6 min read
6 days ago
Legal Delays Raise Questions as Prosecutor Gathers Evidence
By Logan Andrew | Founder, Editor-in-chief, FreeWire
Bucyrus, OH — A grand jury met on Tuesday, as they do twice a month, to review cases presented by the prosecutor. However, Carolyn Shireman’s case was not among those considered, leaving many in the community questioning the delay in her indictment. We consulted multiple attorneys, including both prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys, who shared their insights under the condition of anonymity. Their perspectives shed light on the legal process and possible reasons for the delay. The case, which has drawn significant public attention, centers on allegations that Shireman misappropriated funds from a disabled individual whom she cared for — an offense that carries heightened felony penalties under Ohio law. This delay has raised concerns among community members, who are eager for clarity on the case’s progress and the reasons behind the holdup.
Defense Strategy and Preliminary Hearing Waiver
John Andrew Motter, attorney for Carolyn Shireman, opted to waive her preliminary hearing scheduled for last week — an oftentimes strategic decision in criminal defense. Legal experts note that attorneys typically push for such a hearing only when they believe the evidence is so weak that a judge might dismiss the case outright. By waiving it, Motter likely acknowledged that the prosecution had sufficient grounds to proceed. Defense attorneys generally aim to prevent the state from presenting its case uncontested before a judge because doing so would allow the prosecution to lay out its evidence without challenge, potentially strengthening their narrative in the eyes of the court. This makes the decision to waive the hearing a calculated move to avoid giving the state an opportunity to establish their case early on.
A source with knowledge of the defense’s strategy indicated that the state was only required to turn over discovery materials last Friday, leaving Motter with limited time to assess the full scope of evidence against his client. Meanwhile, another source stated that Shireman was unhappy with her attorney’s decision to waive the preliminary, as she continues to insist she has done nothing wrong and views the case as a politically motivated attack against her.
Why the Indictment May Be Delayed
While some may interpret the absence of an indictment as a sign of weak evidence, legal minds we spoke to urge caution. In Ohio, prosecutors are not required to secure an indictment within 15 days of an arrest — only to hold a preliminary hearing within that period if an indictment has not yet been pursued. This allows the state to take weeks or even months to present a case to a grand jury, particularly if more evidence is needed, or they just “need to get their ducks in a row.”
According to multiple legal sources, the delay likely means that Prosecutor Matt Crall is still gathering financial evidence to solidify the case. Ohio law increases charges for theft when the victim is a disabled individual. This rule recognizes that disabled individuals are often more vulnerable, making it essential to provide stronger legal protections for them. The enhancement adds more serious consequences for crimes targeting this group, ensuring that offenders face stricter penalties:
$7,500 to $37,500: Third-degree felony
$37,500 to $150,000: Second-degree felony
Over $150,000: First-degree felony
If Crall can establish that more than $37,500 was stolen, Shireman would face a second-degree felony charge. If the amount exceeds $150,000, the charge escalates to a first-degree felony. Sources familiar with the case suggest that Crall is working diligently to build the strongest possible case before moving forward with an indictment.
Crawford County’s Distinct Legal Approach
Crawford County is known for an unwritten rule regarding preliminary hearings: if a defense attorney attempts to use one to get a case dismissed, the prosecution will refuse to negotiate any plea deals, regardless of the charge. A prosecutor we spoke to confirmed this practice, explaining that it serves as a deterrent against defense attorneys using preliminary hearings to challenge weak cases early on.
A defense attorney we interviewed elaborated on how this differs from other counties in the state, where the majority of cases go straight to the grand jury without a preliminary hearing. In those jurisdictions, preliminary hearings are rarely held — usually only in high-profile cases where prosecutors want immediate public attention.
The issue with charging before a grand jury returns an indictment is that it triggers the requirement for a preliminary hearing within 10 days if the defendant is incarcerated and 15 days if they are out on bond. Preliminaries provide an opportunity for defense attorneys to get prosecutors or witnesses on the record, potentially saying something useful for the defense later down the line. Because of this, prosecutors generally dislike preliminary hearings. However, Crawford County’s desire to secure media attention forces them to go through the motions. To discourage defense attorneys from taking advantage of preliminaries, they enforce the unwritten rule: if a defense attorney demands a preliminary, the defendant will receive no plea deals and will face the maximum sentence if convicted. Those familiar with the county’s legal landscape confirm that this policy is just one of the ways Crawford County’s approach raises concerns. This differs from many other counties like Mansfield and Marion, where the vast majority of cases bypass the preliminary hearing stage altogether and go straight to the grand jury. Another defense attorney we spoke to confirmed this and explained further that most prosecutors only charge before a case has gone to the grand jury when they want the headline, usually for high-profile cases. However, in Crawford County, prosecutors seek headlines for nearly every case, raising questions about why resources are being spent on preliminary hearings — especially when defendants are effectively penalized for going through with them.
Motter’s choice to waive the hearing may have been a calculated decision to preserve the possibility of a plea agreement if an indictment is eventually issued. At the same time, it suggests that the state likely has sufficient evidence to proceed with felony charges.
What Comes Next?
With no indictment yet issued, speculation is mounting. The longer the prosecution holds off, the more questions will come about the strength of the case. However, both supporters and critics of the case acknowledge that a delay does not necessarily mean the prosecution is struggling. More often, it suggests that the state is taking extra time to build a rock-solid case, ensuring they can secure a conviction on the most serious charges possible.
For now, Carolyn Shireman remains unindicted. But with the grand jury already having convened, an indictment could still come at any time. While the timing of grand jury meetings is technically secret, they do meet twice a month. This secrecy, while standard practice, often leaves the public feeling uncertain and fuels speculation about the pace of justice. For this case, the community eagerly awaits clarity as each meeting passes without an indictment.
About the Author
Logan Andrew is the founder and editor of FreeWire, a Northwest Ohio-based digital media company dedicated to providing straightforward, fact-based reporting on local issues. With a focus on transparency and accountability, Logan works to amplify community voices while holding public officials to their word.
Support Our Work
Your support makes independent journalism like this possible. Consider contributing to FreeWire through PayPal. Every donation helps us continue to bring you the news that matters.
Donate $1- https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/PB3XJHG3ECJ4C
Donate $5- https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/DZ96VU4LKPYU6
Donate $20- https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/FPRPXSSJ72TMW
About The Author
