I also checked the Revised Code before that post and it coincides with Rule 23. My reasoning was, since there was no language to legally indicate otherwise, the Rule seemed to exclude any provision for what the link provided. I know states differ to varying degrees.
I also read Federal Rule 23 and see the difference.
On a side note I'd like to make a comment about attorneys.
There are three different functions of attorneys. Criminal and civil defense attorneys, attorneys that represent civil plaintiffs, and criminal prosecutors. Defense attorneys that represent civilians may know that their client is guilty but it is our right to try to defend ourselves any way we can. If a plaintiff is harmed it is his right to try it before a jury. However, when a prosecutor feels very strongly that a person is not guilty, like in the OP's case, but he either has enough evidence to get a conviction or he knows the other attorney will be ineffective in defending his client, why are they allowed to use whatever is at their disposal to secure that conviction?
It is ok for us to use whatever available to be acquitted, regardless of guilt, but why is it ok for a prosecutor to do it. Getting guilty people off is not nearly has harmful as convicting innocent people.
My answer to my own question is because lawyers and prosecutors don't care about guilt, fault or innocence. All they care about is winning. In the OP's case, all the prosecutor cares about is getting a conviction...any way he can. Suppressing witness testimony to get that conviction is disgusting. I saw it all through my trial too...the defense attorney made every effort to gag me.
In my case I spoke to countless non-lawyers, before and after the trial. I learned most about my case from non-lawyers. I learned about the heavy bias and shallowness of juries from talking on forums like this one. So speaking on forums is not useless.
You changed "advice" to "specific advice". I never said that.
Since you glossed over my point, I said that lawyers are not stupid. They know when their client is guilty but they try like hell to get them off anyway. On the other hand, prosecutors know when the accused is innocent too, and they have a sense when they can secure a conviction against an innocent man if the opposing counsel is a novice. I watched it happen to my friend, he got 45 years. My point is that it is ok when a defense attorney does that but an honest person would have to agree that prosecutors do it too.
True, I do not know if this lady had bruises all over her face and a witness saw her get raped at knifepoint by her husband. But saying folks here cannot offer advice because we did not read the court transcripts is not true. I know what she is likely dealing with because I have seen it before...with my friend and in my case. Courtrooms are full of lying SOB's in suits, including prosecutors.
Any updates on this thread