YOUNGSTOWN — Visiting Judge Mark Wiest has filed an entry in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court appointing Richland County Prosecutor Jodie Schumacher and an assistant in her office to investigate allegations attorney Martin Desmond made in 2024 of wrongdoing by top Mahoning County officials.

The Jan. 5 entry also authorizes Schumacher to employ an investigator to assist her in the investigation.

The appointment of Schumacher follows a ruling Nov. 3 by the 7th District Court of Appeals that reversed Wiest’s decision in November 2024 to dismiss Desmond’s 2024 petition, which alleged misconduct by then-Mahoning County Prosecutor Gina DeGenova, then-Mahoning County Commissioner David Ditzler and longtime county commissioner Carol Rimedio-Righetti.

Desmond’s allegations surrounded the 2022 firing and rehiring of Mahoning County maintenance worker Ricky Morrison. Desmond represented Morrison in a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in which Mahoning County paid Morrison $175,000 to resolve the lawsuit. Morrison got his job back with full pay and benefits.

Desmond asked Wiest to appoint a special prosecutor to determine whether DeGenova, Rimedio-Righetti and Ditzler broke laws when they allegedly conspired to fire Morrison for supporting Rimedio-Righetti’s opponent, Geno DiFabio, now a current county commissioner, in the November 2022 election.

Wiest said at the time he dismissed the lawsuit at the end of a hearing that the bulk of the allegations were that officials had “lied a lot, and they’re lying because they want to cover up this firing of this gentleman, who as it has been pointed out, was reinstated with full pay and benefits.”

Wiest then asked Desmond, “I mean how do you get from there to this whole list of felonies? I just don’t see it.” Wiest told Desmond when he announced his ruling that if Desmond did not agree with the ruling, Desmond could appeal. Desmond said he would.

Wiest handled Desmond’s petition on assignment from the Ohio Supreme Court after the sitting Mahoning County judges recused themselves from hearing it.

The 7th District ruling stated that Wiest did not “follow the proper statutory procedures as outlined in” Ohio law and “therefore erred when he dismissed Desmond’s petition.” It added, “Critically, the statute does not permit (Wiest) to summarily dismiss the matter.”

The next time, Wiest must either find probable cause that a crime has been committed, that the accused committed the crime and issue a warrant for arrest, or refer the matter to the prosecuting attorney for investigation before issuance of any warrant for arrest, the ruling states.

In this type of case, when the county prosecutor’s office has a conflict of interest in that the prosecutor’s office represents county officials such as the commissioners, the judge must “invoke its inherent authority to appoint a special prosecutor to fulfill the investigative role that would otherwise be performed by the … prosecutor’s office,” the the appeals court ruling stated.

The ruling added that Wiest had “no discretion in this matter. Where a structural conflict exists, the appointment of a special prosecutor is mandatory. Therefore the trial court must appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the allegations presented in Desmond’s affidavit after the prosecuting attorney has been afforded an opportunity to be heard and to present any evidence he or she desires to offer before the investigation proceeds.”

On Dec. 8, 2025, following the 7th District ruling, Mahoning County Prosecutor Lynn Maro filed a document with Wiest asking for her office to withdraw from “further prosecution” of Desmond’s petition and asked for the appointment of a special prosecutor.

The document stated that her office could not prosecute the matter because the petition alleges misconduct by former prosecutor DeGenova and current commissioner Rimedio Righetti.

“In addition, the petition also alleges conflicting accounts by two county commissioners.”

That was apparently a reference to comments by Commissioner Anthony Traficanti on the Morrison matter that conflicted with statements of Rimedio-Righetti and Ditzler about the dispute.

Maro’s document stated that the county prosecutor’s office is the “statutory counsel for the county commissioners, and the allegations in the petition create a conflict for the prosecutor’s office. If true, the allegations in the petition put two of the commissioners adverse to each other.”

It added that the prosecutor’s office “cannot, given the allegations, choose which commissioner’s position to advocate. As recognized by the Court of Appeals, a conflict exists that requires (a) special prosecutor.” In the document, Maro proposed that attorney J.P. Morgan of Warren serve as special prosecutor. In a separate filing, Maro submitted a “notice of appointment of special assistant prosecutor,” naming Morgan.

But Wiest went with Schumacher and her office, which is in Mansfield. Wiest is a retired former Wayne County Common Pleas Court judge.

On Dec. 11 Wiest filed a judgment entry in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court stating that the “Court of Appeals has instructed (Wiest) to review Mr. Desmond’s petition and in compliance with (Ohio Revised Code statute) 2935.10(A) determine the appropriate course of action.”

The entry states that “After reviewing the petition, the Court (Wiest) has reason to believe that the claims are not meritorious. ORC 2935.10(A) requires (Wiest) to refer the matter to the Prosecuting Attorney for investigation. The Mahoning County Prosecutor has a conflict.”

It adds that “Given the conflict, (Wiest) must appoint a special prosecutor. To be clear, it is (Wiest’s) responsibility to appoint the Special Prosecutor.” The filing noted that Maro filed a notice of appointment of a special prosecutor (Morgan), but quoted from the appeals court ruling in stating that it was Wiest who “must appoint a special prosecutor to investigate allegations presented in Desmond’s affidavit.”