Written by 
The high-stakes legal battle between Marion City Councilman Ayers Ratliff and Marion County Prosecutor Ray Grogan has taken a dramatic and unexpected turn. A federal court judge issued a sharp rebuke to Grogan’s office on the same day that a Marion County courtroom, packed with 28 citizen, witnessed a bombshell revelation: the alleged teenage victim again recanted her accusations against Ratliff.
The documents, a court order from U.S. District Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick, reveal a complex legal chess match now being played out on two fronts—a federal civil rights lawsuit and a renewed criminal prosecution.
The Civil Suit Continues, Judge Cites Grogan’s Office for an “Error”
Ayers and Heidi Ratliff filed a federal civil lawsuit against Prosecutor Grogan and others, alleging malicious prosecution and other civil rights violations following the dismissal of the previous child rape case against Ayers. In response, Grogan’s office filed a motion to “stay” or pause the federal case, citing the ongoing criminal investigation.
However, in his order, Judge Helmick not only denied the motion but specifically highlighted a key error in the defendants’ legal strategy. The judge noted that the motion to stay was filed on August 22, 2025, while the indictments were not filed until August 27, 2025. This made the motion based on the status of a “potentially-related state criminal proceedings,” a status that changed the very same day the plaintiffs filed their opposition brief. The judge’s rebuke was clear, as he noted the defense’s motion was rendered moot by its own timing and ordered that an exhibit attached to the motion be corrected as it was “improperly filed as a filing error” and “not in a text searchable format.”
This is not the first time the prosecutor’s office has faced public scrutiny over its handling of cases. Previous articles by Marion Watch and other local media outlets have noted a pattern of issues, including the delay and ultimate dismissal of a first-degree rape case involving another defendant, Clayton Mally, where the charge was reduced to a misdemeanor.
Bombshell Testimony at Arraignment
Yesterday’s arraignment in Marion County Common Pleas Court drew a significant crowd, with 28 citizens in attendance, not including attorney’s, underscoring the intense public interest in the case. During the hearing, the 13-year-old girl at the center of the accusations took the stand and again recanted her claims against Ratliff.
“I just want to… put on the record that none of this happened,” she stated in court, according to a report by ABC 6 News on Your Side. “I lied.”
Ratliff’s attorney, Rocky Ratliff, who is also his cousin, claimed the recantation aligns with existing evidence, including reports from two separate doctors who found no signs of sexual assault and the absence of DNA evidence connecting his client to the alleged crime. However, Prosecutor Ray Grogan insisted that the case will continue, a move that is legally permissible. As legal experts note, prosecutors in Ohio can proceed with a case even if a victim recants, especially if they have other evidence such as police reports, physical evidence, or statements from other witnesses. Grogan explained his position, stating, “We have seen time and time again victims come into court and say it didn’t happen.”
The prosecutor’s insistence on moving forward despite the recantation and the defense’s claims of exculpatory evidence presents a key legal challenge. This stance suggests that the prosecution believes its case is supported by evidence beyond the victim’s testimony. It puts the burden on the defense to not only prove their client’s innocence but also to counter the prosecutor’s narrative that the recantation itself may be a result of intimidation or pressure.
This intense courtroom drama has drawn strong reactions from the community. Community activist Naomi Craig told ABC 6 News that the case is an attack on Ratliff’s name, claiming the initial arrest came “within a week” of him speaking out against “corruption in the local law enforcement.” Craig added that the charges were brought back only after Ratliff filed his federal lawsuit for retaliation. This pattern of alleged retaliation for speaking out against local corruption is something Marion Watch and others have seen over the decades in various forms and degrees of intensity.
Legal Assessment: Irregularities and Inconsistencies
The proceedings surrounding this case have raised several notable legal questions. A significant point of concern for legal observers is the fact that the supposed victim was released to the custody of her mother, Heidi Ratliff, despite Heidi’s indictment on charges of witness intimidation and endangering children. While Ohio law allows for a victim’s family to act as their representative, this typically does not extend to a situation where that family member is a co-defendant accused of complicity and witness intimidation. The release of a minor to a parent who is under indictment for such charges, particularly in a case involving alleged sexual assault and endangerment, appears to be a highly unusual and problematic move that will likely cause further criticism of Marion Prosecutor Ray Grogan.
Furthermore, there is a stark contrast between the initial high bond of $500,000 set for the first case against Ratliff and the fact that both he and his wife were released on their own recognizance (OR bond) in the new case. In Ohio, bond is meant to ensure a defendant’s appearance in court and protect community safety. The original high bond suggested the court saw Ratliff as a flight risk or danger, while the new OR bond, despite the renewed serious charges and the alleged witness intimidation, suggests a lack of perceived risk. This inconsistency is a key point of interest for legal observers, who question whether the legal standard for bail was applied consistently, especially given the seriousness of the new charges, including felony witness intimidation against Heidi Ratliff.
A crucial point for both parties is that evidence and testimony from the civil case can be used in the criminal case, and evidence and testimony from the criminal case could be used in the civil case. Ohio legal doctrine and rules of evidence permit information obtained through civil proceedings, such as depositions and discovery, to be introduced in a criminal trial if deemed relevant and admissible by the judge. This creates a high-risk environment for the Ratliffs, as any statements they make in their federal civil lawsuit could be used by the prosecution to prove their guilt in the criminal case. Conversely, the defense in the criminal case could seek to use testimony from the civil suit to impeach witnesses or support their claims of malicious prosecution. This interconnectedness means that every move made in one court carries significant weight and potential consequences in the other.
The federal court order confirmed that on August 27, 2025, just hours after the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the stay, indictments were filed in Marion County Common Pleas Court against Ayers Ratliff and Heidi Ratliff. The new criminal case numbers are 2025 CR 0335 and 2025 CR 0340.
The new charges, which reportedly include rape, abduction, and gross sexual imposition against Ayers Ratliff and obstructing justice, endangering children, and witness intimidation against Heidi Ratliff, represent a renewed effort by the prosecutor’s office to pursue the case. The judge ruled that Ayers Ratliff have no contact with the alleged victim.
The issues with this case are plentiful and include:
1. A Case Built on Recanted Testimony:
The alleged victim’s statement in court that she “lied” and that “none of this happened” is the most significant point for the defense. While prosecutors can legally continue a case after a victim recants, this act of recantation under oath severely undermines the credibility of the primary witness. It forces the state to rely heavily on other evidence and creates a major credibility issue with their primary witness.
2. Lack of Physical and Scientific Evidence:
The defense has publicly stated that there is no DNA evidence linking Ratliff to the alleged crime and that two separate doctors found no signs of sexual assault. This directly challenges the core of the prosecution’s claims and provides powerful exculpatory evidence.
3. Inconsistent and Irregular Bail:
The defense can highlight the striking inconsistency between the initial high bond set for the first case and the fact that both Ratliff and his wife were released on their own recognizance (OR bond) in the new case. This could be used to argue that the court itself does not view them as a significant flight risk or a danger to the community, contradicting the seriousness of the charges, particularly the witness intimidation charge against Heidi Ratliff.
4. The Federal Lawsuit as Evidence of Malice and Retaliation:
The defense has consistently claimed that the renewed criminal charges are an act of retaliation for Ratliff’s federal civil lawsuit against Prosecutor Grogan. The timing of the new indictments, which were filed just hours after the plaintiffs opposed the motion to stay, is a key piece of circumstantial evidence for the defense’s claim of political motivation.
5. Questionable Police Interrogation of a Minor:
According to the federal lawsuit, a crucial issue for the defense is the alleged illegal questioning of the minor child by law enforcement. The lawsuit claims the minor was questioned for three hours without a parent or school administrator present, and for the first hour and a half, she denied all allegations. This raises a significant legal issue, as Ohio law requires a “totality of the circumstances” analysis to determine if a minor’s confession or statement was voluntary, with the absence of a parent being a key factor. The defense can argue that any statements made during this interrogation were coerced and should be suppressed, further weakening the prosecution’s case.
6. Procedural Irregularities in Handling of the Minor Victim:
The defense can also point to the highly unusual decision to release the minor victim to the custody of her mother, Heidi Ratliff, a co-defendant who is indicted on charges of witness intimidation and endangering children. This appears to be a major deviation from standard legal protocol aimed at protecting alleged victims from potential coercion and could be used to highlight a problematic pattern of behavior by the prosecution.
7. Broader Context of Corruption and Unjustified Prosecution:
The defense has introduced the idea that Ratliff’s case is part of a larger pattern of alleged corruption and politically motivated prosecution in Marion. The defense points highlighted by community activist Naomi Craig who stated that the initial arrest occurred “within a week” of Ratliff speaking out against “corruption in local law enforcement,” seems to be the overall public opinion regarding this case. This broader narrative helps the defense frame the criminal charges not as a pursuit of justice, but as an attack on a public official who has spoken out against the establishment.
The outcome of this two-front legal war will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the future of both Ayers Ratliff and Prosecutor Ray Grogan.
Marion Watch will continue to monitor this case and publish accordingly.