filed against the designated police officers pictured. Stuckey noted that Gamble's services were not hired and did not appear to have prompted officers to commit the crime. Stucky He accepted his resignation on November 14, 2020. Gamble lost the election to Republican Vito Abruzzino, who is now the District Attorney.
Yost's office appealed the dismissal to the Seventh Circuit Court, which reversed the dismissal, saying the court wrongly held that Gamble could not be charged with sexual molestation because he could not be charged with breaking the law. Law. Little Hatch Act as an unappointed county officer.
Gamble's attorneys wrote in a memo to the Ohio Supreme Court that the trial judge stated that Gamble "cannot be charged with a felony simply because law enforcement appeared in a photograph with him, as many candidates do."
They argued that the case raised an important constitutional issue and was of public or general interest.
“This court should rule and overrule the Court of Appeal to clarify that political opinions are protected by the right to free speech and cannot be punished. This court must also declare that the government cannot prosecute through the back door what it cannot prosecute. outside,” the memorandum said.
“Gambling can only be criminalized if there is a radical change in Ohio law that allows political opponents to be prosecuted not for illegal acts but for speech, opinion and nothing more. The judge correctly dismissed the case, but the court did not appeal, but wrongly: Anything that does not conform to such a decision violates the constitutional protections of political liberty from state interference, Gamble's lawyers wrote.