Defense moves to suppress evidence in Mike Doran sexual imposition case (UPDATED)

This story has been updated to correct Mike Doran's age. ELYRIA — An attorney representing Lorain County Recorder Mike Doran in a misdemeanor sexual imposition case has moved to suppress key pieces of evidence in the case. Attorney Justin Mackin, of Rocky River, filed the motion to suppress evidence earlier this week and on Thursday he appeared alongside Doran for a pretrial hearing in Elyria Municipal Court before visiting Judge Patrick Carroll. Carroll set an evidentiary hearing for Jan. 8 to hear verbal arguments and rule on the motion. Special Prosecutor John Reulbach told Carroll that he would have a written response to Mackin's motion filed prior to that next hearing. The terms of Doran's bond will remain in place as will a protective order preventing him from contacting the alleged victim. In Ohio, a motion to suppress is a request for a judge to exclude certain evidence from trial in a criminal case if it has been collected in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights. Doran, 42, pleaded not guilty to the sexual imposition charge during his initial court appearance on July 24. The charge against him came following an investigation by Elyria police into a complaint filed with the department in mid-May. Sexual imposition can refer to any unwanted or coerced sexual contact. In his motion, Mackin questioned the validity of a key piece of evidence; a video recording of a phone conversation that the alleged victim had with Doran. The video is recorded from the victim's side. Carroll and Mackin discussed the motion to suppress on Thursday, with Carroll breaking down Mackin's complaints about the video. Carroll said Mackin's motion raised four issues: it questioned the validity, authenticity and completeness of the recording and it argued the video violated the rules of evidence. Carroll said that two of the issues raised would better fit a motion in limine, which refers to a request to prevent certain evidence from going before a jury at trial. Mackin said that because all of the issues he raised regarded the content of the video, he had decided to file them under one motion. He told Carroll that he could separate those issues into a motion in limine, but Carroll said he would not require it. Under a motion to suppress, the defending party raises the grounds of its issues with certain evidence, and the burden of proof falls on the prosecution to prove that the evidence was properly collected and included. "Are you saying that the recording was edited?" Carroll asked Mackin. "Possibly, or incomplete," Mackin replied. "... In that the recording itself may have been cut off either at the beginning or end of the phone call." Reulbach said that the video he received did appear to begin only after the beginning of the phone call, but argued this could simply have been when the recording was started, not that a beginning was edited out. "I assume that's what it was," Reulbach said. "But I haven't been able to discuss that with the persons that were involved with the recording because I just got the motion." Carroll said that the burden would be on the prosecution to show that the video was accurate and nothing had been edited or removed from it. He told Mackin that if, for example, the recording was just three minutes of a five-minute conversation but the three minutes was all the prosecutor had received, there would be no issue with it being used as evidence. "If that is all he has, there is case law that says that is not an issue," Carroll said. "He's providing you with what he has and the rest would be on cross-examination." Reulbach has until Nov. 17 to file his written response to the motion. After the discussion on the motion had concluded, Reulbach raised an issue to Carroll. He told the visiting judge that he had received a phone call from the named victim in the complaint on Monday night, indicating that a man had gone to her home that evening. "I assume that was defense counsel's investigator, but I think that is probably prohibited under the court order," Reulbach said. "I just ask the court to advise the defendant that an investigator is not a permitted person to contact (the victim)." Mackin said that it was an investigator sent by him who had gone to the alleged victim's home, that the investigator had asked to interview her and been denied and that he did not believe the protective order preventing Doran from directly or indirectly contacting the victim applied to his investigator. "For future reference, the order says no direct or indirect contact," Carroll said. "You are the attorney for the defendant and any interactions that you have with the alleged victim are indirect contact on behalf of your client. … I understand you have the right to interview the witness. Sending someone to her house unannounced on behalf of the defendant is not a permissible way." Mackin said that Doran did not instruct him to contact the named victim and asked Carroll to admonish him, rather than his client. Carroll said that he would not discipline either Mackin or his client, instead asking that in the future, Mackin go through the court. Before he ended the hearing, Carroll asked if there had been any progress in negotiations between the parties to resolve the complaint before trial, which Mackin and Reulbach had discussed at Doran's last hearing in September. "The ball is in the other court, judge, so to speak," Reulbach said. Doran, a Republican, is serving his second term as county recorder after winning reelection last November. Contact Owen MacMillan at (440) 329-7123 or omacmillan@chroniclet.com.