Gerry Moore case goes to state Supreme Court

SANDUSKY — Ohio Supreme Court justices listened to arguments in the case of an Erie County man whose attempted murder conviction and 22-year-sentence were thrown out on appeal. In 2018, Gerry "Gary" Moore was tried, convicted and sentenced in Erie County Court of Common Pleas for the attempted murder-for-hire plot he purportedly concocted against a woman living in Margaretta Township. Two years later Moore, 66, successfully appealed his case and was acquitted of his convictions in a state appeals court. His attorney argued that Moore's Erie County conviction was invalid because the alleged murder plot, which took place while he was incarcerated in a Marion County prison, should not have been tried in Erie County because the crimes did not occur there. The Erie County prosecutor's office is appealing that decision. That was the second time Moore was accused of making an attempt on the woman's life. In 2015, Moore shot at the woman, ensued in a slow-speed pursuit with law enforcement and then hid in his car for a 21-hour standoff. The whole ordeal ended when Moore shot himself non-fatally. Moore was convicted and sentenced to eight years for the 2015 incident. He has about three years remaining on that sentence. If the Ohio Supreme Court upholds Moore's overturned 2018 conviction, he could be released in 2025. Supreme Court arguments On Wednesday, the Ohio Supreme Court heard final arguments from representatives of the state and Moore's defense lawyer, Karin Coble. Even though the victim lives in Erie County and filed charges in Erie County, Coble argues that there is no element of Moore's convicted crimes that actually occurred in Erie County. Coble said the alleged attempt and conspiracy offenses would have happened in the Marion County prison where Moore was incarcerated at when he allegedly planned the killing. The only crime that actually could have happened in Erie County was retaliation, and that charge was dropped by the appellate court due to "insufficient evidence." "Mr. Moore was acquitted of retaliation, and the state has consistently admitted that the other offenses occurred in Marion County," Coble said. In arguments Coble said that by pinning the venue on Moore's acquitted retaliation charge, the other two charges were tried inappropriately and the whole case is now moot. The judges "are seriously considering our position that the state is attempting to overturn long-standing Ohio law and constitutional principles solely in order to prosecute this single case," Coble said. Phillip Bogdanott, representing Erie County, argued that everything about this case lived in Erie County. "Everything about this case involved Erie County," Bogdanott said. "The defendant lived in Erie County, the victim lived in Erie County, they were divorced in Erie County, the prior felonious assault and kidnapping occurred in Erie County." Bogdanott said the defendant even had a map drawn up of the killing plot, which was set in Erie County. Bogdanott referenced a law statute in which a victim filing charges could be considered and "element" or act of the crime "This is a very victim-oriented statute," Bogdanott said. "We are trying to protect victims from being killed or murdered, and that's exactly what happened in this case." Supreme Court Judge Patrick DeWine posed a hypothetical that followed Coble's theory; a serial killer with victims in several counties could walk free on a simple technicality. Erie County prosecutor Kevin Baxter said the analogy was illustrative of the real-life consequences he fears in this case. "That really underscored the travesty that would occur if the defendant's position was accepted," Baxter said. Coble said the technicalities are a form of protection for defendants' rights. "The constitution and statutes requiring a defendant to be prosecuted in the county where it occurred protects defendants from over-reaching prosecutions," Coble said. "The law also ensures orderly prosecutions to avoid confusion and prevents the government from shopping for the trial court most advantageous to the government." The Ohio Supreme Court on average takes four to five months to deliver a ruling. Baxter said he is prepared for either decision. If the acquittal is upheld, Baxter expects to re-try Moore in Marion County. "If the ruling by the court of appeals is sustained, we are prepared to file an indictment in Marion County," Baxter said. "I have already spoken with the Marion County prosecuting attorney on this matter if we are not successful in the Supreme Court." Coble said that that would be a case of double jeopardy, and she is confident a re-trial would be barred. "The constitutional protection against double jeopardy protects defendants from being retried where the state fails to prove its case the first time," Coble said. "Prosecutorial decisions as to venue should be made consistent with the constitution and law prior to trial, and this constitutional violation does not permit a second bite at the apple." Diane Brady, a representative from the attorney general's office, brought these concerns to the judges on behalf of the state. Brady cited certain statutes that allow for retrial due to improper venue. "The natural remedy for improper venue would to be to try the case in the proper venue but not to dismiss it." Brady said.