Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine took questions about the apparent failure that occurred in following the requirements of state law during the selection process for the Limberios grand jury in October.
Some of the questions that will be asked are included in an email request to DeWine's office for a broader response to a variety of questions raised by area families who have alleged wrongdoing in police investigations involving their loved-ones.
Watch it in the player below
Post your questions — the ones you want asked — in the comments section below.
1. What options for taking action, and what action will the Ohio AG's office take to address this failure to observe the requirements of the Ohio Revised Code in selecting the grand jury? What immediate steps will be taken, and what potential long-term objectives do you see as now being necessary?
2. Will the Ohio Attorney General's office seek a new grand jury to present the evidence it gathered, and if so, will the three individuals who witnessed his death be called to testify? Why weren't these individuals — the only eyewitnesses —called to testify before the apparently 'faux' grand jury? Does the fact all three individuals failed polygraph tests have bearing on that decision? Please also explain how key parts of statements made by these witnesses appear to be accepted as accurate despite the obvious concerns established that statements by each, overall, is likely unreliable?
3. During the 'faux' grand jury proceedings, and after, contact was made between a member of the public and the AG's office and BCI, with the resident expressing concerns that at least one grand juror was believed to have an established business and personal relationship with key members of the local law enforcement community. Was that shown to be true? Who from the sheriff's office served the summons on that individual, and was the nature of this alleged relationship between the juror and officials reviewed at any time during the selection process, the investigation or after the investigation? Was there any other contact from any members of the public with the AG's office or BCI expressing concern the grand jury and its proceedings were tainted, or otherwise compromised, in any fashion?
4. Given the special nature of this grand jury, what conflicts exist for both the Sandusky County sheriff's and clerk's offices in carrying out the public responsibilities of their respective offices given the familial relationships that exist between the sheriff, his lead commender and the courts clerk. Also, what potential conflicts exist with the AG's office in its dual roles as both criminal prosecutor investigating allegations of wrongdoing by local officials and acting as defense counsel for those same officials? Is this the same conflict that prompted Judge Dale Crawford to remove attorney Dean Henry from this investigation and appoint the AG's office? Why, or why not? What are the potential remedies to these apparent conflicts?
5. Given the concerns raised by the Limberios family, the family of Bryan Jones, of Lee Naus, of the Burdines, the Fegleys, the Vittes, the family of Isabel Cordle, the family of the sexually exploited jail inmate your office investigated, and the families of others who have alleged wrongdoing by public officials, does a pattern of abuse, dysfunctionality or lawlessness exist? Why, or why not, and what, precisely, would you tell members of these families and their supporters to disabuse them of these very serious contentions they have expressed to you and your staff?
6. Is the AG's office considering potential criminal charges within the scope of its investigation of the death of Craig Burdine? Will the results of this investigation be presented to a grand jury? What consideration and what options does the AG's office have in impaneling a grand jury given the apparent violations that occurred in this process? Have you reviewed whether the special grand jury in Sandusky County conducted by the Ohio AG in 2012 reviewing the sexual exploitation of an inmate at the Sandusky County jail was properly constituted? If so, what was the finding of that review? If not, does the office intend to look at that to assure that grand jury was properly convened.