John E. Peters, Jr.
Motion for New Trial Hearings
November 15, 2005

Friedman Confronts Judge Timothy McGinty
McGinty Attempts to Deceive Court Again
Former Prosecutor Comes Up Short
on Answers and Documents

The second day of hearings began early with a new piece of evidence prepared last night by Judge Timothy McGinty, and given to Assistant Prosecutor Regas to file in this court.

It was a Motion to Quash [Exhibit I] from 1988, which included attachments alleged by Judge McGinty to have been provided to defense counsel prior to the original trial, but lacked any reference to attachments within the motion.

The same document was obtained by defense counsel, certified by the clerk of courts, but lacked any actual attachments [Exhibit J]. McGinty dismissed this as typical. After lunch recess, Friedman aggressively presented two witnesses who testified that no such attachments exist in the Clerk of Courts records.

Lisa Jones from the Certified Copies department of the Clerk of Courts pointed out that there are not even any staple marks in the one page motion. It was clear that McGinty attempted to deceive the court into thinking that the attachments he added were part of the original filing.

Investigator Keith King testified that he made a full investigation to locate Nancy and Anna Griffin, [Peters' ex-wife and daughter] but to no avail on their current address.

Assistant Prosecutor Alan Regas again made us sit through long cross examination questioning that defied any relevant point, as he did previously with other witnesses, and Judge Interlied told him to discontinue his line of questioning twice. Regas finally gave up.

Up next was defense witness Harold DeBoe, retired police detective from Mayfield Heights who investigated this case in 1988, and testified at the trial. He affirmed that social worker Vera Perkins-Hughes told him that Anna had "backed down on some of her accusations." He also testified that she admitted lying about her accusations, during a pre-trial meeting with McGinty and Anna.

DeBoe also stated that he turned over his entire investigation file to the prosecutor in this case, and claimed that "McGinty had all these records." 

When Judge McGinty was testifying under oath, he had trouble answering direct questions from both defense and state attorneys. Most of his answers ignored the questions and quickly began relating details of the conflicts with trial defense attorneys in this case.

Questions by State Prosecutor Regas centered around the arguments that took place in a conflict of interest that arose in the original trial, and provided little relevance to the discovery issues challenged by Peters. Regas was advised to discontinue this line of questioning by the judge.

McGinty testified that he only received the police report, in contrast to DeBoe's "entire file" statement.

McGinty also added plenty of colorful commentary in "examples" of what he wanted to describe about the history of the case, in every answer, while avoiding the exact question presented. All he wanted to talk about was conflicts with the defense attorneys.

This witness observed at least nine different times that McGinty was directed on how to answer a question by judge Interlied, as he tried to dodge every obvious point. McGinty took long pauses to consider how to answer Friedman regarding documents and discovery, and appeared to be cornered.

This witness observed Timothy McGinty stuttering and squirming to try to deny that there is no documentation in the record to show that he ever delivered an answer to multiple discovery requests by defense attorneys.

In the end, Friedman made it clear that proper discovery never took place, and continues to be thwarted by Cuyahoga County prosecutors.

In cross of his direct testimony that Anna only recanted part of her allegations, Friedman repeated his question to McGinty, demanding an answer for about five minutes before McGinty finally confessed that she did, in fact, recant sexual abuse by Mr. Peters before the trial.

He finally admitted that he knew this, today in court, and it was never revealed  to the defense counsel. 

Some prominent local attorneys who knew about this hearing stopped in just to hear this testimony. I wish I had charged for admission to this show. It turned out that Regas' witness was more beneficial to the defense.

After Vera Perkins-Hughes was over 20 minutes late to appear on subpoena, Friedman told the judge to issue a warrant for her arrest. Still, Interlied was patient, and Perkins-Hughes arrived a short while later.

Amazingly, Perkins-Hughes has lost all memory of investigating this case and being the main witness to convict an innocent man, while all the other witnesses testified that this was an unusually memorable case.

On each question, she had absolutely no recollection of anything. No one really believed that she was telling the truth.

Although she denied consulting with the state attorneys for this hearing, I witnessed her conferring with them for over ten minutes yesterday morning at the prosecutor's table.

Ian Friedman produced extraordinary results that showed not only actual innocence, but also prosecutorial misconduct, and withholding of exculpatory materials by former prosecutor Timothy McGinty.

Alan Regas was not able to refute any facts presented by the defense.

Today I witnessed a Social Worker and Judge try to manipulate the court in an attempt to try to cover up the 1988 scandal against John Peters, the same way they did 17years ago.

The defense will submit final arguments by December 8th, the prosecutor will reply by December 18th. We hope to see a decision in this case in January.

©2005 IIAO Inc.

Back to Peters

©2005 IIAO Inc.