Prosecutor Mason Asks Ohio Supreme Court To Hear Appellate Court Decision Requiring Prosecutors To Name Alleged Informant In Art McKoy Drug Case
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason
Community Activist Art McKoy
By Kathy Wray Coleman, Editor of the Determiner Weekly.com and
the Kathy Wray Coleman Online News Blog and Media Network
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason on Monday filed a notice of appeal and a memorandum in support of jurisdiction that asks the Ohio Supreme Court to hear the decision by the Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals that upheld the order of Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Nancy Margaret Russo for Mason to immediately give the lawyers for Community Activist Art McKoy the name of the alleged confidential informant in a pending drug case against him.
Russo is the presiding judge in the case, which was brought last year after a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted the outspoken community activist on a charge of allegedly permitting drugs to be sold out of his now defunct Superfly Barber Shop in East Cleveland, Oh., a fifth degree felony that carries up to a year in prison, though in most cases such alleged activity is prosecuted as a misdemeanor. McKoy has not been charged with drug trafficking and he has pleaded not guilty to the charge of permitting drug abuse.
In a brief to Ohio's high court that by virtue of the rules of court must accompany Mason's notice of appeal, Cuyahoga County's chief prosecutor claims that Russo acted unreasonably when she ordered his office to give up the name of any confidential informant against McKoy on the grounds that a delay until trial as prosecutors sought would deny McKoy a fair trial. Prosecutors also claim that Russo should have had a hearing on the issue before ruling and that the Ohio Rules of Criminal Rules of Procedure and relevant case law permit the prosecution to withhold the name of the alleged confidential informant until trial if prosecutors certify, as Mason did, that physical harm couled come to him or her, a position that McKoy's attorneys, Rufus Sims and James Hardiman, say is ludicrous and without any merit whatsoever.
In March, a three-judge panel of the Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals, that consisted of Judges Larry Jones, Mary Eileen Kilbane and Colleen Conway Cooney, agreed with Russo saying McKoy had a right to the name of any alleged confidential informant before trial so that his attorneys could prepare for it, particularly since such alleged witness is the sole witness against McKoy.
Prior to Mason's appeal last week to the high court, McKoy's attorneys filed a motion with Russo asking the judge to order Mason to either produce the name of the alleged confidential informant or dismiss the case against him. That did not sit well with the powerful and popular Mason as his jurisdictional brief makes obvious note of.
"In cases where an informant-witness will testify at trial, the name and address of the witness shall not be subject to disclosure if the prosecuting attorney certifies to the court that to do so may subject the witness or others to physical harm," Mason wrote in his brief to the Ohio Supreme Court, though not once in such brief does he in any way indicate how McKoy might harm the alleged confidential informant.
McKoy's attorneys have not yet responded, although time still remains, and the high court usually issues a determination of whether it will accept this type of appeal and hear such cases about two months after all parties have filed applicable briefs.
The Ohio Supreme Court hears less than 3 percent of the cases filed seeking acceptance of an appeal each year, giving Mason a hurdle in the least. The McKoy case is one in which the court has discretion to hear or not hear it based upon whether it is one of public or great general interest, or presents a constitutional question, all of which Mason argues with little fanfare in the state's brief.
Cases required to be heard by the Ohio Supreme Court are those in which the death penalty has been affirmed prior to 1995, certain writs, and cases that, unlike McKoy's, originate in a district appellate court in Ohio.
"An appeal would be absolutely frivolous," Hardiman said in an interview after the Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals earlier this year ruled in McKoy's favor. Mason did not return phone calls seeking comment.
Research reveals that because the case at hand is so controversial Ohio Supreme Court officials have not provided access to online court data under McKoy's name as required, forcing onlookers to research the case under the name of one of his two attorneys. That might change when Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric Brown, a Democrat appointed by Gov. Ted Strickland this week to finish the unexpited term of Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, assumes the reigns, effective May 3. The Chief Justice since 1987, the Republican Moyer died unexpectedly two weeks ago.
Brown is currently in a race with Ohio Supreme Court Justice Maureen O'Connor for the Chief Justice seat via a full term that commences in 2011.
Black men are at risk in Cuyahoga County where research denotes without ambiguity that they are disproportionately prosecuted and given greater sentences than their similarly situated White counterparts for the same crimes.
Community Activist Art McKoy
By Kathy Wray Coleman, Editor of the Determiner Weekly.com and
the Kathy Wray Coleman Online News Blog and Media Network
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason on Monday filed a notice of appeal and a memorandum in support of jurisdiction that asks the Ohio Supreme Court to hear the decision by the Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals that upheld the order of Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Nancy Margaret Russo for Mason to immediately give the lawyers for Community Activist Art McKoy the name of the alleged confidential informant in a pending drug case against him.
Russo is the presiding judge in the case, which was brought last year after a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted the outspoken community activist on a charge of allegedly permitting drugs to be sold out of his now defunct Superfly Barber Shop in East Cleveland, Oh., a fifth degree felony that carries up to a year in prison, though in most cases such alleged activity is prosecuted as a misdemeanor. McKoy has not been charged with drug trafficking and he has pleaded not guilty to the charge of permitting drug abuse.
In a brief to Ohio's high court that by virtue of the rules of court must accompany Mason's notice of appeal, Cuyahoga County's chief prosecutor claims that Russo acted unreasonably when she ordered his office to give up the name of any confidential informant against McKoy on the grounds that a delay until trial as prosecutors sought would deny McKoy a fair trial. Prosecutors also claim that Russo should have had a hearing on the issue before ruling and that the Ohio Rules of Criminal Rules of Procedure and relevant case law permit the prosecution to withhold the name of the alleged confidential informant until trial if prosecutors certify, as Mason did, that physical harm couled come to him or her, a position that McKoy's attorneys, Rufus Sims and James Hardiman, say is ludicrous and without any merit whatsoever.
In March, a three-judge panel of the Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals, that consisted of Judges Larry Jones, Mary Eileen Kilbane and Colleen Conway Cooney, agreed with Russo saying McKoy had a right to the name of any alleged confidential informant before trial so that his attorneys could prepare for it, particularly since such alleged witness is the sole witness against McKoy.
Prior to Mason's appeal last week to the high court, McKoy's attorneys filed a motion with Russo asking the judge to order Mason to either produce the name of the alleged confidential informant or dismiss the case against him. That did not sit well with the powerful and popular Mason as his jurisdictional brief makes obvious note of.
"In cases where an informant-witness will testify at trial, the name and address of the witness shall not be subject to disclosure if the prosecuting attorney certifies to the court that to do so may subject the witness or others to physical harm," Mason wrote in his brief to the Ohio Supreme Court, though not once in such brief does he in any way indicate how McKoy might harm the alleged confidential informant.
McKoy's attorneys have not yet responded, although time still remains, and the high court usually issues a determination of whether it will accept this type of appeal and hear such cases about two months after all parties have filed applicable briefs.
The Ohio Supreme Court hears less than 3 percent of the cases filed seeking acceptance of an appeal each year, giving Mason a hurdle in the least. The McKoy case is one in which the court has discretion to hear or not hear it based upon whether it is one of public or great general interest, or presents a constitutional question, all of which Mason argues with little fanfare in the state's brief.
Cases required to be heard by the Ohio Supreme Court are those in which the death penalty has been affirmed prior to 1995, certain writs, and cases that, unlike McKoy's, originate in a district appellate court in Ohio.
"An appeal would be absolutely frivolous," Hardiman said in an interview after the Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals earlier this year ruled in McKoy's favor. Mason did not return phone calls seeking comment.
Research reveals that because the case at hand is so controversial Ohio Supreme Court officials have not provided access to online court data under McKoy's name as required, forcing onlookers to research the case under the name of one of his two attorneys. That might change when Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric Brown, a Democrat appointed by Gov. Ted Strickland this week to finish the unexpited term of Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, assumes the reigns, effective May 3. The Chief Justice since 1987, the Republican Moyer died unexpectedly two weeks ago.
Brown is currently in a race with Ohio Supreme Court Justice Maureen O'Connor for the Chief Justice seat via a full term that commences in 2011.
Black men are at risk in Cuyahoga County where research denotes without ambiguity that they are disproportionately prosecuted and given greater sentences than their similarly situated White counterparts for the same crimes.
Comments