Boardman attorney challenges corruption conviction
Posted: Sep 24, 2016 8:38 PMUpdated: Sep 25, 2016 4:27 AM
 |
| Martin Yarbocik |
CLEVELAND, Ohio -Upcoming legal proceedings could determine whether a Youngstown attorney found guilty of charges stemming from a corruption investigation will have the conviction dismissed or get a new trial.
However, it's possible that Martin Yavorcik's effort to reverse his conviction could mean that he faces more serious punishment since prosecutors say they intend to challenge the sentence handed down to him.
The Boardman attorney has filed a brief supporting the appeal of his conviction on charges stemming from his part in the Oakhill public corruption case.
The 43-year-old former candidate for Mahoning County Prosecutor was sentenced in April to one year house arrest, five years’ probation, and fined $1,000 after a jury found him guilty of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, conspiracy, bribery, tampering with records, and money laundering.
Yavorcik was convicted of participating in a criminal conspiracy which illegally tried to hinder Mahoning County from purchasing the Oakhill Renaissance Place complex and subsequently tried to cover up the criminal activity.
Investigators say Yavorcik ran for Mahoning County Prosecutor in 2008 under the assumption he would end the criminal investigation into the Oakhill matter. He also received improper benefits, including cash, according to prosecutors.
Yavorcik's brief, filed on Thursday, claims seven errors were made during his trial, including failure to adequately consider Yavorcik's allegation that his conviction was obtained using information he claims to have given to investigators under immunity.
Attorney David Doughten, who wrote the brief for Yavorcik's appeal, also claims that there wasn't enough evidence to convict his client of the crimes.
In addition, Doughten argues that Judge Janet Burnside failed to prepare grand jury proceedings for an appellate review and failed to dismiss a juror that Yavorcik believed was not impartial.
The defense has also resurrected an argument that the trial should have been held in Mahoning County instead of Cuyahoga County.
No comments:
Post a Comment