Ohio Supreme Court candidate Andrew King’s record defending violent criminals: a look at six of his cases
Six appeals. Six violent offenders. Zero wins. A closer look at the cases judicial candidate Andrew King took to the Ohio Supreme Court — and the arguments he made along the way.
The Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial Center in Columbus
This article is second of a 5-part series this week on public defenders.
Before becoming a judge, Andrew J. King served as an Assistant State Public Defender at the Office of the Ohio Public Defender in Columbus, Ohio. In that role, he regularly represented individuals who had already been convicted of shockingly heinous crimes. King took their cases to the Supreme Court of Ohio on appeal.
King represented seriously violent offenders: mass shootings, killing a baby, domestic violence, and violent confrontations with police. In each case, King raised legal arguments on behalf of his clients, challenging everything from the conduct of police officers to the effectiveness of prior attorneys. In every single case we reviewed, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected King's arguments and either denied the appeal or dismissed it outright.
The question for Ohio voters becomes: does Judge Andrew J. King bring the values they want in an Ohio Supreme Court justice? These violent criminals have a constitutional right to a lawyer, but are those the lawyers we then want to elevate to the Ohio Supreme Court? Ohioans will decide.
Here is a closer look at six felony-defendants King represented, the crimes they were convicted of, and the arguments King made on their behalf.
Kevin Keith
Case: State of Ohio v. Kevin Keith, No. 2011-0443
The Crime: On the evening of February 13, 1994, a gunman entered an apartment at the Bucyrus Estates in Bucyrus, Ohio, and shot all six people inside. Three people were killed: Marichell Chatman, her five-year-old daughter Marchae, and Marichell's aunt, Linda Chatman. Three others survived: Richard Warren (Marichell's boyfriend), and Marichell's young cousins, Quanita and Quinton Reeves.
The Conviction: A jury convicted Kevin Keith on three counts of aggravated murder with capital specifications and three counts of attempted aggravated murder. The jury recommended the death penalty for the aggravated murder counts, and the court imposed that sentence. On the attempted aggravated murder counts, Keith was sentenced to 7 to 25 years in prison on each count, to be served consecutively.
King's Arguments: King accused the police of destroying evidence — specifically, telephone call dispatch logs that he claimed would have helped Keith's defense. He also accused police of rigging a photo lineup to steer a surviving witness into identifying Keith. Additionally, King argued that the prosecution improperly suppressed evidence that could have been favorable to the defense. King pointed out that no physical evidence definitively linked Keith to the shootings, and that four alibi witnesses had placed Keith miles away from the scene. He argued that the State relied too heavily on the identification made by the surviving witness, Richard Warren, whose credibility King sought to challenge.
Outcome: The Ohio Supreme Court rejected all of King's arguments. Leave to appeal was denied and the appeal was dismissed.
Lloyd Turks
Case: State of Ohio v. Lloyd Turks, No. 2011-0115
The Crime: Lloyd Turks' wife, Tamiko Turks (who was also the mother of his four children) suffered a severe injury to her neck in Lima, Ohio. Police investigated and concluded the injury was not accidental and that Lloyd Turks had caused it. The injury left Tamiko Turks a quadriplegic.
The Conviction: Turks was indicted on a charge of felonious assault on September 13, 2007. He pled not guilty, but a jury found him guilty. Due to the severe neurological trauma Turks caused, his wife was brought into the courtroom in a hospital bed during the trial. She could not remember how she had been injured. The State introduced the testimony of two detectives and Tamiko's mother, who all said that Tamiko had originally told them her husband picked her up and threw her to the ground. Turks was sentenced to eight years in prison. He then failed to appear for his scheduled sentencing on the initial date, prompting the court to issue a warrant for his arrest. He was picked up on the warrant weeks later, and the court ordered the eight-year sentence.
King's Arguments: King argued that because Tamiko Turks could not remember the incident due to her severe neurological trauma, she should have been forced to testify to that fact — that she simply could not remember. King contended that this would have made the detectives' and the mother's testimony inadmissible hearsay. He also accused the detectives of asking the victim leading and suggestive questions, and argued that the use of their testimony at trial violated Turks' constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him.
Outcome: The Ohio Supreme Court rejected all of King's arguments. Leave to appeal was denied and the appeal was dismissed.
Kenneth Washington
Case: State of Ohio v. Kenneth Washington, No. 2010-2094
The Crime: What started as a robbery in Columbus turned into a homicide by shooting. The crime was committed by Washington's companion, Allen K. Jones, but Washington was charged and tried as well.
The Conviction: In March 2009, a Franklin County jury convicted Kenneth Washington of murder, aggravated robbery, two counts of felonious assault, and three counts of kidnapping, each with a three-year firearm specification. In April 2009, the court sentenced Washington to an aggregate term of 45 years to life in prison, with the sentences for several convictions to be served consecutively. The trial court judge did not perform any judicial fact-finding before imposing the consecutive sentences.
King's Arguments: King argued that Washington's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the imposition of consecutive sentences during the sentencing hearing. He further argued that Washington's appellate counsel was also ineffective for not raising that issue on the first appeal. King contended that under recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the Ohio courts needed to revisit how they handled the imposition of consecutive sentences.
Outcome: The Ohio Supreme Court rejected King's arguments and dismissed the appeal.
Beth Neff
Case: State of Ohio v. Beth Neff, No. 2010-2095
The Crime: Beth Neff harmed her boyfriend Louis Tolber's 14-month-old baby girl, Kylee Tolber, in Columbus, Ohio. When paramedics were called to the scene, they found that the baby's eye failed to respond to light, which indicated a brain injury. At the hospital, doctors found swelling and significant amounts of blood between the baby's brain and skull. Baby Kylee died two days later. An autopsy revealed bruises on her head and body, along with blunt force trauma to her head. The prosecution's case was built on circumstantial medical evidence showing that Kylee's fatal injuries occurred while she was alone with Neff, rather than when she was with both Neff and Tolber or when she was with Tolber alone.
The Conviction: Beth Neff was convicted on two felony counts: murder and child endangering. She was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison.
King's Arguments: King argued that Neff's trial attorney, Byron Potts, was ineffective. Specifically, King claimed that Potts was wrong to prevent Neff from testifying in her own defense, and that Potts handled medical evidence and witness examinations poorly. King described Potts' performance as demonstrating ignorance of the medical science at issue in the case. King also argued that Neff's appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the issue of trial counsel's poor performance on the first appeal.
Outcome: The Ohio Supreme Court rejected all of King's arguments and dismissed the appeal.
Patrick Howard, Sr.
Case: State of Ohio v. Patrick Howard, Sr., No. 2010-0085
The Crime: On July 23, 2004, Patrick Howard and his long-time girlfriend, Barbara Pruitt, were at home in Youngstown, Ohio, with their two sons, Cedric and Patrick Jr. (ages 10 and 12). Both Howard and Pruitt had been drinking alcohol throughout the night. Late in the evening, they began arguing about money. The argument escalated into a physical altercation that moved outside into the driveway. A neighbor overheard and called 911. By the time police arrived, Howard and Pruitt were back inside the house. Through an open window, an officer saw Howard waving what appeared to be a handgun in the air. Police surrounded the home and announced their presence. Howard came out voluntarily and was handcuffed. Pruitt and the children then exited. Pruitt was bleeding from her head, and she told officers that Howard had hit her in the head with the gun, and one of the boys told police that Howard had hidden the gun under a bed. Officers recovered the handgun. It was loaded, cocked, and ready to fire. Pruitt was taken to the hospital and treated for minor injuries. The children were not physically harmed.
The Conviction: A Mahoning County Grand Jury indicted Howard on one count of felonious assault (a second-degree felony) with a firearm specification, and two counts of child endangering (first-degree misdemeanors). Howard pled not guilty. At the first trial, the jury convicted him on all counts and the firearm specification, and the court sentenced him to 10 years in prison. On appeal, the conviction was reversed due to an erroneous jury instruction, and the case was sent back for a new trial. At the second trial, Howard was again convicted on all counts and sentenced to 11 years in prison — seven years for felonious assault, three years for the firearm specification, and six months on each child endangering charge, with the child endangering and felonious assault counts merged.
King's Arguments: At the retrial stage, King argued that the court should not have admitted Barbara Pruitt's testimony from the first trial. Pruitt did not appear at the second trial, and the State used her prior testimony instead. King accused the prosecution of acting in bad faith; he alleged that prosecutors deliberately turned a blind eye to Pruitt dodging arrest on an outstanding warrant, and that they manipulated the witness procurement process to intentionally have Pruitt declared unavailable so that her earlier testimony could be read into the record.
Outcome: The Ohio Supreme Court rejected all of King's arguments. Leave to appeal was denied and the appeal was dismissed.
Jamal Anderson
Case: State of Ohio v. Jamal Anderson, No. 2009-1761
The Crime: On June 23, 2006, Jamal Anderson was indicted in Cleveland. Days later, on July 10, 2006, Cleveland police officers spotted Anderson's car and called for backup to arrest him. When Anderson got into his car, he avoided the officers' attempt to box him in and led them on a high-speed chase at over 90 miles per hour, with marked cruisers pursuing with lights and sirens activated. During the chase, Anderson swerved and narrowly missed striking two cars. He also ran a police blockade on a highway exit ramp, forcing officers to move their vehicles out of the way. Anderson eventually abandoned his car and fled on foot.
Two days later, acting on a tip, police began surveillance at a motel where Anderson was believed to be staying. When Anderson got into his vehicle, two plainclothes officers approached, identified themselves, and ordered him to stop. Anderson refused. He accelerated, driving his car into one officer's cruiser and into another officer's body. After the collision, officers took Anderson into custody. Inside his car, they found crack cocaine and a loaded handgun on the floor.
The Conviction: Anderson was indicted on a total of 20 counts across both incidents. At trial, the jury convicted Anderson of two counts of felonious assault and two counts of simple assault for attacking the two law enforcement officers. The trial court imposed sentences on all four counts.
King's Arguments: King argued that the prosecution did not properly charge Anderson or establish his state of mind, and that therefore the charges should be dismissed. He contended that Anderson did not know he was a fugitive from justice when he led police on the high-speed chase and then fled on foot. King also argued that trial counsel was ineffective for not making enough objections at trial. On a related point, King raised a cross-appeal arguing that the indictment was defective because it failed to allege a required mental state.
Outcome: The Ohio Supreme Court rejected King's arguments. The Court went further and reversed the Appellate Court's earlier order that had vacated two of the jury's four guilty findings — meaning the Supreme Court actually restored convictions that a lower court had thrown out.
The bottom line
In all six of these cases, Andrew King represented defendants who had been convicted of terribly violent crimes. Crimes that caused tremendous harm to victims and their families. King raised a wide range of controversial legal arguments on appeal, from claims of police misconduct and evidence suppression to accusations that trial and appellate attorneys had done a poor job. In every case, the Ohio Supreme Court found King's arguments unpersuasive. Each appeal was either denied or dismissed, and the convictions and sentences stood.
Of course even violent criminals are entitled to a lawyer. But are these the kind of lawyers, who have defended the worst of the worst, that Ohioans want serving in the highest court in the state?
Vote wisely.
Further reading
2026 Ohio Supreme Court election (Wikipedia)
“4 in GOP primary to challenge Ohio’s lone statewide Democrat for supreme court seat” (Dayton Daily News)
Andrew King for Ohio Supreme Court campaign site
Ohio Supreme Court elections, 2024 (Ballotpedia)
“Who is running for Ohio Supreme Court?” (The Columbus Dispatch)
Your State-by-State Guide to the 2026 Supreme Court Elections (Bolts)
This article draws on analysis of case filings for each of the reported cases above in front of the Ohio Supreme Court. The case pleadings are linked in each section above at the case number.