Former Washington County Prosecutor Kevin Rings, 57, of 100 Maple Shade Drive, Marietta, was acquitted this week of his 2019 criminal conviction.
The Fourth District Court of Appeals filed the ruling in the Washington County Clerk of Courts office on Aug. 28, with the court documents posted to the clerk of courts’ website by end of business Monday.
Washington County Prosecutor Nicole Coil and Washington County Public Defender Ray Smith confirmed the acquittal of the conviction Tuesday.
“When they remand the case they don’t remand you for a new jury trial,” explained Smith. “It just overrules the conviction. It is in effect an acquittal.”
Smith said the judgment submitted by the Fourth District Court of Appeals, but penned by the assigned Twelfth Appellate District judges who were assigned the appeals case by the Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice, acts in the same way as a jury finding Rings not guilty of the charge of coercion.
When Rings was also reached by the Times on Tuesday, he also confirmed the acquittal, his age and asked that any further questions or comments concerning his case be directed to his attorney, Dennis McNamara.
McNamara did not respond to multiple calls for comment Tuesday.
However, the appeal filed by McNamara asserts four assignments of error for review by the appellate judges of the evidence submitted during Rings’ four-day jury trial in Washington County Common Pleas Court before Appointed Judge Miranda Cosgrove.
In April 2019, Rings appeared in Washington County Common Pleas Court before the jurors found him guilty of one count of second-degree misdemeanor coercion and not guilty of misdemeanor sexual imposition on April 12, 2019.
Then, following a sentencing to 60 days in the Monroe County Jail on May 16, 2019, McNamara filed the appeal, but declined to speak about the appeal during the hearing before Cosgrove.
When Cosgrove denied the imposition of community service, in lieu of a jail sentence, she raised her voice and with passion said the following:
“It would demean the seriousness of the offense. It would demean every prosecuting attorney in the state of Ohio. It would demean law enforcement and it would demean those individuals who trust in you.”
Trust was also the transitional word Cosgrove used to describe the merits of the case.
“This case is about trust and power,” she continued. “The elected county prosecutor Kevin Rings carefully cultivated this relationship with Amy Davis.”
Cosgrove’s voice began to raise again at this point in the hearing, as can be heard in recordings both on record at the Washington County Courthouse and within Times’ files.
“Most county prosecutors will not share any private information with an individual,” she described. “Mr. Rings is sending photos of his own children to a person who is both a criminal defendant and a victim, in an effort to build a relationship with her.”
Cosgrove elected to not air the content of specific communications used in evidence by the Ohio Attorney General’s Office to argue the case against Rings.
She chose not to quote the text messages provided in evidence, but wrote in her journal entry the following:
“What started as an exchange of mutually flirtatious phone texts progressed to the defendant pressuring the victim to meet him in private[.] The defendant continued to remind the victim of his power and authority over her by telling the victim that he would help her with her custody dispute once the case was over, contacted the probation department so the victim would not get into trouble for being late for her (pre-sentence investigation) interview, and told the victim that he would try to continue her sentencing if it would conflict with a family vacation.”
In the sentencing hearing, Cosgrove continued to opine her view of the basis in the case: power.
“This is about power and the use of it,” Cosgrove said. “You have to take into consideration all of the testimony; all of the evidence that was presented. Mr. Rings could not have chosen a more vulnerable prey than Amy Davis.”
Cosgrove held up a photo submitted of Davis following Davis’s escape from a physical assault and kidnapping.
“Here’s a picture of Amy Davis,” said Cosgrove. “She was beaten within an inch of her life. She’s got bruises, a black eye. She’s got bruises on her arms … on her torso, she’s got bruises on her leg and this is a man who the very first conversation with her … he’s the one who makes contact.”
While Cosgrove stated that there was “no question” that the flirtation engagement text messages were mutual and sent explicit photographs.
“She was no saint, she had a history of drug abuse, drug addiction,” said Cosgrove. “The defendant in this case (Rings) was very careful in who he selected for a victim.”
But the appeals judges disagreed.
“The state’s theory of the case was, essentially, that Rings coerced Davis by threatening her with official action if she did not respond to him in the ways he wanted including answering his text messages and engaging in a sexual relationship with him,” wrote Judge Robin Piper in the final judgment entry overturning Cosgrove.
Piper highlighted five types of text messages sent by Rings to Davis:
Power-related text messages.
July 4, (2017) texts.
“Legal Stuff” texts.
Sentencing texts.
Children-related texts.
Then after expounding on those submitted into evidence the appeals judge posited that the responses of Davis via text and her testimony in April 2019 did not prove coercion.
“The state focused on the sexual nature of the text messages to show that such caused Davis discomfort,” wrote Piper. “(But) Davis’ testimony clearly demonstrates that the text messages were invited, welcomed, and not something she perceived as threatening or coercive. Davis never testified that she was being coerced to do something in particular, and never testified that Rings threatened the use of his public office against her.”
While the opinion penned by the appeals judge and concurred by Judge Michael Powell affirms an acquittal of the criminal conviction, the conclusion also states:
“The state clearly established Rings’ behavior in multiple ways was morally unacceptable and inappropriate for a prosecutor,” wrote Piper. “After viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that any rational trier of fact could not have found the essential elements of coercion proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Judge Stephen Powell dissented, though concurred in conclusion, noting that the state’s use of David A. Wilson, a former prosecutor for Clark County, as an expert witness and provisioner of the testimony that there was “no legitimate or appropriate reason (under Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct), in light of the prosecutor’s duty to be a minister of justice, for these types of texts or communications between a prosecutor and a witness or a victim.”
“The state used Rings’ alleged civil wrongdoing to bolster its criminal case against him,” Judge S. Powell criticized. “This becomes more clear in this case when consideration the state argued to the jury that the public deserved better than the actions taken by Rings and implored the jury to ‘expect more. Expect more from your elected official. Expect more from our society.'”
However, S. Powell agreed to the charge, even so.
“While I agree that we should expect more from our elected officials, even when assuming Rings’ conduct was a violation of Ohio’s Rules of Professional Conduct, such inappropriate and unbecoming behavior by an elected official does not necessarily mean it was also a crime under Ohio Revised Code.”
According to Smith, the acquittal by the appellate judges applies the rule of double jeopardy, meaning that Rings may not be tried again for the crimes of coercion or sexual imposition as charged originally in 2017.
However, he said, the acquittal also does not bar the Ohio Supreme Court’s Ethics Commission from further action if they so choose.
“They could suspend, reprimand or disbar him, or do nothing,” he said.
Calls to Washington County Sheriff Larry Mincks for comment on the acquittal were also not returned Tuesday.
Today's breaking news and more in your inbox
