It's unclear, however, whether an Ohio Supreme Court decision, that puts to rest an Ohio Elections Commission complaint against Gwinn, will help her win a pending appeal of her criminal conviction on elections-related charges.

Last year, Yost prosecuted Gwinn for campaign-finance violations and a judge found her guilty of a misdemeanor charge of falsifying finance reports. She stepped down as party chair, but is appealing her conviction to the 4^th District Court of Appeals.

Last week the Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction in an appeal that Yost's assistant Kyle E. Rohrer filed in May, in a separate but related case. That appeal sought to overturn a ruling favorable to Gwinn, issued in April by the 10^th District Court of Appeals in Franklin County.

In its decision, the appellate court essentially ordered the Franklin County Common Pleas Court to overturn a finding of wrongdoing against Gwinn, which had been issued by the Ohio Elections Commission.

The OEC had concluded that Gwinn improperly reported $27,000 that was loaned to her by two men, and that she spent on her unsuccessful 2008 campaign for Athens County prosecutor.

Gwinn appealed the finding to the Common Pleas Court, but that court refused to hear the appeal, ruling that the OEC decision was not an "appealable final order."

When Gwinn took her case to the appellate court, however, that court found that the OEC had not provided enough documentation for the Common Pleas Court to determine whether the OEC ruling was appealable.

The 10^th District Court ordered the Common Pleas Court to hear Gwinn's appeal, in a ruling that more or less mandated that the lower court rule in Gwinn's favor and overturn the OEC ruling, which it did.

Yost, however who was appointed at the request of Athens County Prosecutor C. David Warren to look into reports of spending irregularities in Gwinn's campaign to unseat Warren had Rohrer appeal the 10^th District ruling to the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of the OEC.

In a memorandum, Rohrer argued that in its decision, the 10^th District Court had "effectively changed the statutory right to appeal," when it ruled that because the OEC had not properly documented its finding against Gwinn, that finding was appealable.

By this reasoning, Rohrer complained, any administrative finding by a board or commission not accompanied by adequate paperwork is subject to appeal.

He also argued that when the OEC refers a case to a prosecutor for possible criminal action as it did with Gwinn's this is an "executive action," that no judge should be allowed to review or overturn.

Gwinn's attorney, Mark A. McGinnis, responded in an answer filed June 21 that contrary to Rohrer's claims, the OEC was not seeking to have the Supreme Court hear the case Yost was.

Court filings submitted on the OEC's behalf are signed by Yost and Rohrer, McGinnis noted, but "neither Mr. Yost nor Mr. Rohrer represents the Commission in this matter," as neither has been appointed by the Ohio Attorney General to do so. He added that Yost has a potential conflict, given that his interests as special prosecutor may not be identical to the OEC's.

McGinnis also suggested that if the OEC is eager to have the Supreme Court hear the case, it has a funny way of showing it having taken no part in the court battles to that point.

"There is no evidence that the Ohio Elections Commission, which has not appeared at any stage in this action, has chosen to do so now," he wrote.

He asked the high court to decline jurisdiction, and two days later, filed a motion to strike the appeal, arguing that the deadline for its filing, by either Yost or the OEC, had been May 24. He also moved to disqualify Yost and Rohrer as counsel for the OEC.

Rohrer responded July 12, asking the high court to change the label on the appeal, putting an "et. al." after the OEC's name to add Yost as an appellant.

"Further, it is requested that all prior and subsequent filings be considered made on behalf of Yost and not the Ohio Elections Commission," the motion stated.

Rohrer noted that Yost was named as a party in Gwinn's appeal of the OEC finding. And as special prosecutor, he wrote, Yost "remains a proper intervening party to the case."

McGinnis fired back July 19, suggesting scornfully that Rohrer's motion "raises so many issues other than amending the case caption it is difficult to know where to begin in countering it."

Though the motion asks for "extraordinary and unrelated relief" in an attempt "to save a defective notice of appeal," McGinnis wrote, it cites no case law, but simply argues that Yost is a party to the case which, McGinnis acknowledged, is true.

However, he added, if Yost wanted to file an appeal on his own behalf, he should have done so before the filing deadline.

Recognizing that he missed the deadline, McGinnis alleged, Yost first appealed on behalf of a party he doesn't represent, and after being challenged, "now asks this Court to ratify the original unauthorized filing of the Notice of Appeal under the guise of amending the caption."

In an entry filed Aug. 25, Chief Justice Eric Brown announced that the Supreme Court declined jurisdiction, putting an end to the OEC case.

That outcome could impact Gwinn's appeal of her criminal conviction, because it speaks to two issues: First, whether the Athens County Common Pleas Court had jurisdiction to hear the criminal case, while a closely parallel case was pending in another jurisdiction; and second, whether Gwinn's alleged violations should ever have been referred for prosecution in the first place.

Bill Biddlestone, one of the attorneys representing Gwinn in the criminal case and appeal, said he's certain the outcome of the OEC case will come up in Gwinn's brief to the 4^th District Court.

"I'm sure it will be brought up on appeal," Biddlestone predicted. "As far as I know, what it says is that the Elections Commission ruling was overruled, so there was never a violation."

As for the jurisdictional question, Biddlestone said, "I think that's what this case is about whether (the Athens County) court had jurisdiction."

Asked whether the Supreme Court ruling will help Gwinn or not, he replied, "It can't hurt."

Yost could not be reached for comment Tuesday.