GUILTY OH - Sheriff Charles Reader, charged with theft in office, Pike Co, 29 Jun 2019

Betty P

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
16,124
Reaction score
68,139
my guess is they would have to be inside enough to know exactly what he was doing. Unless he was bragging, someone would have had to observe him taking money I would guess.

did that person also know his plans for April 22??? I just remembered this:

Pike County Sheriff Charles Reader had scheduled himself to be off work on April 22. It was a Friday, and he was going to spend the day with his wife and take her to dinner and a movie

Since he wasn't charged with taking money from evidence envelopes, it's possible someone just made the allegation without real proof - just on the chance it might stick. JMO, a lot of the charges against Reader came from baseless rumors or exaggeration of fact, fairly typical in these situations.

As for April 22, if there is any connection, I see it more as someone knowing Reader would be gone that day. If so, it would indicate someone w/in the PCSD was giving info to the W's. Include other offices in county government as it's a small county, not a lot of employees and most information is shared.
 

Betty P

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
16,124
Reaction score
68,139
what I do commend Reader on is calling in all the entities he did to help when the murders occurred. I also commend that the investigation (from what it sounds) did not include him very much after the initial days. If something was smelling funky in the Sheriff's Office (even at a small level), the AG's Office/BCI was spot on in keeping him on the sidelines.

Yes, Reader should be commended for calling BCI pretty much immediately. As for AG/BCI quickly taking over all aspects of the investigation and sidelining the locals - that was more a political and practical decision. The murders made news around the world. The governor was on the campaign trail running for POTUS and AG DeWine had informally announced he was running for governor. Small county in a region with terrible drug trafficking problems and historic levels of local corruption - the state guys weren't going to leave any of this to chance. These are people with high career aspirations, not about to suffer any fallout from local LE messing up the case.

MOO, nothing indicates they were already aware of any specific problems with the local sheriff or other electeds, it was just a preventive measure. State government is currently set up so they can overrule local governments easily.
 

Tiff23fr

Verified Expert - Cultural & Behavioral Dynamics
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 14, 2016
Messages
6,797
Reaction score
49,366
Since he wasn't charged with taking money from evidence envelopes, it's possible someone just made the allegation without real proof - just on the chance it might stick. JMO, a lot of the charges against Reader came from baseless rumors or exaggeration of fact, fairly typical in these situations.

As for April 22, if there is any connection, I see it more as someone knowing Reader would be gone that day. If so, it would indicate someone w/in the PCSD was giving info to the W's. Include other offices in county government as it's a small county, not a lot of employees and most information is shared.

Can you clarify your perspective on him not being charged? It sounds like he was charged with both theft and tampering with evidence.Here is the indictment with some specific dates and dollar amounts. He also illegally had the truck put in his dads name..

This is the last I will post on Reader as I feel like I'm the only one on these forums really interested in trying to understand what was going on.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/do...tment-against-Pike-County-Sheriff-Charles.pdf

Below is a story on the 14 envelopes in the accordion file. Where was he keeping them? In his truck, his house, someone else? It seems he is claiming that "in his possession" is the same as in the possession of the sheriff's office. Could be why "The Pike County sheriff's office" is the named enterprise in Count 1.

Documents detail alleged improprieties by Reader - Portsmouth Daily Times


When executing the November search warrant at Reader’s office, investigators stated they looked inside a small safe kept in the sheriff’s office as well as a larger safe maintained outside his office. According to investigators, all the items in the second safe appeared to be accounted for, accompanied by proper evidence sheets. That allegedly is not the case with the small safe in Reader’s office.

On December 14, Reader’s attorney James T. Boulger spoke with Smith, explaining Reader wanted to meet with auditor’s office investigators. According to the prosecutor, Boulger turned over, in Reader’s name, an accordion file containing several evidence envelopes with seized U.S. currency related to drug cases the attorney explained were still open. Boulger told investigators the money properly was in possession of the sheriff’s office. The file allegedly further contained two videos of cash counts of seized currency as well as a thumb drive with a video showing a cash count of drug buy monies from two different accounts.

“Mr. Boulger was asked why the contents of the accordion file were not secured or present in the sheriff’s safe, located under his desk, during the execution of the search warrant,” the prosecutor summary reads. “Mr. Boulger replied he wasn’t in a position to answer that question.”

According to the summary, neither Reader nor his attorney previously advised investigators anything was missing from the safe in the sheriff’s office. The summary claims the accordion file presented by Boulger contained 14 evidence bags containing money. Furthermore, the summary states at least one of the bags, containing just over $6,000 in confiscated cash, appeared to have been opened and resealed. The investigator claimed there is a video of Pike county deputies counting the money in question. Notably, the summary alleges the money in the bag presented by Reader’s attorney “was clearly different,” made up of different denominations and in different condition than the money in the video.

In speaking to investigators, one sheriff’s captain, after looking at the money presented by Boulger, told investigators it was not the same cash confiscated during the case.

According to the summary, the captain kept repeating “He stole the (expletive) money.” From the context, “he” was clearly Reader.
 

Cool Cats

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
7,908
Reaction score
55,002
And I don't like the news media continuing to report that he was suspected of stealing money from drug bust envelopes when no such charges were filed against him. This is what I mean about Ohio's news media being so bad most of the time. Who has it in for Reader? Why?
BBM
James Boulger, Reader's attorney, said he believes the allegations could be connected to 'bitterness' from the fact that some senior personnel were recently laid off from the sheriff's office.

 

GoBuckeyes

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2016
Messages
2,162
Reaction score
10,676
So, if I understand correctly, the amount of money matched what was in the video? However, the actual bills may have been different in 1 of the 14 envelopes, and that 1 envelope may have been opened and resealed? Just wondering why, if the bills were so clearly visible in the vid, wouldn't one replace the money in the same denominations?
 

snickums

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
10
Reaction score
25
So, if I understand correctly, the amount of money matched what was in the video? However, the actual bills may have been different in 1 of the 14 envelopes, and that 1 envelope may have been opened and resealed? Just wondering why, if the bills were so clearly visible in the vid, wouldn't one replace the money in the same denominations?
Because the person who replaced the money didn't think about it, you don't have to be real bright to work as an LE in an area like this
 

Cool Cats

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
7,908
Reaction score
55,002
Does anyone know why it says this on Charles Reader's Court Docket? I mean an arraignment listed only 6 business days before his trial?
There was a new superseding indictment adding a really petty charge, was he arraigned on it? Then why one in April...humm...

04/09/2020 10:30 AM ARRAIGNMENT

04/20/2020 08:30 AM JURY TRIAL
 

Cool Cats

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
7,908
Reaction score
55,002
04/02/2020 SECOND BILL OF PARTICULARS FILED (VIA EMAIL)

04/09/2020 10:30 AM ARRAIGNMENT

This must pertain to the new charge which is
  • ENGAGING IN A PATTERN OF CORRUPT ACTIVITY
Which is nothing more than a fancy way to
re-categorize his existing charges. In other words, there really are no new charges.

So they can take those bogus charges and * OOPS * I did it again..:eek:..!!
 
Last edited:

Cool Cats

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
7,908
Reaction score
55,002

Docket Information - April 6, 2020

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE
Date: 05/04/2020 - Time: 1:00 PM

ARRAIGNMENT - VISITING JUDGE
Date: 05/11/2020 - Time: 10:00 AM

THE TRIAL IN THIS CASE ON THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT IS CANCELLED.

A TRIAL WILL BE SCHEDULED ON THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOLLOWING ARRAIGNMENT.

SECOND BILL OF PARTICULARS FILED.
 

Betty P

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
16,124
Reaction score
68,139

Sounds like trumped up charges, just trying to pile on to make sure something sticks. JMO, its a weak case on weak, very minor alleged offenses. It's pretty obvious what they're trying to do and who is behind it.

As for AC leaving and the new special prosecutors coming on, this is not a surprise. AC has been with these 6 cases for 4 years, along with the investigation. It's all moving to the next phase now, as each of the 4 Wags prepare for their own separate trials. They have to assign more prosecutors to handle all the separate courtroom work. It will go on for at least another year, if not longer. AC needs a break and probably has some better opportunities ahead. If she's going to leave she has to do it now, before the trials begin.
 

Sleuthinsleuther

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
562
Reaction score
2,301
Sounds like trumped up charges, just trying to pile on to make sure something sticks. JMO, its a weak case on weak, very minor alleged offenses. It's pretty obvious what they're trying to do and who is behind it.

As for AC leaving and the new special prosecutors coming on, this is not a surprise. AC has been with these 6 cases for 4 years, along with the investigation. It's all moving to the next phase now, as each of the 4 Wags prepare for their own separate trials. They have to assign more prosecutors to handle all the separate courtroom work. It will go on for at least another year, if not longer. AC needs a break and probably has some better opportunities ahead. If she's going to leave she has to do it now, before the trials begin.
You referring to the extra charges as just hoping something sticks is a very biased view imo. LE should have to follow the law too
 

Betty P

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
16,124
Reaction score
68,139
You referring to the extra charges as just hoping something sticks is a very biased view imo. LE should have to follow the law too

We're all entitled to our opinions here. The charges/accusations against Sheriff Reader seem to have little evidence.

For some reason, people want to punish Sheriff Reader for pursuing the Wagners for the massacre of the Rhoden family and Hannah Gilley. What does that say about people in that community who want to see the killers of 8 innocent people go unpunished? Do they believe the killers are above the rest of the community and shouldn't be punished? Do they think the Rhodens "had it coming" and deserved to die? What's the rationale at work there? How many people in Pike County are considered above the law? How long is that corruption going to continue?

JMO
 

Cool Cats

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
7,908
Reaction score
55,002
You referring to the extra charges as just hoping something sticks is a very biased view imo. LE should have to follow the law too

Charge Stacking: Gambling with People’s Lives

Prosecutors, Charge Stacking, and Plea Deals

"..We’ve posted several times how prosecutors will “stack charges” against a defendant, thus building a very long potential prison sentence if convicted, and then approach the defendant with a “plea deal” that would result in a guaranteed, substantially reduced charge and sentence if the defendant agrees to plead guilty to the reduced offense. If the defendant takes the deal, the prosecutor doesn’t have to take the case to trial, and possibly not even to a grand jury, both of which are a lot of work and require a lot of time on the part of the prosecutor.

This has become absolutely standard practice. The prosecutor will “stack” charges to build such a scary potential sentence, that even actually innocent people will be intimidated into pleading guilty, rather than face what’s called the “trial penalty ” – that very scary long sentence if they should somehow be convicted at trial. Not surprisingly, the nature of the deal offered by the prosecutor will be driven by how strong a case he/she thinks they would have in court – the weaker the case, the better the deal.. "

*** See Lori Loughlin case as a good example of this ***


Extra charges to get something to "stick" is common!

It's par for the course for the prosecution to pile on charges to get defendants to plea guilty to a charge. Do I agree? No. But this is what happens. Pike County Prosecutors would be glad to have Reader plead guilty to a felony charge.
Saves a trial which they do not want, but gets a felony guilty plea, which is their objective. They want that guilty plea no matter how many charges they have to pile on to get it.
 
Last edited:

Betty P

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
16,124
Reaction score
68,139
Charge Stacking: Gambling with People’s Lives

Prosecutors, Charge Stacking, and Plea Deals

"..We’ve posted several times how prosecutors will “stack charges” against a defendant, thus building a very long potential prison sentence if convicted, and then approach the defendant with a “plea deal” that would result in a guaranteed, substantially reduced charge and sentence if the defendant agrees to plead guilty to the reduced offense. If the defendant takes the deal, the prosecutor doesn’t have to take the case to trial, and possibly not even to a grand jury, both of which are a lot of work and require a lot of time on the part of the prosecutor.

This has become absolutely standard practice. The prosecutor will “stack” charges to build such a scary potential sentence, that even actually innocent people will be intimidated into pleading guilty, rather than face what’s called the “trial penalty ” – that very scary long sentence if they should somehow be convicted at trial. Not surprisingly, the nature of the deal offered by the prosecutor will be driven by how strong a case he/she thinks they would have in court – the weaker the case, the better the deal.. "

*** See Lori Loughlin case as a good example of this ***


Extra charges to get something to "stick" is common!

It's par for the course for the prosecution to pile on charges to get defendants to plea guilty to a charge. Do I agree? No. But this is what happens. Pike County Prosecutors would be glad to have Reader plead guilty to a felony charge.
Saves a trial which they do not want, but gets a felony guilty plea, which is their objective. They want that guilty plea no matter how many charges they have to pile on to get it.

So what did Sheriff Reader do that you think justifies the prosecution stacking these charges against him? He borrowed small amounts of money from fellow employees at work? You think its ok for them to stack all this junk up to try to justify ONE felony charge, with all the rest being misdemeanors?

What did Sheriff Reader do to justify your anger at him?
 

sunshineray

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
3,954
Reaction score
30,862
04/02/2020 SECOND BILL OF PARTICULARS FILED (VIA EMAIL)

04/09/2020 10:30 AM ARRAIGNMENT

This must pertain to the new charge which is
  • ENGAGING IN A PATTERN OF CORRUPT ACTIVITY
Which is nothing more than a fancy way to
re-categorize his existing charges. In other words, there really are no new charges.

So they can take those bogus charges and * OOPS * I did it again..:eek:..!!
"Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity, is defined by O.R.C. 2923.32, and states that it is the action of two or more persons that are involved in a criminal enterprise."

The Wright Blog: Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity

"Corrupt activity" is engaging or encouraging others to engage in a variety of criminal activity including bribery. In Ohio, it only takes two people to engage in a pattern of corrupt activity, and there is no requirement that the defendant be found guilty of any underlying criminal offenses."

ENGAGING IN A PATTERN OF CORRUPT ACTIVITY: STATE RICO CHARGES BECOME MORE PREVALENT IN OHIO

Sounds like there needs to be another person involved to be charged with "Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity" under OH law (referred to as a RICO-TYPE statute). Is someone else to be charged or will someobe else involved turn evidence against Sheriff Reader in plea bargain?

Seems like they tacked this charge on late because new evidence was procured?
 
Top