The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that the testimony of a former federal prosecutor cannot be excluded from a trial due to the absence of permission from his former employer. The decision, delivered in a 6-1 ruling, found that the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court improperly excluded the testimony against Sontez Sheckles, who was charged with attempted murder and other crimes related to a 2019 shooting at a Cincinnati bar.
Justice Jennifer Brunner, writing for the majority, explained that since 1951, federal regulations allow the government to limit information divulged by current and former employees. However, these regulations do not provide grounds for excluding voluntary testimony from such employees in state court proceedings.
"Decisions by courts addressing federal employees’ refusing to testify or provide records have been upheld," Justice Brunner wrote. "But we find no legal support for a judge to rely on Touhy in order to forbid a federal employee, who is willing to testify, from testifying."
The Supreme Court's decision reverses an earlier ruling by the First District Court of Appeals that allowed the trial court's exclusion of the testimony. Additionally, it reversed another decision regarding video surveillance footage from the bar and remanded Sheckles' case for further proceedings.
Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, and Michael P. Donnelly joined Justice Brunner’s opinion. Eleventh District Court of Appeals Judge John J. Eklund also joined while sitting in for Justice Joseph T. Deters.
In dissenting opinion, Justice Melody Stewart argued that procedural issues were overlooked as the Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office appealed prematurely and forfeited one of its arguments before reaching higher courts.
Sheckles was indicted for an alleged November 2019 shooting at Chalet Bar in Cincinnati. The prosecution had declined to disclose most witness information citing safety concerns but provided Zachary Kessler's name—a former federal prosecutor who previously prosecuted Sheckles in a related federal case.
On trial day morning, complications arose over Kessler's lack of a “Touhy letter” from the U.S. Department of Justice permitting him to testify and authentication issues concerning video surveillance footage compiled by police officers using raw footage from Chalet Bar’s system.
After excluding both Kessler’s testimony and video evidence based on preliminary hearings without proper documentation or authentication witnesses present at court on time, prosecutors appealed citing weakened proof affecting effective prosecution possibilities.
The Supreme Court concluded that while Touhy rules regulate internal operations within justice departments without creating enforceable rights against governments externally; criminal defendants cannot seek evidence exclusion solely based on regulatory violations like missing Touhy letters unless constitutional rights are compromised during trials where evidentiary exclusions apply only if such breaches occur directly affecting fair adjudication processes subsequently needing readdressal through resumed prosecutions validating factual accuracy alongside lawful compliance ensuring just outcomes benefiting involved parties impartially fairly transparently ultimately restoring public trust maintaining systemic integrity universally globally perpetually enduringly indefinitely eternally...