Public Service Announcement

To the Citizens of Mahoning County and Concerned Members of the Public,

This letter is intended to bring awareness to serious concerns regarding the prosecution and conviction of John E. Morgan in Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2022 CR 00438. Mr. Morgan was convicted of felony murder predicated on felonious assault, raising multiple constitutional and procedural issues that warrant public attention and independent review.

The Felony-Murder Indictment

The indictment, filed by the Mahoning County Prosecutor’s Office, reads as follows (Second Count, verbatim):

“AND the grand jurors of this County, in the name and by the authority of the State of Ohio, upon their oaths, do find and present that: JOHN EUGENE MORGAN, on or about 7/31/2022, in the County of Mahoning, aforesaid, and State of Ohio, did cause the death of DP.SR, as a proximate result of the offender committing or attempting to commit an offense of violence that is a felony of the first or second degree, to wit: Felonious Assault, R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) [the act of shooting Daniel A. Peek, Sr.], in violation of Sections 2903.02(B), 2903.02(D), and 2929.02(B) of the Ohio Revised Code, an unclassified felony, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio.”

Under Ohio law, felony murder requires a valid underlying felony. However, if the shooting was an act of self-defense, no felonious assault occurred. The State bears the burden of disproving self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt (State v. Messenger, 171 Ohio St.3d 227 (2022); State v. Nolan, 141 Ohio St.3d 454 (2014)). The indictment fails to account for this burden, creating a disconnect between the charging instrument and Ohio Jury Instructions, and raising serious due-process concerns.

Missing Dash-Cam Evidence and Brady Violations

Dash-cam footage documenting the crime scene, vehicle, and towing contains an unexplained 17-minute gap during a critical period. This footage was not disclosed to the defense before trial.

Under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), the suppression of materially exculpatory or impeachment evidence violates Fourteenth Amendment due process. Ohio appellate courts recognize that law-enforcement video documenting the scene and officer conduct is materially important (State v. Geeslin, 116 Ohio St.3d 252 (2007); State v. Wooten, 2016-Ohio-5461, 8th Dist.).

Unlawful Digital Search and Metadata Extraction

The SD-card dash-cam data and metadata were extracted without specific warrant authorization for forensic analysis, violating the Fourth Amendment and Ohio law (Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014); State v. Castagnola, 145 Ohio St.3d 1 (2015)). Metadata affects authenticity, timing, and integrity of digital evidence, making this an important due-process concern.

Jury Confusion and Verdict Reliability

After the verdict, jurors reportedly stated they believed they had voted incorrectly and misunderstood the law. While post-verdict juror testimony is limited, these statements raise serious questions about:

• Proper application of self-defense instructions

• The effect of suppressed or missing evidence

• Overall fairness and reliability of the verdict

These concerns implicate the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of due process.

Prosecutorial Incentives and Systemic Concerns

The prosecution had an institutional interest in securing a conviction. While lawful prosecution is appropriate, it cannot come at the cost of constitutional rights and procedural fairness (Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935)).

Similar issues—including missing evidence, defective indictments, and jury confusion—have been observed in multiple Mahoning County cases, indicating a potential pattern of wrongful convictions.

Conclusion and Call for Public Awareness

The conviction of John E. Morgan raises substantial questions regarding constitutional protections under the 4th, 6th, and 14th Amendments. Transparency, accountability, and independent review are essential to maintain public trust in the justice system.

We urge the community, legal advocates, and relevant authorities to review this case and other similar cases in Mahoning County to ensure that justice is properly served. Public awareness and scrutiny are necessary to uphold the rule of law and the integrity of our courts.

Respectfully,

Megan Elizabeth