Please see posts number 13 and 21 for the answer to your question. A pilot program is typically a blueprint for how the system will operate in the future. You yourself acknowledged that Mason suggested using the pilot program discovery procedure (see post 21 for what that would look like) in lieu of the proposed local rule.

Why would you read that as Mason not willing to extend it to all cases?

Again thank you for allowing me to comment. I think that we have come to a point where this subject has been exhausted and where we can agree to disagree.

Which brings me to the second point, the extremely limited “open” discovery provided in the Pilot Program. Let’s forget about whether it’s satisfactory or not. Why wouldn’t Mason extend it to all cases? If he truly isn’t opposed to open discovery, why doesn’t he do that? Both the proposed rule and the state rule allow ample mechanisms to protect witnesses or victims, so what’ the reason for not providing full discovery in all cases?

You really can’t answer that question, can you?

I actually find it more ironic that Mason, who is following the rules, is being demonized, while the Judges who have blatenly disregarded the rule of law are being hailed.

Mr. Bensing is insistent on linking Mason’s objection to this illegal rule with being opposed to open discovery. Being against this rule does not necessarily mean that one is against expanded discovery. To wit, I had to point out Mr. Bensing’s own words in which he acknowledged that Mason was providing open discovery in the pilot program for several months before the rule was even proposed.

Bottom line. Through the pilot program IN ADDITION TO: written copies of all lab reports, copies of defendant and codefendant written statements; written summary of defendants and codefendant’s oral statements; a list of witness’s names and addresses; an opportunity to view physical evidence; photos of evidence; written disclosure of exculpatory evidence;

YOU ALSO get an opportunity to read the police report and witness statements via computer screen.

Mr. Bensing finds this “not even remotely satisfactory”. Really, not even remotely?

By the way all this information I got just from reading Mr. Bensing’s blog.

Mr. Bensing writes: “I’ve already given my analysis of the legal situation here, on numerous occasions: a local rule can’t contradict a state rule. That doesn’t make the local rule ‘unconstitutional,’ under either the Ohio or the US Constitution.”

I’m not sure this is correct. According to Section 5(B), Article 4 of the Ohio Constitution, “Courts may adopt additional rules concerning local practice in their respective courts which are not inconsistent with the rules promulgated by the supreme court.” Any rule that is inconsistent, therefore, is unconstitutional. Whether a proposed open-discovery rule would in fact be “inconsistent” is another matter. And I leave that to more capable lawyers than myself.

That said, Mr. Bensing is, I think, substantively correct. The real question, Mr. Straight Talk, is why does Mason continue to object to open discovery? It appears he would oppose the idea — as Mr. Bensing notes — whether it came about via local rule of constitutional amendment. But why? Persuade me, I’m begging you.

Surely you must admit, Mr. Straight Talk, that without any true justification for limited discovery, your comment about not letting the “ends justify[] the means” is, uh, pretty ironic.

With such an illustrious group of backers there should be no problem getting open discovery through a constitutionally sound method.

Get busy doing it correctly. Petition the Ohio Supreme Court. Let all that have a stake in the criminal justice system have an opportunity to comment and then we will have a uniform system throughout the state.

Good luck.

If you’re going to argue the substantive merits of a discovery proposal, don’t you have to address the question I’ve been asking you all along: why is Mason opposed to it? Why does he feel that something substantially less than what the defense bar, the judges, the ABA, and a bunch of other groups recommend, and that many prosecutors practice, is appropriate?

Please take the time to read my last post where I actually quote you as saying “you don’t find it remotely satisfactory”

In fact your line becomes the theme of my post and illustrates how extreme your position is regarding discovery.

Once again thank you for the opportunity to have a discussion.

Listen. Mason is opposed to open discovery, in any meaningful sense of the term. He opposes its adoption by local rule, he opposes its adoption by state rule, by constitutional amendment, or by Papal decree. He opposes it. Period. His alleged justification for this — that it’s necessary to protect witnesses — has been exposed as a complete fraud. He opposes it for one simple reason: it gives his prosecutors an advantage in trial.

If you want to continue pretending that’s not the case, that’s certainly your right and privilege, but I don’t think it gives you much room for calling other people disingenuous.

You’re welcome.