Written by Ayers Ratliff Case and Marion’s Eroding Public Trust
In the heart of Ohio, the community of Marion depends on its governmental institutions, particularly its legal system, to uphold justice and maintain public order. This reliance forms the bedrock of civic trust and societal stability.1 However, a series of events, most notably the high-profile prosecution of City Councilman Ayers Ratliff, has cast a considerable shadow over these institutions. This situation has ignited profound ethical questions and contributed to a pervasive climate of concern regarding transparency, due process, and accountability in Marion’s governance.1 The controversy specifically centers on Marion County Prosecutor Ray Grogan, whose actions in the Ayers Ratliff case have become a focal point of intense ethical debate.1
This investigative report meticulously examines the specific handling of the Ratliff case, rigorously applying established legal and ethical doctrines. It also contextualizes the case within the broader systemic issues that have fostered a palpable concern among citizens about ethics violations.1 The Ratliff case, in its entirety, serves as a critical examination of Marion’s institutional integrity. When a high-profile case involving a public official is handled controversially, it can disproportionately impact public perception of the entire system. The community’s fundamental expectation that its institutions will uphold justice, when unmet, can lead to a significant crisis of confidence. This single case, therefore, acts as a barometer for the overall health and trustworthiness of Marion’s legal and governmental infrastructure. A perceived failure to uphold ethical standards in such a visible instance can erode public trust far beyond the specifics of the prosecution, potentially leading to disengagement or even civil unrest. On Thursday, Ayers Ratliff, the second ward city councilman, filed a lawsuit in Marion County Court of Common Pleas seeking over $20,000 in damages. The lawsuit names Marion County Prosecutor Ray Grogan, Assistant Marion County Prosecutor David Stamolis, part-time Assistant Marion County Prosecutor Mark Weaver, the firm of Isaac Wiles, and several unnamed individuals (“John and Jane Does”) employed by Marion County or the City of Marion as law enforcement officers or in other capacities within Marion County.
The lawsuit alleges libel, slander, malicious prosecution, and Fourth Amendment violations stemming from Ratliff’s arrest in May 2024. In August 2024, Ratliff was indicted on charges of rape, sexual battery, and gross sexual imposition. However, in January, the state filed a motion to dismiss these charges.
Click Here for Ratliff Court Documents Image Format
The Ayers Ratliff Case: A Timeline of Controversy and Procedural Irregularities
The narrative of the Ayers Ratliff case began dramatically on May 20, 2024, with the arrest of City Councilman Ayers Ratliff on grave charges of raping a 13-year-old child. The accusation, stemming from a report made to a school guidance counselor, quickly sent ripples through the Marion community, setting the stage for a prosecution that would become emblematic of deeper ethical concerns.1
The “Damaging Video”: A Prosecutor’s Premature Public Declaration
On May 21, 2024, the very day after Ratliff’s arrest, Prosecutor Grogan took an extraordinary and highly criticized step. He released a “rare video statement” on the official Marion County Prosecutor’s Facebook page, publicly accusing Ratliff of rape of a minor.1 In this public address, Grogan declared that Ratliff, despite being a city council member, would be treated “the same as any other criminal defendant” and was “not above the law,” while also acknowledging the presumption of innocence.1 This video, released prior to the full investigation being complete or a grand jury indictment, immediately became a point of intense contention and ethical scrutiny.1
Ratliff’s defense attorney, Rocky Ratliff, later characterized Grogan’s actions as “capitalizing on the limelight” and running “podcasts burying Mr. Ratliff and portraying Mr. Ratliff as something he is not and has never been – a criminal”.1 The defense argued that Grogan had “jumped the gun to arrest his client” 1, suggesting an arrest made without a sufficiently thorough initial investigation. This aligns with a broader pattern of “political character assassinations” that MarionWatch has extensively documented as a “long-standing Marion tradition”.1
The timing and content of Grogan’s video suggest it was a strategic rather than purely informational act. Released immediately after the arrest and before a full investigation or indictment, the statement’s primary effect was to establish a public narrative of guilt. While prosecutors have a legitimate role in informing the public about law enforcement actions, ethical guidelines generally restrict statements that offer an opinion on guilt or innocence before due process has unfolded.2 This action points to a potential misuse of official platforms for public relations or political purposes, rather than strict adherence to the prosecutor’s role as a “minister of justice.” It raises fundamental questions about the prosecutor’s primary motivations—whether they are centered on justice or on managing public perception and achieving political gain. Such a precedent could have a chilling effect on public service, as individuals might hesitate to engage in civic duties if they perceive a risk of being unfairly targeted or publicly condemned before a fair legal process.
A Case Plagued by Delays, Discovery Failures, and Allegations of “Bad Faith”
Following the initial arrest and controversial public statement, the Ratliff case became a legal quagmire, marked by significant procedural issues and allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. The grand jury, which Grogan had initially represented would hear the case on May 29, 2024, instead “waited fifty-four (54) days”.1 Subsequently, the grand jury “tabled the indictment and still hadn’t handed down an indictment within the 60 days as required”.1 The defense accused Grogan of “intentional sandbagging” and “intentional withholding of discovery”.1 These allegations are not isolated; MarionWatch’s “Walk Away Ray” series highlights broader concerns about Grogan’s office, noting instances where charges were dropped or reduced due to “procedural issues” and “the prosecution’s failure to provide evidence”.1 The defense argued that Grogan’s public assertions of having evidence to prove his case “beyond a reasonable doubt” before bringing a charge contradicted his alleged actions of withholding crucial information.1 The defense motion explicitly defined “bad faith” as “dishonest purpose, moral obliquity, conscious wrongdoing, breach of a known duty through some ulterior motive, or ill will partaking of the nature of the fraud” 1, directly implying such conduct on Grogan’s part.
The pattern of delays and discovery failures observed in the Ratliff case appears to indicate systemic issues rather than isolated errors within the prosecutor’s office. The significant delay in grand jury proceedings and the repeated allegations of “intentional sandbagging” and “withholding of discovery” are not unique to this case, as evidenced by MarionWatch’s reports of similar “mishandled cases”.1 This recurrence suggests a deeper problem within the prosecutor’s office, potentially stemming from a lack of proper case management, inadequate training, or even a culture that tolerates or enables such practices. If these are indeed systemic issues, they carry profound implications, potentially leading to a higher rate of wrongful convictions, a breakdown in fundamental due process, and a significant financial burden on the public due to repeated dismissals or appeals. This situation suggests that the Ratliff case is not an anomaly but a visible symptom of a more pervasive institutional malaise.
Recantation, Dismissal, and a Community’s Perception of “Psychological Warfare”
A critical turning point arrived when the alleged victim, reportedly suffering from mental health issues, “recanted her story to prosecutors and a guardian ad litem”.1 The defense further claimed she testified at the Grand Jury that she lied and explained her reasons.1 Despite this, Ratliff was indicted on multiple felonies in August 2024.1 However, in a dramatic twist just before the scheduled trial in January 2025, Grogan’s office filed a motion for Nolle Prosequi (dismissal without prejudice).1 Grogan stated this was to “allow further investigation of the underlying crime and to avoid putting the defendant in criminal jeopardy on evidence of uncertain credibility”.1 He cited “new leads” and “potentially illegal acts” discovered from Ratliff’s recently disclosed discovery materials as justification.1 Ratliff’s attorney called this a “stall tactic”.1 Crucially, many citizens, including the MarionWatch Citizen Action Network, believe that the manner in which this dismissal was handled was done so for the purposes of psychological warfare, serving as a “forever threat” that could be used as a weapon at any time.1 Adding to the ethical complexities, the victim’s mother filed a motion opposing further continuances, accusing Grogan’s office of violating Marsy’s Law by failing to consult her and her family about the dismissal and victim’s rights assistance in general.1 The case had already been dismissed once in September 2024 before being recharged in December 2024 1, further highlighting the instability and shifting strategies of the prosecution and contributing to the “mishandled cases” narrative.1
Beyond the procedural irregularities, a deeply unsettling aspect of the Ratliff case, frequently voiced by Marion citizens, is the belief that the alleged victim was coached into her initial admission and subsequently kept against her will, or at least without proper agency and support. This sentiment is fueled by several critical developments. The alleged victim was reportedly suffering from mental health issues when the accusation was made.1 A pivotal moment occurred when she “recanted her story to prosecutors and a guardian ad litem,” with the defense further claiming she “testified at the Grand Jury that she lied and explained her reasons”.1 Despite this clear recantation, Ratliff was still indicted on multiple felonies.1 The prosecutor’s later justification for dismissal, citing “evidence of uncertain credibility,” further underscores the fragility of the initial accusation.1
This sequence of events, particularly the indictment following a recantation from a vulnerable individual, raises profound ethical and legal concerns. If the initial accusation was indeed influenced or coerced, it would fundamentally undermine the probable cause necessary for prosecution. This directly violates Ohio Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(a), which mandates that a prosecutor “shall refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause”.4 Proceeding with an indictment despite a recantation, especially from a victim with reported mental health issues, could be interpreted as prosecuting without sufficient probable cause. If a prosecutor knew the testimony was false due to the recantation and still proceeded, it could be seen as knowingly sponsoring perjured testimony or making false statements, which are forms of prosecutorial misconduct.6 Such actions, if proven, could lead to severe professional discipline, including suspension or disbarment of the prosecutor’s law license by the Ohio Supreme Court’s Board of Professional Conduct. While difficult to prove due to prosecutorial immunity, in rare instances, such conduct could also potentially lead to criminal charges like obstruction of justice or perjury, though the legal standards for overcoming immunity are exceptionally high.6
Furthermore, the alleged victim’s reported mental health issues, coupled with the mother’s accusation that Grogan’s office violated Marsy’s Law by failing to consult her and her family about the dismissal and victim’s rights assistance 1, could be interpreted as a failure to adequately protect a vulnerable witness and a disregard for her autonomy.
Marsy’s Law (Ohio Constitution Article I, Section 10a) aims to secure justice and due process for victims, ensuring they are treated with fairness and respect for their safety, dignity, and privacy, and have the right to confer with the attorney for the government.8 A failure to properly engage with the victim’s family, especially given her reported mental health, could suggest a disregard for her well-being and autonomy, lending credence to the community’s concern that she was, in effect, “kept against her will” or at least not adequately supported in exercising her rights. While Marsy’s Law does not create a cause of action for damages against the state or its employees 9, a victim or their lawful representative can petition the court of appeals if their rights are denied.9 Such actions would not only breach specific victim’s rights but also the broader ethical duty of a prosecutor to seek justice, not merely to secure a conviction, particularly when the credibility of the primary witness is compromised or potentially influenced. This could lead to professional disciplinary action against the prosecutor.
Key Events in the Ayers Ratliff Case Timeline
| Date | Event Description | Key Actors Involved |
| May 20, 2024 | Ayers Ratliff arrested on rape charges. | City Councilman Ayers Ratliff |
| May 21, 2024 | Prosecutor Grogan releases “damaging video statement” on official Facebook page. | Prosecutor Ray Grogan |
| May 29, 2024 (expected) | Grand Jury expected to hear the case. | Grand Jury |
| July 22, 2024 (approx.) | Grand Jury delays 54 days, tables indictment, fails to indict within 60 days. | Grand Jury, Prosecutor Ray Grogan |
| Undated (prior to Aug 2024) | Alleged victim recants story to prosecutors and a guardian ad litem, testifies to lying at Grand Jury. | Alleged Victim, Prosecutors, Guardian ad Litem |
| August 2024 | Ratliff indicted on multiple felonies. | Grand Jury, Prosecutor Ray Grogan |
| September 2024 | Case dismissed once. | Prosecutor Ray Grogan’s office |
| December 2024 | Case recharged. | Prosecutor Ray Grogan’s office |
| January 2025 (pre-trial) | Grogan’s office files Nolle Prosequi (dismissal without prejudice). | Prosecutor Ray Grogan’s office |
| January 2025 (pre-trial) | Victim’s mother files motion opposing continuances, alleging Marsy’s Law violation. | Victim’s Mother, Prosecutor Ray Grogan’s office |
Breaches of Professional Conduct: Prosecutor Grogan’s Actions Under Scrutiny
The handling of the Ayers Ratliff case by Prosecutor Ray Grogan has raised numerous serious concerns regarding adherence to established legal and ethical doctrines governing prosecutorial conduct. These concerns are not merely procedural disputes but strike at the core of fairness and due process, impacting the integrity of the justice system in Marion.
Prejudicial Public Statements: Undermining Due Process
Prosecutor Grogan’s video statement on May 21, 2024, made on an official platform prior to the full investigation or a grand jury indictment, represents a significant ethical risk.1 In this public address, Grogan declared that Ratliff, despite being a city council member, would be treated “the same as any other criminal defendant” and was “not above the law,” while also acknowledging the presumption of innocence.1 The statement, particularly its public accusation of rape of a minor, created a public narrative of guilt before due process had fully unfolded.1
From an expert legal and ethical perspective, a prosecutor, as a “minister of justice,” is bound by duties that extend beyond merely securing convictions. Ohio Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(a) implicitly mandates that a prosecutor “shall refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause”.4 While the rule specifically addresses
prosecuting a charge, a public declaration of guilt before full investigation could be seen as an informal “prosecution” in the public sphere without the requisite probable cause being fully established. The defense’s assertion that Grogan “jumped the gun to arrest his client” further implies a potential lack of sufficient probable cause at the time of the public statement.1
Furthermore, ethical guidelines for prosecutors, often mirroring ABA Model Rule 3.6, restrict extrajudicial statements that have a “substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding”.2 This rule specifically prohibits statements relating to the “character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party,” or “any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect”.2 Grogan’s video, accusing Ratliff of rape and characterizing him as a “criminal defendant” on an official platform, appears to fall squarely within these prohibitions.1 Such premature public declarations risk prejudicing the jury pool, making it difficult to select impartial jurors.2 They fundamentally undermine the presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of the American justice system, by creating a public narrative of guilt before the legal process has fully unfolded.2 The defense’s characterization of this as “political character assassinations” 1 further highlights the perceived intent to damage reputation beyond the legal process. If found in violation, a prosecutor could face professional discipline ranging from a public reprimand to suspension of their law license by the Ohio Supreme Court’s Board of Professional Conduct. Such actions also carry the risk of undermining the fairness of the trial, potentially leading to a mistrial or reversal of a conviction on appeal.
Discovery Failures and Due Process Violations: The Withholding of Evidence
Following the initial public statement, the defense explicitly accused Grogan of “intentional sandbagging” and “intentional withholding of discovery”.1 These allegations are not isolated; MarionWatch’s “Walk Away Ray” series highlights broader concerns about Grogan’s office, noting instances where charges were dropped or reduced due to “procedural issues” and “the prosecution’s failure to provide evidence”.1 The defense argued that Grogan’s public assertions of having evidence to prove his case “beyond a reasonable doubt” before bringing a charge contradicted his alleged actions of withholding crucial information.1
Ohio Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(d) requires prosecutors to “make timely disclosure of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense”.4 The alleged “intentional withholding of discovery” would constitute a direct breach of this ethical rule.1 This rule is often interpreted as broader than constitutional requirements, extending to any information that “tends to negate guilt” or could assist the defense, not just “material” evidence.10
Furthermore, the alleged withholding also potentially violates the defendant’s due process rights under the Brady v. Maryland doctrine. Brady mandates the disclosure of “material, exculpatory information in the government’s possession to the defense”.12 This duty is breached regardless of whether the information is withheld intentionally or unintentionally.12 Such actions, if proven, are not only unethical but could also be illegal under federal constitutional law, as they undermine the fundamental right to a fair trial.13 The
Brady rule is considered a constitutional floor, and ethical rules like 3.8(d) often impose higher standards, meaning compliance with 3.8(d) would necessarily satisfy the Brady requirements.11 The cumulative effect of these alleged ethical breaches points to a pattern of behavior, not merely isolated incidents. The sequential occurrence of a premature public statement, alleged discovery failures, and a controversial Nolle Prosequi, coupled with defense allegations of “bad faith” and reports of “mishandled cases,” suggests a recurring operational approach rather than mere oversight. This pattern implies either a systemic lack of understanding or a disregard for prosecutorial ethical obligations within the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office. Such a culture could lead to due process being secondary to other objectives, ultimately undermining the integrity of the justice system and eroding public confidence in its fairness. If proven, these violations could lead to professional discipline, including suspension or disbarment. More critically, a
Brady violation discovered after conviction typically results in the overturning of that conviction 12, and if the withholding was intentional or knowing, the prosecutor may be subject to sanctions.12
The “Bad Faith” Dismissal and Disregard for Victim’s Rights
A critical aspect of the case’s ethical scrutiny revolves around the Nolle Prosequi filed just before the scheduled trial in January 2025, particularly given that it followed the alleged victim’s recantation and occurred amidst defense allegations of “bad faith”.1 Prosecutor Grogan stated the dismissal was to “allow further investigation of the underlying crime and to avoid putting the defendant in criminal jeopardy on evidence of uncertain credibility”.1 However, Ratliff’s attorney characterized this as a “stall tactic”.1 The fact that the case had already been dismissed once in September 2024 and then recharged in December 2024 further highlights instability and shifting strategies of the prosecution, contributing to the “mishandled cases” narrative.1
While prosecutors have discretion to dismiss charges, as outlined in Ohio Revised Code 2941.33 and Criminal Rule 48(A), this discretion must be exercised in “good faith” and with “good cause shown”.15 The timing of the dismissal—after a recantation and just before trial, in the face of defense allegations of “bad faith”—raises serious ethical questions about whether it was a genuine pursuit of justice or a tactical maneuver to avoid a failing prosecution and a likely public acquittal.1 The defense’s explicit definition of “bad faith” as “dishonest purpose, moral obliquity, conscious wrongdoing, breach of a known duty through some ulterior motive, or ill will partaking of the nature of the fraud” 1 directly implies such conduct. This situation highlights a fundamental tension between prosecutorial discretion and ethical and constitutional mandates. While prosecutors are granted broad discretion, this power is explicitly conditioned on acting in “good faith” and adhering to ethical boundaries, such as those against prejudicing proceedings. The Ratliff case illustrates a scenario where the exercise of discretion appears to conflict with these ethical boundaries, particularly in the context of a victim’s recantation and alleged discovery failures. When this balance is perceived to be skewed, it creates a perception of unchecked power, further fueling public distrust and the belief that justice is not applied equally or fairly. If a prosecutor’s discretion is found to have been exercised in bad faith, it could lead to professional disciplinary action.
Adding to the ethical complexities, the victim’s mother filed a motion opposing further continuances, accusing Grogan’s office of violating Marsy’s Law (Ohio Constitution Article I, Section 10a) by failing to consult her and her family about the dismissal and victim’s rights assistance in general.1 Marsy’s Law grants victims specific rights, including the right to “confer with the attorney for the government”.8 While the prosecutor remains in control of decision-making in a case, the ethical duty to confer with victims is paramount.8 This alleged violation constitutes a breach of statutory and constitutional victim’s rights, regardless of Grogan’s motion citing prosecutorial primacy.1 The alleged disregard for Marsy’s Law underscores a broader potential disregard for victim’s rights in the pursuit of prosecutorial strategy. If victim’s rights, enshrined in the state constitution, are allegedly overlooked, it suggests a transactional view of victims within the system—as mere sources of evidence rather than stakeholders with inherent rights. This can lead to re-victimization and further erode trust not only in the prosecutor’s office but in the entire victim support and justice system. While Marsy’s Law does not create a cause of action for damages against the state or its employees 9, a victim or their lawful representative can petition the court of appeals for applicable relief if their rights are denied.9 This alleged violation could also contribute to professional disciplinary findings against the prosecutor.
Alleged Prosecutorial Misconduct and Corresponding Legal/Ethical Violations
| Alleged Action/Conduct | Date (if applicable) | Specific Legal/Ethical Doctrine Violated | Description of Violation | Potential Charges/Discipline (if proven) |
| Public Video Statement | May 21, 2024 | ABA Model Rule 3.6 2, Ohio Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(a) 4 | Prejudicial extrajudicial statement, potential prosecution without probable cause in the public sphere. | Professional discipline (reprimand, suspension); undermines trial fairness, potential for mistrial. |
| Intentional Withholding of Discovery | Undated | Ohio Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(d) 4, Brady v. Maryland 12 | Failure to timely disclose exculpatory and mitigating evidence. | Professional discipline (reprimand, suspension, disbarment); conviction overturned; sanctions. |
| Nolle Prosequi (Dismissal) | January 2025 (pre-trial) | Ohio Revised Code 2941.33 15, Criminal Rule 48(A) 1 | Prosecutorial discretion not exercised in “good faith.” | Professional discipline for abuse of discretion or ethical violations. |
| Failure to Consult Victim’s Family | January 2025 (pre-trial) | Marsy’s Law (Ohio Constitution Article I, Section 10a) 8 | Breach of victim’s right to confer with the prosecutor regarding case disposition. | Professional discipline; judicial intervention to enforce victim’s rights. |
| Prosecuting after Victim Recantation / Alleged Coaching | Undated (prior to Aug 2024 indictment) | Ohio Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(a) 4, ABA Model Rule 3.6 2 (if public statements made knowing recantation) | Prosecuting without probable cause; potentially knowingly sponsoring false testimony or disregarding victim’s agency. | Professional discipline (suspension, disbarment); potential criminal charges (e.g., perjury, obstruction of justice), though difficult to prove due to immunity. |
The Shield of Immunity: A Barrier to Accountability
A critical aspect of understanding the ethical landscape surrounding prosecutors, particularly in cases like Ayers Ratliff’s, is the legal doctrine of prosecutorial immunity. This judge-made doctrine, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1976 case Imbler v. Pachtman, grants prosecutors near-absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for actions performed as part of their official duties.6 The rationale behind this immunity is to protect prosecutors from the constant fear of litigation, which, it is argued, could impede their ability to fulfill their role in the criminal justice system.6 This means that even if prosecutors knowingly prosecute an innocent person, withhold evidence of innocence, or fabricate false evidence, they generally cannot be sued by the individual they harm.6 Ohio law also provides immunity from civil liability for prosecutors providing information on criminally injurious conduct.18 This broad protection makes it “very difficult” to successfully sue a prosecutor for malicious prosecution in Ohio.7
This legal shield, while intended to ensure the proper functioning of the criminal justice system, also means that prosecutors in Marion, Ohio, are largely insulated from personal liability for their actions in the courtroom, even when those actions raise significant ethical concerns.7 While there are rare exceptions—for actions considered administrative or investigative rather than directly related to courtroom proceedings, or if malicious conduct involves a clear violation of established legal and ethical standards—the legal standards are exceptionally high, and the burden of proof rests heavily on the plaintiff.7 This immunity often limits the scope of direct legal inquiries into prosecutorial conduct, a fact that contributes to public frustration regarding accountability.6 Critics argue it incentivizes securing convictions at all costs and lacks deterrents against overzealous prosecutors.6
The doctrine of prosecutorial immunity creates a structural accountability gap, which significantly exacerbates public distrust when misconduct is alleged. The legal framework provides prosecutors with “near-absolute immunity” and makes it “very difficult” to sue them, even for severe misconduct such as “falsifying evidence” or “withholding exculpatory evidence”.6 When the public perceives ethical breaches, as in the Ratliff case, but civil recourse is largely blocked, it generates a profound sense of injustice and powerlessness. The stated rationale for this immunity—to protect prosecutors from the “fear of retaliation” 6—clashes sharply with the public’s desire for justice when misconduct is alleged. This systemic lack of civil accountability for prosecutors, despite their immense power, can foster a perception that they are “above the law” in practice, even if not in principle. This undermines the rule of law itself, as it suggests that one branch of government is not subject to the same checks and balances as others, particularly when it comes to individual harm. This can lead to a cycle of public frustration and a belief that the system is rigged, making it harder to rebuild trust.
Furthermore, the Imbler v. Pachtman decision, which established absolute immunity, is a judge-made doctrine that does not appear in the Constitution or in any law passed by Congress.6 The observation that “judges (all of whom are lawyers and many of whom are former prosecutors) decided that prosecutors should have complete immunity” 6 highlights a potential conflict of interest within the legal establishment. This suggests a possible institutional self-preservation within the legal profession, where those who once held or currently hold prosecutorial power are shielded from accountability by those who judge them. This perception further alienates the public and strengthens the narrative that the system protects its own, rather than serving justice impartially. It also raises questions about the need for legislative reform to address this judicially created immunity.
Community Outcry: The Perception of “Bad Faith” and Systemic Erosion of Trust
The Ayers Ratliff case has significantly impacted community sentiment, leading to a “pervasive climate of concern regarding transparency, due process, and accountability in Marion’s governance”.1 This signifies a broad loss of confidence in the integrity of local institutions. The defense attorney’s characterization of Grogan’s public video as “capitalizing on the limelight” and “burying Mr. Ratliff” aligns with MarionWatch’s documentation of “political character assassinations” as a “long-standing Marion tradition”.1 This suggests a community perception of politically motivated prosecutions, where the legal process is used for purposes beyond the pursuit of justice.
The case is contextualized within a broader public outcry against Grogan’s office, epitomized by the “Walk Away Ray” movement, which focuses on “mishandled cases” and systemic failures in discovery.1 This movement represents organized community dissatisfaction, indicating a collective response rather than isolated complaints. The use of a specific name points to a personalization of the perceived systemic issues, making them tangible and targetable. This active resistance suggests that the community has reached a tipping point, where the perceived ethical breaches are no longer tolerable. It implies a deeper crisis of legitimacy for the prosecutor’s office and potentially other governmental bodies. Such movements can exert significant political pressure, demanding reforms and potentially leading to electoral consequences, but also risk further polarization if not addressed constructively.
Perhaps most strikingly, many citizens, including the MarionWatch Citizen Action Network, explicitly believe that the manner in which the Nolle Prosequi (dismissal) was handled was done for “psychological warfare,” serving as a “forever threat” that could be used as a weapon at any time.1 This reflects a deep distrust of the prosecutor’s motives and a belief that the system is being weaponized against individuals. The broad protection of prosecutorial immunity, which makes it “very difficult” to sue a prosecutor for malicious prosecution, contributes significantly to public frustration regarding accountability.1
The community’s perception of “bad faith” is a direct consequence of perceived procedural manipulation and a lack of transparency. This belief is not abstract; it is tied to concrete actions such as the “damaging video” released before indictment, the alleged “intentional sandbagging,” the “withholding of discovery,” and the Nolle Prosequi being viewed as “psychological warfare”.1 These actions, particularly the shifting rationales and timing, are interpreted by the public not as legitimate legal strategy but as deliberate attempts to control the narrative, avoid scrutiny, and maintain leverage over the defendant, even without a strong case. This highlights that public trust is not merely about outcomes (guilty/not guilty) but profoundly about the
process. When the process is perceived as opaque, manipulative, or politically motivated, it breeds cynicism and a belief that the system is corrupt. This can lead to decreased civic engagement, a reluctance to cooperate with law enforcement, and a general breakdown of social cohesion.
Manifestations of Community Sentiment and Perceived Causes
| Expression of Sentiment | Description/Source | Perceived Cause (Specific Action/Pattern) |
| Erosion of Public Trust | “Pervasive climate of concern regarding transparency, due process, and accountability in Marion’s governance.” 1 | Overall handling of Ratliff case, broader systemic issues within Marion’s governmental and legal institutions. |
| “Political Character Assassinations” | Defense attorney’s characterization of Grogan’s actions; MarionWatch documentation of “long-standing Marion tradition.” 1 | Prosecutor Grogan’s premature public video statement on social media, perceived as an attempt to damage reputation. |
| “Walk Away Ray” Movement | Broader public outcry against Grogan’s office; focus on “mishandled cases” and systemic failures in discovery. 1 | Alleged “intentional sandbagging,” “intentional withholding of discovery,” and recurring procedural issues in other cases. |
| “Psychological Warfare” | Belief held by many citizens, including the MarionWatch Citizen Action Network. 1 | The manner and timing of the Nolle Prosequi dismissal, viewed as a “forever threat” to maintain leverage over the defendant. |
| Skepticism about Accountability | Public frustration regarding the difficulty of suing prosecutors for malicious prosecution. 1 | Broad protection of prosecutorial immunity, limiting avenues for civil redress for alleged misconduct. |
Beyond the Ratliff Case: Systemic Ethical Challenges in Marion’s Governance
The ethical concerns in Marion extend beyond the Ratliff case, indicating a broader, deeply entrenched pattern of ethical and accountability failures across the city’s governance. This suggests a cultural or structural problem within Marion’s governance that transcends individual actors or specific departments. It implies a potential lack of robust oversight mechanisms, weak internal controls, or even a tacit acceptance of questionable practices. Rebuilding trust will require comprehensive, systemic reforms, not just addressing individual cases.
For instance, Prosecutor Grogan’s prior written endorsement of attorney Jack VanBibber, despite VanBibber’s documented history of serious ethical violations, further fuels public skepticism about professional judgment within the local legal system.1 VanBibber’s misconduct hearing was postponed amid serious allegations, including engaging in a sexual relationship with a client, sending inappropriate messages, making false statements, and failing to cooperate with investigations into his conduct. He was already serving a two-year stayed suspension from May 2024 due to previous violations, including traffic offenses, dishonesty with law enforcement, and failure to comply with disciplinary counsel. In a letter dated June 2, 2023, Prosecutor Grogan expressed support for VanBibber to continue practicing law in Marion, stating, “Please accept this letter on behalf of Jack Van Bibber. I have known and worked with Jack for approximately two years. Initially, please let me tell you that Jack, in my opinion, is a very good lawyer. He works hard for his clients. He is prepared for hearings. He knows the law, and when he doesn’t, he will research it. We have had a great need for court-appointed counsel in both our General Division and Juvenile Division and Jack has filled a vital role here in Marion in the past few years taking on court-appointed cases.” Grogan acknowledged VanBibber had “made a series of bad decisions” and “screwed up,” but asked the panel to allow him to continue serving Marion. However, Grogan later stated, “When I wrote my letter two years ago, the driving and bookkeeping problems this attorney caused were small and he was eager to address them. Since then, it appears he has had more serious legal ethics issues arise. As I said in my letter from two years ago, he must be held accountable.” This endorsement, alongside the specific issues in the Ratliff prosecution, contributes to a broader public outcry against Grogan’s office, epitomized by the “Walk Away Ray” movement and its focus on “mishandled cases” and systemic failures in discovery.1 While Grogan’s endorsement itself may not constitute a direct legal violation, it represents a significant ethical lapse in judgment, particularly given the severity and recurrence of VanBibber’s alleged misconduct. Such an endorsement could be seen as undermining the integrity of the legal profession and eroding public confidence in the prosecutor’s commitment to upholding ethical standards for all legal practitioners. This contributes to the perception that accountability is not consistently applied within Marion’s legal system.
These individual cases are set against a backdrop of broader systemic issues of transparency, due process, and accountability within Marion’s governance, reflecting a palpable concern among the citizenry regarding ethics violations.1 This concern stems directly from a perceived lack of ethics and transparency in governmental operations. Citizen inquiries into the “troubled past” and accountability of the economic development organization, Marion CAN DO!, highlight these issues, with concerns about “Decades of Darkness and Dodgy Details” and questions regarding its influence.1 It is notable that Marion CAN DO! is listed as a client of Slide Nine Agency, a Columbus, Ohio-based public relations firm, which further underscores its efforts in managing public perception and influence within the community.
Ongoing debates over the “Charter City” proposal further illustrate public apprehension, raising fears of “sneaky votes” and attempts to “circumvent due process”.1 This indicates a public concern about fundamental democratic processes being undermined.
The City Auditor’s Office: A Decades-Long Pattern of Financial Mismanagement and Accountability Gaps
The Marion City Auditor’s office has been a persistent source of concern regarding financial mismanagement and a lack of accountability, contributing significantly to the skepticism of Marion residents about governmental ethics.1 Financial problems within the city, as proven by analysis, began around 2006 and have accumulated over decades due to mismanagement, inadequate oversight, and failures to adapt.1
Skepticism among Marion residents about how former City Auditor Robert Landon’s case was handled is particularly notable. Landon, who began his term in January 2020 and resigned in October 2021, faced findings for recovery of $154,399. This was issued by the Auditor of State due to his failure to properly remit income taxes to the Internal Revenue Service. Instead of remitting to the IRS, these withholdings were erroneously sent to the State of Ohio, resulting in $154,399 in late fee penalties and interest paid by the city. The Auditor of State noted these were “unnecessary expenditures that did not serve a proper public purpose” and recommended the city “improve its internal control procedures over withholding remittances.” Landon was charged with misdemeanor election law violations in 2019, but these charges were dismissed over a year later due to being “facially deficient”.1 This situation highlights a critical failure in IT safeguards; if proper globally recognized standard IT practices had been in place, the entire scenario would have been impossible to occur as described in the analysis of the city’s financial challenges, as we reported in our extensive investigative piece “Silent Sabotage.1 It appears that nobody caught this when Mr. Landon was issued the FFR. Unfortunately, this only adds more questions to an already suspicious set of circumstances. Additionally, an earlier former city auditor faced a finding for recovery of $22,500 for penalties resulting from late filings of W-2s and 1099s to the IRS in 2019 after her departure. These “findings for recovery” are legal mechanisms by the Auditor of State to recover public funds that have been illegally expended, misapplied, or lost due to negligence or malfeasance. While not direct criminal charges, they represent a civil liability for public officials and underscore a pattern of financial mismanagement.
The issues extend to the current City Auditor, Miranda Meginness, who has also faced significant scrutiny, reflecting a pattern of problems that has plagued the auditor’s office for quite a long time.1 Allegations against Meginness include misappropriating funds, concealing payments, and falsifying ordinances. Furthermore, the office under her tenure has contributed to significant IRS and state pension fund penalties due to failures in timely filings.1 Most strikingly, Meginness went on record admitting to falsification of ordinances, yet she faced no apparent accountability for this admission. It is also particularly unusual that she announced her resignation, only to immediately withdraw it, further fueling public skepticism and questions about transparency and accountability within the office.1 If proven, allegations of misappropriating funds, concealing payments, and falsifying ordinances could lead to serious criminal charges such as theft in office, tampering with records, or dereliction of duty under Ohio Revised Code. The lack of apparent accountability for an admitted falsification of ordinances, as perceived by the public, further erodes trust and suggests a systemic failure in enforcing ethical standards within the city’s financial oversight.
This pattern of issues across multiple auditors and administrations dating back to about 2006 points to deep-seated systemic weaknesses within the Marion City Auditor’s office, contributing significantly to the overall public concern about ethics and transparency in Marion’s local government.1 Failures in transparency and accountability are interconnected, creating a reinforcing cycle of public distrust. The concerns about “sneaky votes” and “circumventing due process” in the Charter City debate are clear transparency issues. Similarly, the financial mismanagement in the Auditor’s office, including admitted falsification with “no apparent accountability,” represents direct failures in accountability. Marion has had significant financial issues dating back over a decade which is also covered in the Silent Sabotage piece. These are not separate problems but rather feed into each other: a lack of transparency makes accountability difficult, and a lack of accountability breeds further opacity. This interconnectedness means that addressing one area, such as prosecutorial ethics, in isolation may not be sufficient to restore public trust. A holistic approach focusing on institutional transparency, robust oversight, and consistent enforcement of accountability across all governmental functions is necessary. The public’s perception of “bad faith” in the Ratliff case is thus amplified by similar perceptions in other areas of governance, creating a cumulative negative effect on civic legitimacy.
Conclusion: Rebuilding Trust and Ensuring Accountability in Marion
The narrative of ethical challenges in Marion, Ohio, particularly concerning the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office and broader governmental processes, underscores the profound importance of transparency, accountability, and unwavering adherence to ethical principles.1 The Ayers Ratliff case serves as a stark illustration of significant ethical and legal breaches within the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office. These include a prosecutor’s premature public video statement constituting a perceived “character assassination,” allegations of procedural irregularities and discovery failures, and a controversial dismissal.1 These issues collectively raise serious questions about professional judgment and the integrity of the local justice system.1
The handling of the Ratliff case, coupled with broader systemic issues, has deeply eroded public trust in governmental and legal institutions.1 The community’s perception of “bad faith,” “character assassinations,” and “psychological warfare” reflects a pervasive concern about fairness, transparency, and accountability.1
While prosecutors are largely shielded by absolute immunity from civil liability for their actions in the courtroom, the ethical concerns highlighted in these cases and broader governance issues demand urgent attention.1 The public’s trust in its legal and governmental institutions is fragile and can be easily eroded by perceptions of unfairness, lack of transparency, or compromised judgment.1 The diligent reporting by local news agencies like MarionWatch, Marion County Now, and 10tv.com serves as a vital external check, bringing these issues to light and fostering public discourse.1 This highlights the critical role of local media and citizen groups as informal but essential checks on governmental power, particularly when formal mechanisms are perceived as failing. In the absence of perceived internal accountability, these external watchdogs become indispensable. Their role shifts from mere reporting to active advocacy and accountability enforcement, which can be both powerful and necessary when traditional checks and balances are perceived to be compromised.
For Marion, Ohio, maintaining and rebuilding public trust in its legal and governmental institutions requires a commitment to continuous ethical vigilance and a responsiveness to public inquiries and concerns.1 This means that rebuilding trust is a multi-faceted, long-term endeavor requiring both legal and ethical reforms, as well as a fundamental shift in institutional culture. Merely addressing the legal technicalities of the Ratliff case will not suffice. True restoration of public confidence requires a fundamental change in how power is exercised and how accountability is enforced across the entire governmental landscape in Marion. It is a cultural transformation that demands leadership, transparency, and a genuine commitment to serving the public interest above all else.
To foster transparency, accountability, and ethical governance, the following high-level recommendations are presented:
- Enhanced Ethical Training and Oversight: Implement mandatory, regular, and comprehensive ethics training for all prosecutors and legal staff. This training should specifically focus on rules regarding public statements (ABA Model Rule 3.6), discovery obligations (Ohio Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(d), Brady v. Maryland), and the good faith exercise of discretion. Furthermore, establishing an independent oversight body or review process for prosecutorial conduct could provide an additional layer of accountability.
- Strengthening Due Process Safeguards: Ensure strict adherence to established timelines for grand jury proceedings and mandate prompt and complete disclosure of all exculpatory and mitigating evidence. Implement clear internal policies to prevent practices akin to “sandbagging” and to ensure timely discovery in all cases.
- Respecting Victim’s Rights: Develop and rigorously enforce clear protocols for victim consultation, ensuring full compliance with Marsy’s Law (Ohio Constitution Article I, Section 10a). This includes proactive communication regarding case developments and disposition, fostering a truly victim-centered approach throughout the legal process.
- Addressing Systemic Governance Issues: Conduct independent financial and operational audits and investigations into entities like Marion CAN DO! and the City Auditor’s office. These inquiries should aim to identify and rectify long-standing issues of financial mismanagement, lack of transparency, and accountability gaps.
- Promoting Broader Transparency: Implement policies that significantly increase public access to governmental information and decision-making processes. This includes developing clear guidelines for public statements by all city officials to prevent premature or prejudicial declarations.
- Re-evaluating Prosecutorial Immunity: While changes to prosecutorial immunity (established by Imbler v. Pachtman) are beyond local control and require national legislative or judicial action, local bar associations and legal bodies should advocate for reforms that seek to balance prosecutorial independence with meaningful accountability for misconduct.
- Fostering Public Dialogue: Continue to support and actively engage with local news agencies and citizen action groups like MarionWatch. These entities serve as vital external checks, bringing issues to light and fostering robust public discourse, which is essential for a healthy democratic process.
By addressing the identified areas of concern, particularly within the prosecutor’s office and in the broader context of governmental transparency and accountability, Marion can work towards ensuring that justice is not only done but is seen to be done, fostering a community where fairness and accountability are paramount.1
Works Cited
- Ratliff.pdf https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DGO3URKUqt6GAa2WQQO84r-Ks7VqCb8G/view?usp=drive_link
- Rule 3.6. Trial Publicity | New Hampshire Judicial Branch – NH.gov, https://www.courts.nh.gov/new-hampshire-rules-professional-conduct/rule-36-trial-publicity
- Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor – American Bar Association, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_8_special_responsibilities_of_a_prosecutor/
- Proposed Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor – State Bar of California, https://www.calbar.ca.gov/portals/0/documents/rules/rrc2014/final_rules/rrc2-3.8_[5-110]-all.pdf
- Rule 3.6: Trial Publicity – American Bar Association, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_6_trial_publicity/
- Formal Opinion 2016-3: Prosecutors’ Ethical Obligations to Disclose Information Favorable to the Defense | New York City Bar Association, https://www.nycbar.org/reports/formal-opinion-2016-3-prosecutors%EF%BF%BD%EF%BF%BD%EF%BF%BD-ethical-obligations-to-disclose-information-favorable-to-the-defense/
- Disentangling the Ethical and Constitutional Regulation of Criminal Discovery, https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2018/06/disentangling-the-ethical-and-constitutional-regulation-of-criminal-discovery/
- Brady rule | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule
- The Story of Brady v. Maryland: From Adversarial Gamesmanship Toward the Search for Innocence? – Penn Carey Law: Legal Scholarship Repository, https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1076&context=faculty_scholarship
- Chapter 2941 – Ohio Revised Code, https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/chapter-2941
- Section 2941.33 – Ohio Revised Code, https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2941.33
- Marsy’s Law – Kettering, https://www.ketteringoh.org/marsys-law/
- Article I, Section 10a | Rights of victims of crime – Ohio Laws, https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-constitution/section-1.10a
- Absolute Immunity for Prosecutors – National Police Accountability Project, https://www.nlg-npap.org/absolute-immunity/
- Imbler v. Pachtman – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbler_v._Pachtman
- Ohio Revised Code Search – Ohio Laws, https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/search?pageSize=25&sort=BestMatch&keywords=Employee&start=2851
- Ohio Revised Code Search – Ohio Laws, https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/search?pageSize=25&sort=BestMatch&keywords=officers&start=3126
- Can You Sue a Prosecutor in Ohio? – What To Do When A Prosecutor Has Overstepped, https://www.criminalattorneycolumbus.com/can-you-sue-a-prosecutor-in-ohio/
- Malicious Prosecution – Marshall Forman & Schlein | Discrimination Attorneys Columbus, https://www.marshallforman.com/practice-areas/civil-rights-violations/malicious-prosecution/