Walk Away Ray- Expert Level Community Investigative Review of the Wayne E. Sisson III Plea Agreement: Legal Process, Ethical Concerns, and Systemic Implications in Marion County, Ohio

When ‘Walk Away Ray’ Grogan Holds the Keys, and VanBibber Weaves as He Pleases, How Did Felon Sisson Find Such an Ease?
Looking Closer Always Holds the Keys!

---

*Note: Marion Watch would like to thank the local legal professionals who assisted us in navigating this case, and the citizens who reached out to us regarding this case that initiated this report.

---

MARION, OHIO – The disposition of criminal charges against Mr. Wayne E. Sisson III within Marion County, Ohio, has precipitated intensified scrutiny and considerable public discourse, challenging fundamental perceptions concerning the administration of justice within the community. This report furnishes a comprehensive analysis of the legal proceedings, with a particular focus on the contentious dismissal of serious felony charges—specifically, felonious assault, strangulation, and domestic violence. These charges, if proven, collectively presented a potential cumulative sentence exceeding eight years, a stark contrast to the eventual outcome facilitated by a misdemeanor plea agreement. Subsequent to these plea negotiations, the aforementioned felony charges were formally dismissed, whereupon Mr. Sisson entered a guilty plea to a significantly lesser misdemeanor offense. This resolution culminated in a sentence of 180 days of incarceration, of which a substantial portion, 158 days, was suspended, complemented by a two-year term of community control, a sentence that many in the public view as disproportionately lenient given the initial gravity of the accusations (Judgment Entry Dismissing Case With Prejudice, May 16, 2025, Case No. 2024 CR 0110; Marion County Now, May 21, 2025).

Marion Ethics in Question: Attorney VanBibber Faces Barrage of Charges—Falsehoods, Sexual Misconduct, and Legal Neglect Detailed

The adjudication of this particular case, however, is inextricably linked with a disquieting confluence of additional circumstances that not only necessitate rigorous examination but also amplify pre-existing anxieties. These circumstances resonate with concerns previously detailed in publications by this news organization, marionwatch.com, which have documented repeated instances of allegedly mishandled cases, thereby establishing a troubling contextual backdrop for the Sisson resolution. Prominent among the current issues are substantial concerns pertaining to Mr. Sisson’s court-appointed defense counsel, Mr. Jack VanBibber. These concerns are multifaceted, encompassing his severe, officially documented ethical deficiencies, which include a history of blatant ethics violations such as acts of dishonesty and mismanagement of client funds; contemporaneous new allegations of professional misconduct that surfaced during the relevant period; and unexplained irregularities regarding his professional representation status and capacity during the critical phase of the plea negotiation and its entry. Further complicating the integrity of the proceedings are contentious pre-trial procedural actions undertaken by the State, particularly in relation to its court-mandated discovery obligations, raising questions about the fairness and transparency of the prosecutorial process. Compounding this is the documented historical record indicating that the Marion County Prosecutor, Mr. Raymond Grogan, had previously rendered notable and vocal personal and professional support for Mr. VanBibber during prior disciplinary inquiries, a relationship that invites scrutiny regarding potential conflicts of interest or undue influence.

This convergence of factors—a significant charge reduction for violent acts, the involvement of defense counsel with a deeply compromised ethical record, questionable state conduct, and the prosecutor’s prior relationship with said counsel—engenders a palpable appearance of impropriety that extends beyond mere speculation. Consequently, it raises exigent questions regarding not only the specific outcome of the Sisson case but also the potential for systemic vulnerabilities and a discernible pattern of concerning judicial outcomes within the local justice process. Such a pattern, if substantiated, inherently poses a significant risk to the foundation of public trust, eroding confidence in the impartiality and efficacy of local legal institutions. Indeed, in light of the serious questions raised by this and other cases, legal experts and public observers are increasingly urging that an independent and thorough review be conducted by an appropriate external oversight body.

Legal and ethics experts we consulted advised us that entities such as the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the Ohio Attorney General’s Office, or a specially appointed independent prosecutor should be called upon to investigate these matters comprehensively, with the aim of restoring accountability and ensuring the equitable administration of justice in Marion County. Most citizens we spoke to simply said “this is nothing new in Marion,” and that is a disturbing statement to us, but one we expected unfortunately.

Grogan Letter in Support of VanBibber:

I. Case Chronology and Disposition: State v. Wayne E. Sisson III

The legal progression of Mr. Wayne E. Sisson III’s case (No. 2024 CR 0110) within Marion County was characterized by a significant transformation from grave felony accusations to a resolution at the misdemeanor level. Comprehension of this trajectory necessitates an examination of the initial charges, key procedural developments, the specific nature of the plea agreement, and the subsequent judicial ratification thereof.

A. Initial Felony Charges and Statutory Penalties

Mr. Wayne E. Sisson III was confronted with a formidable series of charges that underscored the gravity of the alleged conduct. Pursuant to court documentation and media reports, these charges encompassed the following:

• Felonious Assault: Charged as a second-degree felony. Under Ohio Revised Code §2903.11, a second-degree felonious assault typically involves knowingly causing serious physical harm to another or causing or attempting to cause physical harm to another by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance. This offense carries a potential prison sentence of 2 to 8 years and fines up to $15,000.
  
• Strangulation: Charged as a fourth-degree felony. Ohio Revised Code §2903.18 defines strangulation as any act that impedes normal breathing or blood circulation by applying pressure to the throat or neck or by covering the nose and mouth. A fourth-degree felony strangulation charge, particularly if the victim is a family or household member or if the offender was in a dating relationship with the victim, is punishable by 6 to 18 months in prison and fines up to $5,000. (It is noteworthy that Ohio law also defines strangulation causing serious physical harm as a second-degree felony, thereby raising questions regarding the initial charging decision itself).
  
• Domestic Violence: Charged as a first-degree misdemeanor. Ohio Revised Code §2919.25 pertains to domestic violence, which includes knowingly causing or attempting to cause physical harm to a family or household member. As a first-degree misdemeanor, this offense is punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a maximum fine of $1,000.

The aggregate potential term of imprisonment associated with these charges was reported to be “more than eight years,” a fact that accentuates the significant legal jeopardy Mr. Sisson confronted prior to the commencement of plea negotiations (Marion County Now, May 21, 2025). The stark and considerable disparity between the initial severity of the lodged charges—particularly those involving significant alleged violence—and the ultimate misdemeanor resolution forms a central and unavoidable point of concern in this matter. The question arises as to how such serious allegations, ostensibly well-documented enough to proceed to indictment, could be so comprehensively reduced, and what implications this carries for prosecutorial priorities and judicial oversight in Marion County.

Marion County Justice Under Fire: VanBibber’s New Ethics Storm & Prosecutor’s Endorsement Raise Systemic Alarms

B. Key Procedural Developments and Judicial Oversight

The procedural history of Case No. 2024 CR 0110 reveals several notable developments:

• Initial Judicial Assignment and Defense Motions (August-December 2024): Court filings from August through December 2024 indicate that the case was initially under the purview of Judge Warren T. Edwards. During this period, defense counsel Mr. Jack VanBibber filed standard motions, including a Motion to Preserve and Produce Evidence (granted August 29, 2024, Case No. 2024 CR 0110).

• Disputes Regarding Bill of Particulars and Amended Indictment: A significant point of contention arose concerning the State’s provision of a Bill of Particulars. Mr. Sisson filed an initial motion on August 13, 2024, and a subsequent motion for a “More Particularized and Specific Bill of Particulars” on September 4, 2024. On September 16, 2024, the Court ordered the State to respond within five days (Order to Respond, Sept. 16, 2024, Case No. 2024 CR 0110). According to a Judgment Entry by Judge Edwards dated October 2, 2024 (and reiterated in an entry dated October 15, 2024), “The State ignored that order” (Judgment Entry, Oct. 2, 2024, Case No. 2024 CR 0110). Consequently, the Defendant filed a motion to compel a response on September 24, 2024. The State ultimately filed its response at 8:24 AM on September 26, 2024, a mere six minutes prior to a pretrial hearing scheduled for 8:30 AM that same day. Judge Edwards found the Defendant’s request for an amended Bill of Particulars moot due to this last-minute filing by the State (Judgment Entry, Oct. 2, 2024). This pattern of ignoring a court order and providing crucial information immediately before a hearing suggests potential issues with prosecutorial diligence and responsiveness, which could have impacted the defense’s preparation.
  
  On October 4, 2024, the State filed a motion to amend the indictment, specifically to broaden the alleged date range for Count 1 (Felonious Assault) from “On or about 03/09/2024” to “On or about 02/17/2024-03/09/2024” (State’s Motion to Amend Indictment, Oct. 4, 2024, Case No. 2024 CR 0110). This motion was granted by Judge Edwards on October 15, 2024 (Judgment Entry, Oct. 15, 2024, Case No. 2024 CR 0110). Concurrently, the Defendant had filed a “Second Motion for a more Particularized and Specific Bill of Particulars” on October 3, 2024 (Defendant’s Second Motion, Oct. 3, 2024, Case No. 2024 CR 0110). Despite acknowledging that “the Defendant is somewhat unsure what the State is alleging” due to the amended indictment and presumed additional acts, Judge Edwards denied this second request on October 15, 2024, stating that a bill of particulars is not a discovery substitute (Judgment Entry, Oct. 15, 2024). The denial of further particulars after the State significantly broadened the timeframe of alleged conduct raises questions about the defendant’s ability to adequately prepare a defense against the expanded allegations.
  
• Other Motions and Scheduling under Judge Edwards: Mr. Sisson also filed a Motion to Modify Bond on October 3, 2024 (Defendant’s Motion to Modify Bond, Oct. 3, 2024, Case No. 2024 CR 0110), for which a hearing was scheduled by Judge Edwards for October 11, 2024 (Hearing Notice, Oct. 9, 2024, Case No. 2024 CR 0110). A jury trial initially set for December 10, 2024, was continued upon motion of the Defendant (through Mr. VanBibber) per a Judgment Entry on November 25, 2024, and an Order to Continue Jury Trial on December 2, 2024 (Judgment Entry, Nov. 25, 2024; Order to Continue Jury Trial, Dec. 2, 2024, Case No. 2024 CR 0110). A new pretrial was set for December 10, 2024, and a jury trial for February 13, 2025 (Pretrial and Jury Trial Hearing Notice, Dec. 2, 2024, Case No. 2024 CR 0110). A final pretrial notice was issued on December 11, 2024, for a final pretrial on January 17, 2025, still under Judge Edwards (Final Pretrial Notice, Dec. 11, 2024, Case No. 2024 CR 0110).

• Change in Presiding Judge and Counsel Anomaly (Early 2025): By January 2025, court documents reflect a change in the presiding judge to The Honorable Todd A. Anderson. An “Order of Continuance” dated January 10, 2025, issued by Judge Anderson on the Court’s own motion, continued a hearing scheduled for January 17, 2025 (this was the final pretrial previously set by Judge Edwards) (Order of Continuance, Jan. 10, 2025, Case No. 2024 CR 0110). This order is particularly noteworthy as it lists “John P. Graceffo, Attorney for Defendant.” However, a “Pretrial Notice” issued by Judge Anderson just three days later, on January 13, 2025, for a pretrial on February 4, 2025, once again lists “Jack VanBibber, Attorney for Defendant” (Pretrial Notice, Jan. 13, 2025, Case No. 2024 CR 0110). All subsequent filings, including the final dismissal entry, consistently name Mr. VanBibber as defense counsel. This brief, documented appearance of an alternative defense attorney, followed by Mr. VanBibber’s immediate reappearance, is highly unusual and suggests a potential, albeit fleeting, disruption or reconsideration of Mr. Sisson’s legal representation. The reasons for this temporary substitution, if it indeed occurred beyond a clerical error, are not elucidated in the provided documents but add a layer of procedural irregularity to the case.
  
• Trial Continuances under Judge Anderson (Early-Mid 2025): Following the February 4, 2025 pretrial under Judge Anderson, a jury trial initially scheduled for March 18, 2025, was continued upon motion by the State of Ohio (Plaintiff). The “Order to Continue Jury Trial” dated March 6, 2025, by Judge Anderson, cited the assigned assistant prosecutor’s engagement in another murder trial (State of Ohio v. Jerry Cooper) on the same date as “good cause shown” (Order to Continue Jury Trial, Mar. 6, 2025, Case No. 2024 CR 0110). Subsequently, a “Notice of Jury Trial” dated March 12, 2025, scheduled the jury trial for May 20, 2025 (Notice of Jury Trial, Mar. 12, 2025, Case No. 2024 CR 0110). Speedy trial time was noted as tolled in these continuance orders.

C. The Plea Agreement: From Felony to Misdemeanor

The substantial alteration in the trajectory of Mr. Sisson’s case was the direct outcome of a plea negotiation undertaken within the Municipal Court. According to court documents referenced by Marion County Now (May 21, 2025), and confirmed by the “Judgment Entry Dismissing Case With Prejudice” dated May 16, 2025 (Case No. 2024 CR 0110), the felony charges of felonious assault and strangulation, in conjunction with the initial domestic violence charge, were dismissed. This dismissal was predicated upon Mr. Sisson’s acquiescence to enter a guilty plea to a lesser, unspecified misdemeanor offense in Marion Municipal Court (Case No. CRB25750) on May 16, 2025.

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

The motion to dismiss the felony charges in the Common Pleas Court (Case No. 2024 CR 0110), which facilitated this resolution, was proffered by Assistant Prosecutor Allison Kessler on behalf of the State of Ohio.

D. Judicial Adjudication: Judge Todd Anderson’s Ruling and Sentence

The Honorable Todd Anderson, Judge of the Marion Common Pleas Court, granted the State’s motion for dismissal of the felony charges on May 16, 2025, thereby formally accepting the terms of the negotiated plea agreement (Judgment Entry Dismissing Case With Prejudice, May 16, 2025). In his official ruling, Judge Anderson articulated several reasons for this decision:

• Good Cause Demonstrated by the State: The Court concluded that “the State has shown good cause for dismissal.”
• Negotiated Plea as Resolution Mechanism: A principal element of this good cause was identified as the “Defendant pled guilty to the misdemeanor charge as part of a negotiated plea deal to resolve this case.”
• Preclusion by Double Jeopardy: Judge Anderson stated, “Double Jeopardy bars further prosecution of this case.”
• Defendant’s Agreement as Constituting Good Cause: Reinforcing the procedural aspect, the ruling noted, “Moreover, Defendant’s agreement to plead guilty to a misdemeanor offense supplies good cause for dismissal of this case.”
• Adherence to Marsy’s Law: The judge further asserted that the dismissal was effected “in compliance with Marsy’s Law, a victim’s rights law.”
• Dismissal with Prejudice: Critically, the case was dismissed “with prejudice,” signifying that the original felony charges cannot be refiled against Mr. Sisson in connection with this incident.

The invocation of “good cause” by the Court warrants further scrutiny: what specific factors constituted this good cause, beyond the mere existence of a plea to a lesser offense, especially when the original charges were of such a violent nature?

Pursuant to the terms stipulated within this plea agreement, Mr. Wayne E. Sisson III was sentenced in the Municipal Court to a term of 180 days of incarceration; however, 158 days of this term were suspended. Furthermore, he was subjected to a two-year period of community control and was explicitly interdicted from any contact with the victim involved in the case (Marion County Now, May 21, 2025).

II. Key Legal Actors: Roles and Conduct

The disposition of State v. Wayne E. Sisson III entailed pivotal decisions and actions undertaken by several key individuals operating within the Marion County legal apparatus.

A. The Judiciary: Judge Warren T. Edwards and Judge Todd Anderson

The case was initially assigned to Judge Warren T. Edwards, who handled preliminary motions and scheduling through late 2024, including the contentious discovery disputes regarding the Bill of Particulars and the State’s motion to amend the indictment. Judge Edwards’ observation in his October 2, 2024 Judgment Entry that “The State ignored that order” regarding the Bill of Particulars is a direct judicial comment on the prosecution’s conduct. By January 2025, judicial oversight transitioned to Judge Todd A. Anderson, who ultimately approved the plea agreement and dismissal. Judge Anderson, with a lengthy career in private practice including complex criminal litigation and capital case certification prior to his judgeship commencing January 1, 2025, possesses considerable expertise in criminal jurisprudence. His articulated judicial philosophy emphasizes due process, equal application of the law, accountability, fairness, and impartiality. His approbation of this specific plea agreement is therefore unlikely to have emanated from a lack of judicial experience, inviting a more meticulous examination of the precise “good cause” proffered by the prosecution.

B. The Prosecution: Assistant Prosecutor Allison Kessler and Prosecutor Raymond Grogan

Assistant Prosecutor Allison Kessler executed a pivotal function in the Sisson case by proffering the motion to dismiss the felony charges on behalf of the State. The State’s earlier conduct under Judge Edwards, particularly ignoring a court order for a Bill of Particulars and filing a response only minutes before a hearing, as noted in Judge Edwards’ October 2, 2024 Judgment Entry, raises questions about prosecutorial practices and adherence to court directives. This conduct could be viewed as prejudicial to the defense’s ability to prepare. Assistant Prosecutor Kessler operates under the authority of Marion County Prosecutor Raymond Grogan. Prosecutors exercise considerable discretion in charging and plea negotiations, circumscribed by ethical obligations to pursue justice. Assistant Prosecutor Kessler’s decision to request the dismissal of felony charges in preference for a misdemeanor plea constitutes the critical juncture determining this case’s ultimate disposition. The pivotal unknown variable remains the precise underlying basis for this prosecutorial determination.

A Quick Look: Marion’s Auditor Office: A Decades-Long Disaster Zone (Full Investigation Coming Soon)

Prosecutor Raymond Grogan’s role is central due to his oversight of the office and, critically, his prior documented advocacy for Mr. Sisson’s defense attorney, Mr. Jack VanBibber. This prior relationship is examined in detail below.

C. The Defense: Attorney Jack VanBibber – A Documented Pattern of Ethical Infractions and Representation Anomalies

Legal representation for Mr. Wayne E. Sisson III was furnished by Mr. Jack VanBibber, an attorney appointed by the court. During the period of Mr. Sisson’s plea in May 2025, Mr. VanBibber was reportedly “currently under investigation for multiple ethical violations” (Marion County Now, May 21, 2025). This was not a mere unsubstantiated allegation; rather, it culminated in the imposition of significant disciplinary action by the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Authenticated Ethical Violations and Disciplinary Record of Mr. VanBibber:

On May 7, 2024, the Supreme Court of Ohio rendered its judgment in Disciplinary Counsel v. VanBibber, Case No. 2022-050 (2024-Ohio-1702), mandating a two-year suspension from the practice of law for Mr. VanBibber, with the entirety of this suspension conditionally stayed. This adjudication was predicated upon a complaint filed in December 2022 by the disciplinary counsel, which charged Mr. VanBibber with five discrete ethical violations originating from a discernible pattern of misconduct. The documented ethical infractions were both extensive in scope and serious in nature, including:

• Dishonesty and Failure to Comply with the Law (Count One): Multiple traffic violations across several counties (including an OVI charge pled to reckless operation, driving under multiple suspensions, and eluding an officer), dishonest statements to law enforcement, and failure to comply with court orders regarding fines, costs, and license suspensions. (Violations of Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(c), 8.4(c), 8.4(h)).
  
• Trust Account Violations & Failure to Cooperate (Count Two): Mismanagement of client trust account, including commingling personal and client funds, paying personal and business expenses directly from the trust account, and failure to maintain proper ledgers and perform monthly reconciliations. (Violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a), 1.15(a)(2), 1.15(a)(3), 1.15(a)(5)).
  
• Failure to Cooperate in Disciplinary Investigation: Not responding to inquiries and making false statements to the relator. (Violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b)).

The Board of Professional Conduct identified several aggravating factors, including a dishonest or selfish motive, a consistent pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and a failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process. The Supreme Court’s opinion characterized Mr. VanBibber’s misconduct as pervading his entire legal career and evincing “a habitual lack of respect for the law, the courts, the bar, and his clients,” alongside a “flagrant disregard of the law.” (Disciplinary Counsel v. VanBibber, 2024-Ohio-1702).

Prosecutor Grogan’s Prior Endorsement of Mr. VanBibber:

As marionwatch.com previously reported, and as evidenced by a letter dated June 2, 2023 (Grogan Letter), Prosecutor Raymond Grogan provided a strong, detailed letter of support on behalf of Mr. VanBibber during these earlier disciplinary proceedings. In this letter to the disciplinary panel, Mr. Grogan acknowledged Mr. VanBibber’s “series of bad decisions” (including the driving offenses and IOLTA issues) but emphasized his belief in Mr. VanBibber’s rehabilitation, accountability, legal skills, and “vital role” in the Marion County court system. Mr. Grogan explicitly invoked his professional standing “as a prosecutor” when vouching for Mr. VanBibber. This past support acquires new significance in light of the severe allegations that marionwatch.com brought to public attention in May 2025 concerning new ethical charges against Mr. VanBibber, reportedly including falsehoods, sexual misconduct, and legal neglect, which were contemporaneous with the Sisson plea.

Anomaly in Sisson’s Defense Representation:

The apparent brief substitution of Mr. VanBibber by attorney John P. Graceffo in early January 2025, as indicated by a court order (Order of Continuance, Jan. 10, 2025), only for Mr. VanBibber to be listed as counsel again days later (Pretrial Notice, Jan. 13, 2025) and through the remainder of the case, is a notable procedural irregularity. This unexplained fluctuation in legal representation, particularly for a court-appointed attorney facing ethical scrutiny, adds another layer of complexity and potential concern to the case. It raises questions about the stability and consistency of Mr. Sisson’s defense and whether any underlying issues prompted this temporary change.

III. Legal Framework: Double Jeopardy and Marsy’s Law

Judge Anderson explicitly referenced both the doctrine of Double Jeopardy and Marsy’s Law in his judicial decision (Judgment Entry Dismissing Case With Prejudice, May 16, 2025).

A. Double Jeopardy: Invocation and Applicability

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, applicable to states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution, safeguards individuals against successive prosecutions for the identical offense following a conviction or valid acquittal. In Mr. Sisson’s instance, his guilty plea to a misdemeanor, and the court’s acceptance thereof, meant jeopardy attached to that offense. Consequently, this would bar future prosecution for the same criminal conduct encompassed by the dismissed felony charges, provided those felonies are considered the “same offense” for double jeopardy purposes (e.g., under the Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) test, or if one is a lesser-included offense of another, as discussed in Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (1977)). However, Double Jeopardy functions as a consequence of a finalized plea, not as a primary justification for the terms of the plea itself. The substantive “good cause” for the plea’s leniency should derive from other case-specific factors.

Silent Sabotage: Did Marion Insiders Let Financial Problems Fester?

B. Marsy’s Law: Victim’s Rights and Procedural Compliance

Marsy’s Law (Ohio Crime Victims’ Bill of Rights, Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 10a) confers upon crime victims enforceable rights, including the right to confer with the prosecutor prior to a plea agreement and to provide input. For the Sisson dismissal to be “in compliance with Marsy’s Law,” the victim should have been duly notified, informed of the proposed plea, and afforded a meaningful opportunity to confer and be heard. The available information does not detail the specific interactions with the victim. A mere assertion of compliance does not confirm substantive engagement or victim concurrence with the lenient outcome, especially given the “controversial” nature of the plea.

IV. Comparative and Ethical Analysis of the Sisson Plea Deal

The Sisson plea agreement warrants critical analysis from multiple perspectives, comparing its resolution with generally accepted legal practices and ethical standards.

A. Normalization of Plea Bargaining vs. The Sisson Outcome

While plea bargaining is prevalent, the reduction from multiple violent felonies (carrying over eight years potential imprisonment) to a single misdemeanor with minimal actual jail time, as seen in Mr. Sisson’s case, is striking. Such substantial reductions typically require robust public justification based on factors such as severe evidentiary weaknesses, critical victim non-cooperation, or substantial defendant cooperation in other matters. The Sisson record, citing “good cause” based primarily on the plea itself, lacks transparent articulation of such compelling factors. Standard prosecutorial practice, particularly in cases involving allegations of significant violence, generally aims for resolutions that reflect the gravity of the harm alleged and the risk to public safety. A departure as significant as observed in the Sisson matter, without clear, compelling, and publicly articulated reasons, deviates from these normative expectations.

B. Perspectives of Legal and Ethics Experts on Unusual or Suspicious Aspects

1. Extent of Charge Reduction: Legal experts would question the profound reduction absent clear, compelling justification. An initial indictment for serious felonies implies the prosecutor’s office believed probable cause existed. The American Bar Association (ABA) Standards for Criminal Justice, Prosecution Function, Standard 3-4.3, emphasizes that a prosecutor should not be compelled by factors such as case overload to recommend a disposition that does not adequately address the seriousness of the offense. The Sisson outcome, on its face, appears to fall short of this standard without further elucidation.
2. Prosecutorial Conduct and Potential Conflicts of Interest (Grogan & VanBibber):

• Legal Perspective: The prior professional relationship wherein Prosecutor Grogan strongly endorsed Mr. VanBibber creates a significant appearance of impropriety, if not an actual conflict, when Mr. VanBibber defends a client against Mr. Grogan’s office and secures an exceptionally favorable outcome. The ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Prosecution Function, Standard 3-1.7, addresses conflicts of interest, stating a prosecutor should avoid the appearance or reality of a conflict. A prosecutor’s personal endorsement of opposing counsel could be seen by a reasonable observer as potentially influencing the office’s handling of that counsel’s cases.
  
• Ethical Perspective: The Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct (e.g., Rule 1.7) obligate lawyers to avoid situations where professional judgment might be compromised. The appearance that Mr. Grogan’s prior support influenced the Sisson plea is damaging to public trust. Ethics experts emphasize that maintaining public confidence in the impartiality of the justice system is paramount. As articulated by legal scholars like Monroe H. Freedman, the appearance of impropriety can be as corrosive to public trust as actual misconduct. The “Walk Away Ray” narrative, as reported by marionwatch.com, would further fuel ethical concerns about consistent and impartial application of prosecutorial standards.
  
• Prosecutorial Diligence in Discovery: The State’s documented failure to comply with Judge Edwards’ order regarding the Bill of Particulars until minutes before a hearing (“The State ignored that order,” per Judge Edwards’ October 2, 2024 Judgment Entry) constitutes a procedural lapse. Ohio Criminal Rule 16 governs discovery, and timely compliance is essential for due process and the defendant’s ability to prepare a defense. Such conduct could be viewed by legal experts as unprofessional, potentially prejudicial, and contrary to a prosecutor’s duty as a minister of justice, as outlined in ABA Standard 3-1.4 (Duty to Seek Justice).

3. Defense Counsel’s Ethical Standing and Representation Irregularities (Mr. VanBibber): As marionwatch.com reported, Mr. VanBibber faced new, serious ethical investigations during the Sisson representation. This, coupled with the unexplained brief change in his representation status, would lead experts to question whether an attorney under such duress and with such procedural anomalies surrounding his appointment could provide unimpaired, effective representation, consistent with the Sixth Amendment right to counsel as interpreted in cases like Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Concerns might arise that his own circumstances incentivized an expedited resolution or that the brief change in counsel reflected instability detrimental to the defense. The Supreme Court of Ohio’s own characterization of Mr. VanBibber’s past conduct (“habitual lack of respect for the law, the courts, the bar, and his clients”) raises profound doubts about his fitness to provide adequate representation, particularly in a serious felony case.
   
4. Judicial Oversight and “Good Cause”: Experts might question whether the mere existence of a plea to a drastically reduced charge, given the contextual background (including the change of judges, the State’s earlier conduct regarding the Bill of Particulars as noted by Judge Edwards, and the defense counsel situation), sufficiently meets the “good cause” standard for dismissal under Ohio Crim.R. 48(A) without more detailed on-record justification. While judicial deference to prosecutorial discretion is common, it is not absolute, especially where public interest or the appearance of fairness is at stake. Judge Edwards’ explicit finding that “The State ignored that order” (Judgment Entry, Oct. 2, 2024) regarding the Bill of Particulars, and his subsequent denial of further particulars to the defense despite an amended indictment and his acknowledgment that “the Defendant is somewhat unsure what the State is alleging” (Judgment Entry, Oct. 15, 2024), are judicial statements that highlight specific procedural concerns and potential prejudice to the defense’s preparation.
   
5. Victim’s Rights (Marsy’s Law): The spirit of Marsy’s Law involves meaningful consultation. Experts would question whether a plea resulting in minimal sanction for alleged violent crimes truly reflects adequate victim consideration or if “compliance” was merely procedural. The law intends to give victims a substantive voice, not just a check-box acknowledgment.

The confluence of these factors, including the newly identified procedural irregularities such as the State’s initial disregard of a court order for a Bill of Particulars and the subsequent last-minute compliance, and the denial of further particulars to the defense despite an amended indictment, creates a scenario that legal and ethics experts would likely view with significant concern.

V. Broader Implications and Potential Systemic Issues

The Sisson plea agreement, when viewed alongside other controversial case resolutions from the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office (e.g., the Mally and Ratliff cases, as previously reported by local media and marionwatch.com), suggests potential systemic issues rather than isolated anomalies.

• Pattern of Controversial Resolutions: The “Walk Away Ray” moniker assigned to Prosecutor Grogan reflects public perception of a pattern of lenient outcomes for serious offenses. This raises questions about prosecutorial priorities, resource allocation, or a discretionary pattern that may not align with public safety expectations.
  
• Procedural Irregularities and Allegations of Misconduct: Accusations in the Ratliff case, such as failure to comply with Marsy’s Law and withholding discovery, point to potential operational and ethical deficiencies within the prosecutor’s office. The procedural anomalies observed in the Sisson case itself, such as the State’s handling of the Bill of Particulars (explicitly noted by Judge Edwards), the unexplained brief change in defense counsel, and the transfer of judicial oversight, further contribute to concerns about consistent and transparent case management.
  
• Erosion of Public Trust: Such patterns and specific controversial outcomes, especially when intertwined with potential conflicts of interest and ethically compromised defense counsel, can severely diminish public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the local justice system.

The repeated cycle of serious charges followed by significantly reduced pleas or dismissals engenders the question: Is the Marion County court system adequately fulfilling its mandate to protect the public and administer justice, or has it become a system wherein accountability is too often compromised?

VI. Conclusion and Recommendations

The investigation into the Wayne E. Sisson III case reveals a disquieting confluence of circumstances: a substantial reduction in charges for violent felonies; the involvement of a defense attorney with severe, documented ethical deficiencies and contemporaneous new allegations, as well as unexplained irregularities in his representation status during the case; a prosecutor who had previously provided strong personal and professional support for that attorney; contentious pre-trial procedural handling by the State, particularly concerning discovery obligations as noted by Judge Edwards; and a broader pattern of controversial case outcomes within Marion County.

The appearance of impropriety is palpable, and the potential for actual conflicts of interest to have influenced the administration of justice cannot be dismissed. Public trust is the cornerstone of a functioning legal system, and the events detailed herein possess the clear capacity to erode that trust. The questions raised extend beyond individual culpability to the systemic integrity of the local justice process.

A. Recommendations for Judicial Oversight, Prosecutorial Discretion, and Defense Standards

To address the identified concerns and bolster the integrity of the legal process, the following recommendations are proposed:

For the Judiciary:

1. Enhanced Scrutiny of Plea Agreements: Implementation of protocols mandating heightened judicial scrutiny for plea agreements that entail substantial reductions of charges for violent felonies. Such scrutiny should encompass a detailed, on-the-record inquiry into the substantive justifications for said reduction, extending beyond the mere existence of a negotiated agreement.
2. Oversight of Discovery and Procedural Compliance: Increased judicial vigilance regarding prosecutorial compliance with discovery orders and timelines, with appropriate sanctions for non-compliance to ensure defendants’ rights to adequate preparation are not prejudiced, reflecting the concerns implicitly raised by Judge Edwards’ findings regarding the Bill of Particulars.
3. Inquiry into Representation Irregularities: In cases exhibiting unexplained changes or anomalies in legal representation, particularly for court-appointed counsel, judicial inquiry into the reasons and potential impact on the defendant’s rights may be warranted.
4. Consideration of Counsel’s Professional Standing: In instances where an attorney appearing before the court, particularly in a court-appointed capacity, possesses a known history of serious ethical violations or is subject to an active and significant disciplinary investigation, judicial officers should deliberate upon the necessity of instituting additional safeguards or inquiries to ensure the protection of the defendant’s rights and the maintenance of procedural integrity.
5. More Explicit Justification for “Good Cause”: Mandate a more explicit articulation from the prosecution concerning the elements constituting “good cause” when recommending a significantly lenient plea agreement, particularly in cases characterized by violent offenses.

For the Prosecutor’s Office:

1. Development of Stricter Internal Guidelines: Establishment and enforcement of clear, written internal guidelines for Assistant Prosecutors pertaining to the proffer of plea agreements in cases involving serious violent crime, and adherence to discovery obligations and court orders. Such guidelines should mandate comprehensive consideration of the defendant’s complete criminal history, the severity of the extant offense, the impact upon the victim, and the safety of the community.
2. Conflict of Interest Policies and Recusal Mechanisms: Development, implementation, and public dissemination of clear and stringent policies regarding the management of actual and potential conflicts of interest. These policies should specifically address situations involving attorneys with whom the Prosecutor or senior staff have close personal or prior professional supportive relationships. Such policies must include robust recusal mechanisms and transparent disclosure protocols.
3. Review of Cases Involving Compromised Defense Counsel: Implementation of a policy providing for supervisory review of plea negotiations and resultant outcomes in cases where defense counsel is known to have significant pending ethical complaints or a history of serious disciplinary action.
4. Robust Implementation of Marsy’s Law: Ensure that victim consultation pursuant to Marsy’s Law is not merely procedural but is also substantive in nature, with documented efforts to confer and clear recording of the victim’s position.

For Court Administration and Bar Associations (Regarding Defense Standards):

1. Strengthening of Court-Appointment Systems: Review and enhancement of the processes for the selection and appointment of legal counsel for indigent defendants, incorporating regular verification of attorneys’ disciplinary status and mechanisms for removal from eligibility lists if subject to serious ethical investigations or sanctions. This review should also address procedures for managing temporary substitutions of counsel to ensure continuity and effective representation.
2. Mandatory Reporting of Ethical Concerns: Consideration of mechanisms through which courts are promptly notified if an attorney on their appointment roster becomes the subject of a formal disciplinary complaint alleging serious misconduct.

B. Call for Independent Review

Given the serious questions raised, an independent and thorough review should be conducted by an appropriate external oversight body (e.g., Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Ohio Attorney General’s Office, or a specially appointed independent prosecutor). This review should examine:

• The specific circumstances and justifications underlying the Sisson plea agreement, including the procedural history, discovery practices (and the State’s documented non-compliance with court orders as noted by Judge Edwards), and changes in judicial and defense representation.
• The nature and propriety of the relationship between Prosecutor Grogan and attorney Van Bibber and its potential influence on cases.
• The pattern of case dispositions for serious felonies in Marion County under Prosecutor Grogan.
• The status and nature of ethical investigations concerning Mr. Van Bibber.

VII. Closing Statement

The examination of the Wayne Sisson case, interwoven with the ethical standing of his defense counsel, Mr. Jack VanBibber, the prior supportive actions of Marion County Prosecutor Raymond Grogan, notable procedural irregularities including those related to discovery and representation during the case (such as the State’s documented disregard for a court order concerning the Bill of Particulars, as explicitly noted by Judge Edwards), and a pattern of other controversial prosecutorial outcomes, culminates in a series of deeply troubling observations. The significant reduction of violent felony charges to a misdemeanor, the documented past and alleged present ethical issues concerning Mr. VanBibber, and the unusual advocacy by a chief prosecutor for a defense attorney who subsequently appears before his office, collectively present a scenario that demands rigorous and impartial scrutiny.

The appearance of impropriety, at a minimum, is palpable. More significantly, the potential for actual conflicts of interest to have influenced the administration of justice in Marion County cannot be dismissed. Public trust constitutes the cornerstone of a functioning legal system, and the events detailed herein possess the clear capacity to erode that trust. The questions raised extend beyond individual culpability to the systemic integrity of the local justice process. Therefore, the call for an independent, comprehensive review by appropriate oversight authorities is not merely a suggestion but a necessity to affirm or restore faith in the principles of fairness, impartiality, and accountability that must govern the Marion County justice system. Without such transparent examination and, if warranted, corrective action, the shadow of doubt will continue to loom over the administration of justice in this community.

Works Cited:

• Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932).
• Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (1977).
• Disciplinary Counsel v. VanBibber, 2024-Ohio-1702.
• Freedman, Monroe H. & Smith, Abbe. (2010). Understanding Lawyers’ Ethics. LexisNexis.
• Grogan, R. (2023, June 2). Letter on behalf of Jack VanBibber to Panel Members.
• Judgment Entry, State v. Sisson, Case No. 2024 CR 0110 (Marion C.P. Oct. 2, 2024).
• Judgment Entry, State v. Sisson, Case No. 2024 CR 0110 (Marion C.P. Oct. 15, 2024).
• Judgment Entry Dismissing Case With Prejudice, State v. Sisson, Case No. 2024 CR 0110 (Marion C.P. May 16, 2025).
• Judgment Entry, State v. Sisson, Case No. 2024 CR 0110 (Marion C.P. Nov. 25, 2024).
• Marion County Now. (2025, May 21). Felony case dismissed for former Marion Man in controversial plea deal. (Referred to as Marion County Now, May 21, 2025 in text)
• Notice of Jury Trial, State v. Sisson, Case No. 2024 CR 0110 (Marion C.P. Mar. 12, 2025).
• Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 10a (Marsy’s Law).
• Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 16 (Discovery).
• Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 48(A) (Dismissal by the State).
• Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.7 (Conflict of Interest: Current Clients).
• Order of Continuance, State v. Sisson, Case No. 2024 CR 0110 (Marion C.P. Jan. 10, 2025).
• Order to Continue Jury Trial, State v. Sisson, Case No. 2024 CR 0110 (Marion C.P. Dec. 2, 2024).
• Order to Continue Jury Trial, State v. Sisson, Case No. 2024 CR 0110 (Marion C.P. Mar. 6, 2025).
• Order to Respond, State v. Sisson, Case No. 2024 CR 0110 (Marion C.P. Sept. 16, 2024).
• Pretrial and Jury Trial Hearing Notice, State v. Sisson, Case No. 2024 CR 0110 (Marion C.P. Dec. 2, 2024).
• Pretrial Notice, State v. Sisson, Case No. 2024 CR 0110 (Marion C.P. Jan. 13, 2025).
• State’s Motion to Amend Indictment, State v. Sisson, Case No. 2024 CR 0110 (Marion C.P. Oct. 4, 2024).
• Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
• American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice, Prosecution Function, Standard 3-1.4 (Duty to Seek Justice).
• American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice, Prosecution Function, Standard 3-1.7 (Conflicts of Interest).
• American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice, Prosecution Function, Standard 3-4.3 (Plea Discussions).
• Defendant’s Motion to Modify Bond, State v. Sisson, Case No. 2024 CR 0110 (Marion C.P. Oct. 3, 2024).
• Defendant’s Second Motion for a more Particularized and Specific Bill of Particulars, State v. Sisson, Case No. 2024 CR 0110 (Marion C.P. Oct. 3, 2024).
• Final Pretrial Notice, State v. Sisson, Case No. 2024 CR 0110 (Marion C.P. Dec. 11, 2024).
• Hearing Notice (Bond Modification), State v. Sisson, Case No. 2024 CR 0110 (Marion C.P. Oct. 9, 2024).
• Ruling on Motion (Preserve and Produce Evidence), State v. Sisson, Case No. 2024 CR 0110 (Marion C.P. Aug. 29, 2024).
• (Note: References to marionwatch.com articles regarding other cases (Mally, Ratliff, “Walk Away Ray” moniker) are based on the context provided in the prompt history and are cited in-text as (marionwatch.com, [Date if specified]) or as general reporting by the organization.)