“Walk Away Ray”: Marion County Prosecutor Faces Public Outcry Over Mishandled Cases

Justice Questioned in Marion County: An Investigation into Prosecutor Ray Grogan’s Case Handling

Introduction: Scrutiny on the Marion County Prosecutor’s OfficeSetting the Scene

Marion County, Ohio, a community known for its rich history and as the birthplace of Orville Redenbacher’s popcorn, operates within Ohio’s established legal framework.¹ Central to its local justice system is the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office, tasked with representing the state in criminal matters and handling civil representation for county officials.³ The office, located at 100 Executive Drive in Marion ³, receives cases for review from all law enforcement agencies operating within the county, including city police and the Sheriff’s Office.³ Its effective functioning is crucial for maintaining public safety and confidence in the legal process within this Ohio county.¹

Setting The Scene:

Raymond A. Grogan, Jr. serves as the Marion County Prosecuting Attorney.³ Appointed to the position in October 2017, Grogan brought a background that includes a bachelor’s degree in political science and a 2008 law degree from Ohio Northern University, where he also formerly taught at the College of Law.⁶

Publicly, Prosecutor Grogan has articulated a clear mission for his office: “to protect the citizens of Marion County… and pursue justice without partisan preference,” securing the rights of both victims and defendants while upholding state and federal laws and constitutions.³ He has pledged to work closely with law enforcement to ensure cases are handled with “utmost care and thoroughness to ensure justice is accomplished”.³ In an opinion piece referenced in court filings, Grogan identified himself as a “minister of justice,” emphasizing an ethical obligation to ensure sufficient evidence exists to convince a jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before bringing charges.⁷ He has also highlighted Ohio’s constitutional amendment focused on protecting victims’ rights (often referred to as Marsy’s Law), committing his office to keeping victims informed and protecting their dignity and privacy.³

Grogan, a Republican, recently secured re-election in the November 5, 2024, general election, defeating Independent candidate Jennifer Ryan with 72.1% of the vote.⁹ He had run unopposed in the Republican primary earlier that year.⁹ According to election resource Ballotpedia, neither Grogan nor Ryan completed their Candidate Connection survey, which allows candidates to share their platforms and priorities directly with voters.⁹

The Focus of the Investigation

Despite the stated mission and recent electoral success, Prosecutor Grogan’s office has faced scrutiny regarding its handling of several criminal cases, as reported by local media outlets, particularly Marion County Now.¹² This investigation examines a series of controversial case outcomes during Grogan’s tenure, focusing on dismissals of serious charges, plea bargains that have drawn criticism, and, most notably, recurring allegations of mishandling evidence discovery – a fundamental aspect of ensuring fair trials.

The research for this report referenced a Google Document containing allegations ¹⁴, however, access to this document was not possible. Therefore, this investigation relies solely on the information available within the provided research materials, consisting primarily of local news reports and publicly accessible documents.

Emerging from these reports are significant questions surrounding the prosecution of serious felony charges. Repeated instances of alleged discovery violations, cited by both defense attorneys and at least one judge, raise concerns about adherence to procedural rules. The consequences of these alleged failures, including the dismissal of charges, potentially impact not only the specific cases involved but also public trust in the county’s justice system.

This report will delve into the specifics of several cases handled by the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office that have attracted media attention and illustrate the concerns raised. These include:

• The case of Bobby Michael Stinson, where serious felony charges were permanently dismissed due to the prosecution’s failure to provide evidence to the defense.
• The high-profile case against Marion City Councilman Ayers Ratliff, marked by similar defense allegations of discovery failures before its eventual dismissal by the prosecution.
• The case of Clayton Mally, where felony rape charges were resolved through a plea to misdemeanor assault.
• The case of Sharon Stoneburner, a woman with a history of felony OVI offenses whose new felony OVI charges were significantly reduced via a plea agreement.

Examining these cases, the prosecutor’s responses, and the judicial actions involved provides a lens through which to assess the performance and practices of the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office under Raymond Grogan.

In Ohio, as in other U.S. jurisdictions, the concept of prosecutorial immunity significantly shields prosecutors from civil liability, but its application depends crucially on the nature of the prosecutor’s actions. 

 

Generally, prosecutors are granted absolute immunity for actions performed as advocates within the judicial process. This robust protection covers core functions like initiating a prosecution, presenting evidence in court, and examining witnesses. The rationale, established in cases like the U.S. Supreme Court’s Imbler v. Pachtman and followed by Ohio courts (e.g., Willitzer v. McCloud), is to ensure prosecutors can vigorously perform their duties without the constant fear of retaliatory lawsuits hindering their judgment in the courtroom.

In Ohio, prosecutors are granted absolute immunity. However, this absolute immunity is not limitless and primarily attaches to the prosecutor’s role as an advocate for the state. When prosecutors act outside this quasi-judicial function – performing administrative tasks, investigative duties, or, significantly, making statements to the press – their immunity often becomes qualified, not absolute. Under Ohio law, qualified immunity protects officials performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

The actions described in the Ayres Ratliff case, specifically Prosecutor Grogan releasing a video implying guilt before crucial investigative steps like collecting comprehensive witness statements and receiving DNA results were completed, potentially fall into this less-protected category. Making public statements, especially potentially prejudicial ones at a preliminary stage, is often viewed as distinct from core courtroom advocacy. Therefore, under Ohio law, such an action might be assessed under the standard of qualified immunity. While proving a violation that overcomes qualified immunity can be challenging, the distinction is critical: absolute immunity would likely bar a civil suit regarding the video’s release entirely, whereas qualified immunity would allow a suit to proceed if the plaintiff could demonstrate a violation of clearly established rights.

Furthermore, even if an action like releasing a pre-emptive video doesn’t lead to successful civil liability due to immunity doctrines or difficulty meeting legal standards, it can still raise serious ethical questions under the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, Rule 3.6 addresses trial publicity and limits extrajudicial statements that could materially prejudice proceedings, while Rule 3.8 outlines special responsibilities of a prosecutor, including refraining from making extrajudicial comments with a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused. Thus, while absolute immunity protects the prosecutor’s role in court, actions taken outside that specific function, like those potentially undertaken by Prosecutor Grogan, are subject to different legal and ethical scrutiny under Ohio law.

 

Bobby Michael Stinson, a Marion resident approximately 36 years old at the time, faced a slate of serious felony charges: aggravated robbery (a first-degree felony), felonious assault (a second-degree felony), and theft (a fifth-degree felony).¹⁵ A conviction on these charges carried the potential for a lengthy prison sentence exceeding 18 years.¹⁵

The Path to Dismissal

The prosecution of Bobby Stinson encountered significant procedural hurdles directly linked to the handling of evidence by the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office. On May 16, 2024, presiding Judge Warren T. Edwards declared a mistrial in the case.¹⁵ The judge’s decision explicitly stated the reason: “The Court GRANTED a mistrial because the testimony during the trial and statements of counsel indicate the State did not provide discovery to the Defendant…”.¹⁵

Despite this judicial intervention, the problem persisted. According to reports citing court records, the prosecution still failed to provide the required evidence to Stinson’s defense team in the lead-up to a rescheduled trial set to begin around August 2, 2024.¹⁵ These records reportedly documented “escalating warnings issued to various Prosecutors on the case regarding their failure to turn evidence over to the defense”.¹⁵ The obligation to share evidence (discovery) is a fundamental component of the American criminal justice system, considered a core right necessary for defendants to prepare their defense and ensure a fair trial.¹

Dismissal with Prejudice

The repeated failure to comply with discovery obligations led to a drastic and final resolution. In a decision filed shortly before August 2, 2024, Judge Warren T. Edwards dismissed all charges against Bobby Stinson with prejudice.¹⁵ A dismissal “with prejudice” is a severe sanction, meaning the charges cannot be refiled; Stinson was permanently freed from these accusations.¹⁵

Judge Edwards’ ruling detailed the court’s rationale. He stated it was “unfortunately necessary” to dismiss the case permanently, despite preferring an “adjudication on the merits”.¹⁵ He emphasized the foundational principle of the justice system: “predicated on the State and the Defendant, armed with a complete disclosure of the relevant evidence, presenting a case to a jury…”.¹⁵

Critically, the judge directly addressed the impact of the prosecution’s actions, stating, “The failure to turn over evidence undermines the public confidence in the justice system. It undermines confidence in other convictions and pleas where a fair question of whether those convictions were based upon withheld evidence”.¹⁵

Most significantly, Judge Edwards explicitly found that the issues in the Stinson case were not isolated. He ruled: “The Court would prefer a determination on the merits of the case but finds that the pattern of non-disclosure in this case and others leaves the Court with no choice but to dismiss the case with prejudice” ¹⁵ (emphasis added). This judicial finding of a “pattern” suggests the court perceived a systemic problem within the prosecutor’s office regarding its handling of discovery obligations, extending beyond this single case. The sequence of events—a mistrial declared for discovery failure, followed by warnings, continued non-compliance, and finally, dismissal with prejudice citing a pattern—indicates the judge viewed the prosecution’s conduct as particularly egregious.

Underscoring the severity of the finding, Judge Edwards took the unusual step of ordering that the court costs associated with the Stinson case be assessed against the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office itself.¹⁵

1. Prosecutor Grogan’s Response and Appeal

Marion County Prosecutor Ray Grogan publicly contested the court’s decision. In a statement provided to Marion County Now, Grogan indicated that his office “disagrees with much of the Court’s order”.¹⁵ Rather than acknowledging a procedural failing, Grogan framed the issue as a legal disagreement between the trial court and higher courts, stating, “From our perspective, the trial court is really disagreeing with opinions issued by the Court of Appeals”.¹⁵

He expressed confidence that the dismissal would be overturned, stating, “We are confident the Court of Appeals will reverse the trial court’s decision and we can proceed with our case against Mr. Stinson”.¹⁵ This response suggests the Prosecutor’s office believed its discovery practices, though condemned by the trial judge, were legally defensible and perhaps did not warrant procedural changes based on this ruling alone.

Grogan also dismissed the relevance of the judge’s finding of a pattern involving other cases, asserting, “We don’t see the relevance of other cases when deciding this particular case. Each case has to be adjudicated on its own facts and the prior cases have no relevance to Mr. Stinson’s case”.¹⁵ He concluded by affirming his office’s commitment to seeking justice.¹⁵

The State subsequently appealed Judge Edwards’ decision. The case, identified as State of Ohio v. Bobby Michael Stinson, Marion County Case No. 9-24-37, was submitted to the Ohio Third District Court of Appeals for review.¹⁸ The available materials do not report the outcome of this appeal.

Implications of the Stinson Dismissal

The permanent dismissal of serious felony charges against Bobby Stinson due to prosecutorial failures carries significant implications. Judge Edwards’ explicit finding of a “pattern of non-disclosure in this case and others” elevates the situation beyond an isolated error, pointing towards potentially systemic deficiencies in the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office’s adherence to fundamental discovery rules, such as Ohio Criminal Rule 16 (referenced in the Ratliff case).⁸ The assessment of costs against the prosecutor’s office further highlights the judge’s view of the severity of the conduct.¹⁵

Furthermore, Prosecutor Grogan’s response, which challenged the trial judge’s legal reasoning and expressed confidence in reversal ¹⁵, suggests a potential friction between the prosecutor’s office and the local trial court regarding basic procedural obligations. This framing of the issue as a legal dispute over appellate interpretation, rather than an internal error requiring correction, might indicate a reluctance within the prosecutor’s office to modify its practices based on the trial court’s rebuke.

In May 2024, the Marion community faced a high-profile arrest involving one of its elected officials. Ayers Ratliff, the City Councilman representing Ward 2 who had been re-elected the previous November ²¹, was arrested on allegations of raping a girl under the age of 15 at his home.²² The case reportedly originated when the alleged victim confided in a friend, who then informed a school guidance counselor, leading to police notification.²² The investigation involved both the Marion Police Department and the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI), which assisted with a search warrant at Ratliff’s home, reportedly recovering physical and electronic evidence.²³

Acknowledging the sensitivity and public profile of the case, Marion County Prosecutor Ray Grogan released a video statement shortly after the arrest. He affirmed that while Ratliff was presumed innocent, as a city council member, he was “not above the law”.²³ Grogan stated his office would seek a high bond, which was subsequently set at $500,000, although Ratliff was later released on bail.²⁴

Grand Jury and Discovery Disputes

The path to prosecution proved complex. While an initial grand jury reportedly tabled the charges ¹⁵, a subsequent grand jury indicted Ratliff in August 2024 on charges of rape, gross sexual imposition, and unlawful sexual conduct with a minor.²²

However, echoing the issues seen in the Stinson case, the Ratliff prosecution became mired in disputes over evidence discovery. Ratliff’s legal team repeatedly claimed that the prosecutor’s office was withholding crucial evidence. A motion filed by the defense on September 30, 2024, specifically listed 15 items of evidence – including SANE exam results, photos, lab results, interview videos, and phone data dumps – that they alleged Prosecutor Grogan had failed to provide, despite the case having been active since May.⁸

The defense motion employed strong language, accusing Grogan’s office of having a “deplorable track record of providing discovery” and asserting that the office “do[es] not take the constitutional rights of Defendants seriously by providing complete discovery” in compliance with Ohio Criminal Rule 16.⁸ This direct accusation of a poor track record, made independently by defense counsel in a separate case, resonates strongly with Judge Edwards’ finding of a “pattern of non-disclosure” in the Stinson matter ¹⁵, reinforcing the possibility of a recurring issue within the prosecutor’s office.

Prosecutor Grogan’s reported response to these specific allegations was dismissive: “The premise of your question is false. Sadly, there has been a great deal of misinformation about this case”.²⁶ This denial contrasts with an earlier motion filed by Grogan’s office in late July 2024. In that filing, Grogan requested either an extension for the grand jury to indict Ratliff or a dismissal without prejudice, citing the need for more time to gather additional evidence that was “potentially exculpatory” – meaning it could potentially favor the defendant.¹⁵ The defense, in response to that July motion, suggested the alleged victim had recanted her allegations to officials and a Guardian Ad Litem.²⁵

The Path to Dismissal (Nolle Prosequi)

As the scheduled trial date approached in January 2025, the prosecution made a surprising move. Grogan’s office filed a motion for Nolle Prosequi – a request to dismiss all charges against Ratliff without prejudice, meaning the charges could potentially be refiled later.²²

The stated rationale in the motion was multifaceted. The prosecution argued that ongoing investigation had yielded “new evidence and potential witnesses provided by Ratliff’s legal team,” necessitating further review by the grand jury for potential new felony charges.²⁷ The motion also cited a desire to “allow further investigation of the underlying crime and to avoid putting the defendant in criminal jeopardy on evidence of uncertain credibility”.²²

Ratliff’s defense attorney strongly opposed the motion, labeling it a “stall tactic” after significant resources had been invested in preparing for a ten-day trial, including scheduling multiple expert witnesses.²⁷

Adding another layer of complexity, the mother of the alleged victim also filed a motion opposing further continuances. Her filing accused Grogan’s office of violating Ohio’s victim rights law (Marcy’s Law) by failing to consult with her and her family regarding the intent to seek a continuance and by not providing adequate victim’s rights assistance.²⁷ This allegation stands in contrast to Prosecutor Grogan’s public statements emphasizing his commitment to victim rights under this specific law.³

Ultimately, despite the objections, the presiding judge granted the state’s motion for Nolle Prosequi, and the case against Ayers Ratliff was dismissed.²²

Implications of the Ratliff Dismissal

The handling and eventual dismissal of the Ayers Ratliff case raise several critical points. The defense’s pointed accusations about a “deplorable track record” on discovery ⁸, mirroring the judicial findings in the Stinson case ¹⁵, lend significant weight to the possibility of a persistent, systemic problem with discovery compliance within the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office.

Furthermore, the prosecution’s decision to indict Ratliff on serious charges, only to later seek dismissal citing “evidence of uncertain credibility” and the need to investigate information provided by the defense ²², prompts questions about the initial investigation’s thoroughness and the strength of the case presented for indictment. The timing of the dismissal motion just before trial, combined with the objections from both the defense and the victim’s family, could suggest strategic considerations influenced the decision, potentially related to the ongoing discovery disputes or emerging evidence challenges (like the alleged recantation mentioned by the defense ²⁵). Grogan’s earlier motion seeking time for “potentially exculpatory” evidence ²⁵ hints that the prosecution may have been aware of potential weaknesses well before the dismissal motion.

Finally, the dismissal of such a high-profile case involving alleged child sexual assault, particularly when accompanied by allegations from the victim’s family that their rights under Marcy’s Law were violated ²⁷, creates significant concerns regarding transparency and the consideration given to victims in sensitive cases. The conflicting narratives surrounding the dismissal leave the public without a clear understanding of why the prosecution was ultimately abandoned, potentially impacting confidence in how such serious matters are handled.

Plea Bargains Under the Microscope: Mally and Stoneburner Cases

Beyond dismissals linked to procedural issues, the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office under Ray Grogan has also faced scrutiny over plea agreements reached in cases involving serious initial charges. Two specific examples reported by local media highlight this concern: the cases of Clayton Mally and Sharon Stoneburner.

The Clayton Mally Case (Rape Charges Reduced)

In May 2023, Clayton Mally, 31, was indicted by Prosecutor Grogan’s office on serious felony charges: alleged first-degree rape and fourth-degree gross sexual imposition.²⁸ However, nearly two years later, the case concluded not with a trial on these felonies, but with a plea agreement.

On March 31, [likely 2025, based on article context], Mally pleaded guilty in Marion Municipal Court to a significantly reduced charge: assault, a first-degree misdemeanor.²⁸ His sentence reflected the lesser charge: 180 days in jail, with all but three days (177) suspended.²⁸

Following this plea in municipal court, Prosecutor Grogan filed a motion in the Common Pleas Court to dismiss the original felony rape and gross sexual imposition charges. On April 4, , Judge Todd Anderson granted this motion, dismissing the felony indictment with prejudice.²⁸ The judge’s ruling noted the dismissal was based on the negotiated plea deal and cited the principle of Double Jeopardy (preventing prosecution for the same offense twice) as good cause for dismissal.²⁸

Crucially, Judge Anderson’s ruling also mentioned that the State (prosecution) confirmed Mally’s misdemeanor plea occurred with the victim’s consent. This resolution, the court noted, allowed the victim to deliver an impact statement in court while sparing her the potential trauma of a trial.²⁸ Ohio law generally requires prosecutors to confer with victims before finalizing plea agreements or dismissals, where practicable.³⁰

Prosecutor Grogan defended the outcome publicly. He stated that the resolution, worked out with the victim, resulted in a conviction and an in-person apology, providing the victim with “the justice she sought and deserved”.²⁸ He emphasized that the plea deal guaranteed the victim the opportunity to read her Victim Impact Statement in court in the defendant’s presence, an outcome not guaranteed by a trial. Grogan concluded, “The Defendant has been convicted, and the victim was satisfied with the result. Justice was done”.²⁸

The Sharon Stoneburner Case (Repeat Felony OVI Reduced)

Another case drawing attention involved Sharon K. Stoneburner, a 66-year-old Nevada, Ohio resident with a documented history of driving under the influence. In February 2024, Stoneburner faced three counts of Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence (OVI), charged as third-degree felonies, each carrying a potential prison sentence of up to 36 months.³¹ A grand jury indicted her on all three counts in May 2024.³¹

Stoneburner’s history made the case particularly notable. She had previously been convicted of a fourth-degree felony OVI and sentenced to prison in March 2018, though she was later granted judicial release.³¹

Despite this history and the new felony charges, the case took what local media described as a “surprising” and “puzzling” turn.³¹ Assistant Prosecutor David Stamolis, in a decision facilitated by defense attorney Zach Mayo, dismissed two of the third-degree felony OVI counts (counts one and three). The remaining count (count two) was amended downward to a fourth-degree felony, which carries a lesser maximum sentence of 18 months in prison.³¹ Stoneburner subsequently pleaded guilty to this single, reduced fourth-degree felony charge.³¹

Marion County Common Pleas Court Judge Todd Anderson then sentenced Stoneburner to 60 days in jail, along with three years of community control.³¹

Comparing Plea Bargains: Mally and Stoneburner

The outcomes in the Mally and Stoneburner cases, occurring relatively close in time according to reporting dates (March/April 2025), illustrate a pattern of the prosecutor’s office agreeing to substantial reductions in serious felony charges. The following summarizes the key details reported for comparison:

Clayton Mally (Case 28)

• Defendant Name: Clayton Mally
• Initial Serious Charges: 1st-Deg Felony Rape, 4th-Deg Gross Sexual Imposition
• Prior Relevant History: Not reported
• Final Plea Charge: 1st-Deg Misdemeanor Assault
• Sentence: 180 days jail, 177 suspended
• Judge: Todd Anderson (Dismissal of felonies)
• Reported Rationale/Context: Victim consent cited; Prosecutor emphasized victim satisfaction, conviction certainty, apology

Sharon K. Stoneburner (Case 31)

• Defendant Name: Sharon K. Stoneburner
• Initial Serious Charges: Three counts of 3rd-Deg Felony OVI
• Prior Relevant History: Prior 4th-Deg Felony OVI conviction (Prison sentence 2018, judicial release)
• Final Plea Charge: One count of 4th-Deg Felony OVI
• Sentence: 60 days jail, 3 years community control
• Judge: Todd Anderson
• Reported Rationale/Context: Outcome described as “surprising,” “puzzling” by local media

Implications of Plea Bargain Practices

These cases raise questions about the criteria and priorities guiding plea negotiations within the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office, particularly for serious offenses. The significant reduction from first-degree felony rape to misdemeanor assault in the Mally case, even with reported victim consent, prompts consideration of how the office balances victim preferences with the perceived severity of the initial alleged crime and broader public safety interests. Prosecutor Grogan’s justification clearly prioritized victim satisfaction and the certainty of a conviction and impact statement over the potential outcome of a felony trial.²⁸ While victim consultation is mandated ³⁰, the extent of the reduction may still invite scrutiny regarding whether the final charge adequately reflects the gravity of the original allegations.

The Stoneburner case presents a different concern. Given her documented history of felony OVI ³¹, the decision to dismiss two new felony charges and reduce the third, resulting in a relatively short jail sentence, raises questions about the effectiveness of the plea agreement in addressing the potential public safety risk posed by a repeat offender. The description of the outcome as “puzzling” by local media suggests this leniency was unexpected within the community context.³¹ Together, these examples suggest a potential willingness within the prosecutor’s office to offer substantial charge reductions, even in cases involving violence or repeat offenses, leading to outcomes that may appear lenient relative to the initial charges.

Prosecutor Ray Grogan: Profile, Philosophy, and Responses

Background and Tenure

Raymond A. Grogan, Jr. has led the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office since his appointment in October 2017.⁶ A Republican, he won election and subsequent re-election, most recently in November 2024.⁹ His educational background includes a bachelor’s degree in political science and a 2008 law degree from Ohio Northern University, where he also served as faculty prior to his prosecutorial role.⁶ The office operates from 100 Executive Drive in Marion.³

Stated Philosophy and Mission

Prosecutor Grogan has consistently articulated a mission focused on protecting citizens, pursuing justice impartially, securing victim and defendant rights, and working collaboratively with law enforcement agencies.³ He has publicly identified himself as a “minister of justice,” bound by an ethical duty to ensure sufficient evidence supports charges before they are filed.⁷ He has also specifically highlighted the importance of Ohio’s victim rights amendment (Marsy’s Law) and his office’s commitment to upholding it ³, although this commitment was questioned by the victim’s family in the Ratliff case.²⁷

Responses to Controversy

Based on reports concerning the cases examined, a pattern emerges in Prosecutor Grogan’s responses to controversy and criticism:

• Defense of Actions: He provides justifications for decisions, such as framing the Mally plea deal as achieving justice desired by the victim and guaranteeing a conviction and impact statement.²⁸
• Disagreement with Judiciary/Deflection: In the face of adverse rulings, particularly regarding discovery failures in the Stinson case, Grogan expressed strong disagreement with the trial judge’s legal reasoning, attributed the ruling to a misinterpretation of appellate court opinions, and declared an intent to appeal.¹⁵
• Dismissal of Criticism/Allegations: When confronted with defense allegations of systemic discovery failures in the Ratliff case, Grogan characterized the claims as stemming from a “false premise” and “misinformation”.²⁶
• Emphasis on Ongoing Investigation: The need for further investigation, sometimes involving potentially exculpatory evidence or information provided by the defense, has been cited as a reason for seeking extensions or dismissals, as seen in the Ratliff case.²⁵

Grogan appears to engage actively with the public narrative surrounding his office, providing statements to media outlets like Marion County Now for specific cases ¹⁵ and authoring opinion pieces, such as the one referenced in court filings that appeared in the Columbus Dispatch.⁷ These communications consistently defend his office’s conduct and challenge critical viewpoints.

Other Reported Activities/Mentions

Beyond the controversial cases highlighted, Prosecutor Grogan and his office appear in reports related to standard prosecutorial functions:

Additionally, a motion to disqualify Marion County Family Court Judge Robert D. Heiser, Jr. from a juvenile case cited Judge Heiser’s past professional association (sharing office space from 2009-2012) and ongoing friendship (including being godfather to one of Grogan’s children) with Prosecutor Grogan. The motion was denied by the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, who found the past relationship too remote and the current friendship, absent evidence of bias in decision-making, insufficient grounds for disqualification.³⁷

In another personnel matter, Assistant Prosecutor Charles Hall resigned in April 2025 following a trial loss. An email from Grogan’s Office Manager reportedly indicated Hall submitted his two weeks’ notice but was told to leave the office the following day.³⁸

 Assessing the Profile

Prosecutor Grogan presents himself as a dedicated “minister of justice” focused on victim rights and effective law enforcement cooperation.³ His proactive communication strategy suggests an awareness of public perception and a desire to control the narrative surrounding his office’s actions.¹⁵

However, the recurring and specific allegations of discovery failures from both defense counsel ⁸ and the judiciary ¹⁵, coupled with Grogan’s tendency to deflect criticism and challenge adverse court rulings rather than acknowledge potential procedural shortcomings ¹⁵, point to a potentially adversarial relationship with other key participants in the Marion County legal system regarding procedural compliance. This friction, particularly around the fundamental issue of evidence disclosure, appears to be a significant theme during his tenure.

Conclusion: Accountability and Public Trust in Marion County

Synthesis of Findings

This investigation, based on available local media reports and public records, reveals several areas of concern regarding the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office under the leadership of Raymond Grogan. Multiple instances have been reported where serious felony cases, including those involving alleged rape and repeat OVI offenses, were resolved through dismissals or plea agreements involving significantly reduced charges.²⁸

Most prominently, a persistent issue surrounding the timely and complete disclosure of evidence (discovery) to defense counsel has emerged. This was alleged forcefully by defense attorneys in the high-profile Ayers Ratliff case, who claimed a “deplorable track record”.⁸ More significantly, it resulted in the permanent dismissal of serious felony charges against Bobby Stinson, accompanied by a rare judicial finding of a “pattern of non-disclosure in this case and others” and the assessment of costs against the Prosecutor’s Office.¹⁵ Prosecutor Grogan has consistently defended his office’s actions, attributed criticism to misinformation or legal disagreements, and emphasized victim satisfaction or the certainty of conviction in justifying plea deals.¹⁵

These specific instances, taken together, raise broader questions about consistency in charging and plea bargaining, transparency in case resolution, and, critically, adherence to fundamental procedural rules designed to ensure fairness within the Marion County justice system.

The Role of Judicial Oversight and Public Scrutiny

The actions of the judiciary, particularly Judge Warren T. Edwards’ detailed ruling and imposition of sanctions in the Stinson case, exemplify the crucial role of judicial oversight in addressing perceived systemic procedural failures by the prosecution.¹⁵ Such interventions are vital checks within the legal system.

Furthermore, the reporting by local media, predominantly Marion County Now based on the sources reviewed ¹², has been instrumental in bringing these cases and the surrounding controversies to public light. Public awareness and scrutiny are essential components of accountability for elected officials like the County Prosecutor.

Unanswered Questions and Lingering Concerns

While this investigation highlights specific reported incidents, several questions remain:

• Do the cases of Stinson, Ratliff, Mally, and Stoneburner represent isolated occurrences, or are they indicative of a broader pattern of practice within the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office regarding discovery and plea bargaining in serious cases?
• What underlying factors – such as resources, training, office policy, or caseload management – might contribute to the recurring discovery issues alleged by the defense and identified by the court in the Stinson case?
• How does the office systematically balance the rights and wishes of victims (as mandated by Marsy’s Law ³) with public safety considerations and the pursuit of charges commensurate with the alleged crime, particularly when negotiating pleas for serious or repeat offenses?
• What was the final outcome of the State’s appeal of the Stinson dismissal to the Third District Court of Appeals?¹⁸ (Not answered in provided materials).

Judge Edwards’ warning in the Stinson ruling about the erosion of public confidence when procedural failures lead to the dismissal of serious cases remains a central concern.¹⁵ Ensuring that justice is not only done but is seen to be done requires diligent adherence to legal procedures by all parties, especially the prosecution, which wields significant power and bears the burden of proof.

Final Thoughts

The effective administration of justice relies heavily on the integrity and competence of the prosecutor’s office. Prosecutorial discretion in charging and plea bargaining is a necessary component of the system, but it must be exercised responsibly and transparently. Likewise, adherence to procedural rules, particularly concerning the disclosure of evidence, is not a mere technicality but a cornerstone of due process and the right to a fair trial. The reported events in Marion County underscore the ongoing need for vigilance from the judiciary, the defense bar, the media, and the public to ensure that prosecutorial power is wielded accountably and that public trust in the local justice system is maintained. The questions raised by these cases warrant continued attention and demand clear answers to reassure the community that justice in Marion County is pursued effectively, ethically, and fairly for all involved.

Works Cited

Works cited

1. Marion County, Ohio, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.co.marion.oh.us/
2. Marion County, Ohio, accessed April 14, 2025, https://marioncountyohio.gov/
3. Prosecutor – Marion County, OH, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.co.marion.oh.us/elected_offices/prosecutor.php
4. Marion County Prosecutor | Government, Education, & Individuals, accessed April 14, 2025, http://marionareachamber.chambermaster.com/list/member/marion-county-prosecutor-5118
5. Marion County Prosecutor | Government, Education, & Individuals, accessed April 14, 2025, https://business.marionareachamber.org/list/member/marion-county-prosecutor-5118
6. 2022-12-20 Interview of Prosecutor Raymond Grogan – Ohio Attorney General, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/getattachment/16ea2403-2e4d-47f9-b718-4f951e10a642/Interview-of-Prosecutor-Raymond-Grogan.aspx
7. Ray Grogan is the Marion County prosecufing attorney. He formerly taught at the Ohio Northern University College of Law. I’m a, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.troopertotrooper.com/Ray_Grogan_Indicting_officer_for_Ta_Kiya_Young_heartbreaking_death_will_push_smartest_from_policing.pdf
8. state of ohio – Marion County Now, accessed April 14, 2025, https://marioncountynow.com/files/2024/10/Motion.pdf
9. Ray Grogan (Marion County Prosecuting Attorney, Ohio, candidate 2024) – Ballotpedia, accessed April 14, 2025, https://ballotpedia.org/Ray_Grogan_(Marion_County_Prosecuting_Attorney,_Ohio,_candidate_2024)
10. Marion County voters set to decide key issues in November Election, accessed April 14, 2025, https://marioncountynow.com/news/277772-marion-county-voters-set-to-decide-key-issues-in-november-election/
11. Jennifer Ryan (Marion County Prosecuting Attorney, Ohio, candidate 2024) – Ballotpedia, accessed April 14, 2025, https://ballotpedia.org/Jennifer_Ryan_(Marion_County_Prosecuting_Attorney,_Ohio,_candidate_2024)
12. North Central Ohio Media Group-Marion County Now, accessed April 14, 2025, https://business.marionareachamber.org/list/member/north-central-ohio-media-group-marion-county-now-9429
13. Marion County Now-Local News, Weather & Events in Marion, OH, accessed April 14, 2025, https://marioncountynow.com/
14. https://1drv.ms/b/c/583c034329af8bb0/Ed6pxD0G1FpDlWYZ4hgLbO0BzeLeEup_NKe7xYVm1mW9-g
15. Serious felony charges dismissed because prosecution withheld evidence, accessed April 14, 2025, https://marioncountynow.com/news/277772-serious-felony-charges-dismissed-because-prosecution-withheld-evidence/
16. Chapter 9 Pretrial Discovery – The Gault Center, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.defendyouthrights.org/wp-content/uploads/Chap-9-Pretrial-Discovery.pdf
17. Chapter 9 Pretrial Discovery – The Gault Center, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.defendyouthrights.org/wp-content/uploads/Chap-9-Pretrial-Discovery-2022-edition.pdf
18. March 2025 – Ohio Third District Court of Appeals, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.third.courts.state.oh.us/march-2025/
19. Marion County Now reflects on 2024’s top stories as year ends, accessed April 14, 2025, https://marioncountynow.com/news/277772-marion-county-now-reflects-on-2024s-top-stories-as-year-ends/
20. Avian influenza suspected in some Ohio Waterfowl – Marion County Now, accessed April 14, 2025, https://marioncountynow.com/news/277772-avian-influenza-suspected-in-some-ohio-waterfowl/
21. Ratliff, Schaber win reelection to Marion City Council, accessed April 14, 2025, https://marioncountynow.com/news/277772-ratliff-schaber-win-reelection-to-marion-city-council/
22. Case dismissed against Marion councilman accused of raping teen girl – 10TV, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.10tv.com/article/news/crime/judge-dismisses-rape-case-against-marion-councilman/530-2bd8ccca-14b0-481a-926a-1091505cc56f
23. Marion councilman arrested, accused of raping girl under 15 – 10TV, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.10tv.com/article/news/crime/marion-city-councilman-accused-of-raping-girl-under-15/530-1c363205-170f-4a54-835d-f158f9bc59bf
24. Marion City Councilmember in court on rape charges – YouTube, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXLe3sG6XJ0
25. Case against Marion City Councilman fading fast, accessed April 14, 2025, https://marioncountynow.com/news/277772-case-against-marion-city-councilman-fading-fast/
26. Marion City Councilman Ayers Ratliff’s Attorneys demand evidence from Prosecutor, accessed April 14, 2025, https://marioncountynow.com/news/277772-marion-city-councilman-ayers-ratliffs-attorneys-demand-evidence-from-prosecutor/
27. Marion Prosecutor seeks dismissal of charges against City Councilman Ayers Ratliff, accessed April 14, 2025, https://marioncountynow.com/news/277772-marion-prosecutor-seeks-dismissal-of-charges-against-city-councilman-ayers-ratliff/
28. Marion County Court dismisses rape case amid plea agreement., accessed April 14, 2025, https://marioncountynow.com/news/277772-marion-county-court-dismisses-rape-case-amid-plea-agreement/
29. Lonestar to bring hit country tunes to Marion Palace Theatre, accessed April 14, 2025, https://marioncountynow.com/news/277772-lonestar-to-bring-hit-country-tunes-to-marion-palace-theatre/
30. OHIO MODEL PROTOCOL FOR RESPONDING TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.odvn.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/OH-Model-LE-Protocol-complete.pdf
31. Marion County Prosecutor’s Office reduces charges against Nevada …, accessed April 14, 2025, https://marioncountynow.com/news/277772-marion-county-prosecutors-office-reduces-charges-against-nevada-woman-with-history-of-ovi-offenses/
32. METRICH Enforcement Unit Information Bulletin, accessed April 14, 2025, http://metrich.com/newsletters/2023/12/01-Regional-3rd_&_4th_Quarter_Newsletter.pdf
33. 2018 ANNUAL REPORT | Marion Police Department, accessed April 14, 2025, https://marionohiopolice.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2018-Annual-Report.pdf
34. 2022-12-20 Interview of Prosecutor Raymond Grogan – Ohio Attorney General, accessed April 14, 2025, https://ohioattorneygeneral.gov/getattachment/16ea2403-2e4d-47f9-b718-4f951e10a642/Interview-of-Prosecutor-Raymond-Grogan.aspx
35. Investigative Documents – Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/SpecialPages/Investigative-Documents
36. Marion County Grand Jury Indicts Parents in Infant’s Death from Dog Attack – 95.3 WKTN, accessed April 14, 2025, https://wktn.com/marion-county-grand-jury-indicts-parents-in-infants-death-from-dog-attack/
37. Cite as In re Disqualification of Heiser, 164 Ohio St.3d 1230, 2021-Ohio-628. – Supreme Court of Ohio, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2021/2021-Ohio-628.pdf
38. Marion County Prosecutor’s Assistant Prosecutor Charles Hall resigns following trial loss, accessed April 14, 2025, https://marioncountynow.com/news/277772-marion-county-prosecutors-assistant-prosecutor-charles-hall-resigns-following-trial-loss/