Login | July 04, 2025
Selective prosecution finding reversed in deputy’s sexual assault case
TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter
Published: February 15, 2022
A former Summit County sheriff’s deputy who was the lead suspect in a sexual assault case argued he was improperly selected for prosecution because he is Black.
A Summit County trial court agreed and granted Antonio Williamson’s motion to dismiss 10 counts of his indictment on selective prosecution grounds.
However, the 9th District Court of Appeals recently reversed the trial court’s decision, finding Williamson failed to show his treatment was a result of his race.
In 2017, Williamson was placed on departmental leave after Akron police began investigating him for rape, sexual battery, gross sexual imposition and kidnapping. As part of that investigation, Akron police asked the sheriff’s office to request an audit of Williamson’s searches in the Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway. The purpose of the audit was to determine whether Williamson had used OHLEG to search for the accuser in the sexual assault case.
The attorney general notified the sheriff’s office liaison that Williamson had not used OHLEG to search for the accuser, but that he had performed more than 30 searches of his own name, license or registration.
The sheriff’s office chose to investigate that claim itself for potential criminal violations of the Revised Code. The Summit County Prosecutor’s Office concluded that probable cause to charge Williamson existed, and a supplemental indictment issued, charging Williamson with 10 counts of the unauthorized use of OHLEG.
After an internal investigation by the sheriff’s office, Williamson was fired.
The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to sever his two sets of criminal charges for trial, and the sexual assault charges were tried first.
During discovery, Williamson requested OHLEG and Law Enforcement Automated Data System usage records for other deputies. He learned that several other deputies, all of whom were Caucasian, appeared to have improperly accessed those databases without being criminally prosecuted. Believing that he had been selected for prosecution because he was Black, Williamson moved to dismiss his OHLEG charges.
The state opposed the motion to dismiss, which was held in abeyance until the sexual assault charges could be resolved. The state ultimately dismissed two of Williamson’s sexual assault charges, and a jury found him not guilty of his remaining sexual assault charges. Following the verdict in his favor, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on his motion to dismiss and determined Williamson established his claim of selective prosecution.
In his opinion, 9th District Judge Thomas Teodosio noted it is undisputed that the four white deputies - G.P., A.B., W.W., and C.P. - were all subject to internal and/or administrative investigations, not criminal investigations.
“Mr. Williamson was the only one subject to a criminal investigation,” Judge Teodosio wrote. “The trial court nevertheless concluded that Mr. Williamson was similarly situated to G.P., A.B., W.W., and C.P. because they all committed OHLEG or LEADS violations and ‘would most likely have faced criminal investigations and/or prosecution’ if the sheriff had reported them to the prosecutor’s office. It was the trial court’s conclusion that the sheriff protected G.P., A.B., W.W., and C.P. from prosecution because they were Caucasian.”
The appellate panel also found the trial court failed to address evidence that a Caucasian deputy, B.T., was prosecuted on OHLEG charges around the same time as Williamson.
“Upon review, the record does not support the trial court’s conclusion that either the sheriff or the sheriff’s office purposely singled out Mr. Williamson for prosecution based on his race,” Judge Teodosio said. “Mr. Williamson’s self searches were uncovered by the attorney general and investigated and referred to the prosecutor’s office at the instruction of the attorney general. There was never an opportunity for the sheriff to exercise any discretion in favor of Mr. Williamson and, in any event, there was no evidence that Mr. Williamson’s self-searches were performed for a law enforcement purpose.
“While the sheriff’s office never referred G.P., A.B., W.W., or C.P. for criminal investigation or prosecution, Mr. Williamson failed to show that the difference in their treatment was a function of race. It was Mr. Williamson’s ‘heavy burden’ to establish a claim of selective prosecution, and the record does not support the conclusion that he met his burden.”
Appellate judges Donna J. Carr and Lynne Callahan concurred. The case is cited State v. Williamson, 2022-Ohio-185.