Summit County Assistant Prosecutor Teri Burnside on Thursday said she couldn’t comply with a court order to disclose personal information belonging to the sole survivor of a 2013 New Year’s Eve triple homicide in Barberton.
An attorney representing the survivor filed a motion to delay the court order until an appeal of it can be decided by the Ninth District Court of Appeals.
“I believe this is a very slippery slope, especially with a victim of a very violent crime,” Burnside told the Summit court.
Last month, Summit County Common Pleas Judge Amy Corrigall Jones ordered Burnside to provide medical records, social media passwords and access to personal electronics belonging to 39-year-old Ronda Blankenship. Blankenship’s boyfriend and his teenage son and stepdaughter were killed in the home invasion by gunshots to their heads. Blankenship was stabbed in the cheek and shot in the eye but survived the attack.
The defendant in Thursday’s case, Eric Hendon, faces charges of aggravated murder — punishable by the death penalty. His younger brother, Michael Hendon, was convicted last year of complicity to commit aggravated murder and was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole.
Defense attorneys requested Blankenship’s personal information in October after they discovered an entry in her diary that identified her family’s attacker as Michael Hendon. Prosecutors argue the misidentification was a simple mistake because Blankenship was so traumatized by the violence that night.
“Aside from the diary entry, she’s always been consistent that the shooter was the taller one, the bigger one, the older one — which is Eric Hendon,” the prosecutor said.
In court Thursday, Burnside said she could not disclose the information ordered by the judge because Blankenship didn’t provide it to authorities. She added that she thought it was an unprecedented invasion of privacy to demand personal information from a victim of crime.
“My whole issue,” Burnside told the judge, “is I don’t want her privacy invaded, which is a constitutional issue.”
The judge said it was not an invasion of privacy because the information was to be provided only to the judge, who would inspect the information “in camera” — in private — to determine whether any of it was relevant to the case.
“An in camera inspection is not the same as disclosing these documents to defense counsel,” Jones said.
The judge had ordered Burnside to comply with her order by Thursday. On Thursday morning, defense attorneys said they arrived at the prosecutor’s office with a court-appointed computer expert to collect the information, but were not provided the records.
Burnside said the records were not collected because she believed the prosecutor’s office could not compel a victim to provide personal information. Jones reminded Burnside of the court order, which did not seem to shake the prosecutor. Burnside and Jones spoke over one another several times as the debate grew more heated.
Defense attorney Donald Malarcik urged the judge to hold Burnside in contempt of court for failing to comply.
“There doesn’t appear to be any good faith effort to comply,” he said.
Malarcik’s co-counsel, Brian Pierce, agreed and said an attorney representing Blankenship also should be disciplined.
“They have disobeyed and intentionally, willfully violated orders by their court,” Pierce said.
The judge opted not to rule on contempt because a motion filed on Tuesday complicates the matter. Blankenship’s attorney — Elizabeth Well, who works for the nonprofit victim advocacy group Justice League of Ohio — appealed the judge’s orders to the Ninth District Court of Appeals. Well filed a motion to stay in Common Pleas Court on Tuesday asking to put the judge’s orders on pause until the appellate judges rule in the case.
In her motion and appeal, Well argues that forcing attorneys to disclose Blankenship’s personal information would violate attorney-client privilege and doctor-patient privilege.
“Both the Ohio Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court have held on numerous occasions that upholding attorney-client privilege is within the public interest,” Well wrote. “The protection of physician-patient privilege is equally important to the public interest.”
A hearing on Well’s motion to stay was scheduled for Jan. 14 at 9 a.m. While the trial is scheduled to begin again in February, Well said the appeals court could take weeks or even months to make a decision.
Nick Glunt can be reached at 330-996-3565 or nglunt@thebeaconjournal.com. Follow him on Twitter @NickGluntABJ.