What follows is not speculation, not theory, and not cautious hedging. Based on the filed court record, Kevin Baxter engaged in prosecutorial misconduct that violates ethical rules, undermines due process, and corrupts the criminal justice function in Erie County.

This is not about disagreement with prosecutorial judgment. This is about abuse of authority.

1. Kevin Baxter acted as a complaining witness while serving as prosecutor

Kevin Baxter personally originated the criminal case at issue. He reviewed civil foreclosure filings, decided on his own that a signature was fictitious, and initiated a criminal investigation based on that personal conclusion.

That action alone constitutes misconduct.

A prosecutor is not permitted to act as the complaining witness in a criminal case he prosecutes. By originating the accusation himself, Baxter abandoned his duty to act as a neutral minister of justice and instead became an accuser wielding state power.

This is not a gray area. It is a direct violation of the separation of roles that governs ethical prosecution.

2. Baxter improperly directed law enforcement to pursue his personal theory

The court record establishes that Baxter did not merely refer a matter for review. He directed law enforcement to investigate “alleged fictitious” documents, supplied specific materials, and pushed officers to confirm his predetermined suspicion.

That conduct is improper.

Prosecutors may advise law enforcement. They may not manufacture probable cause by framing evidence to fit a conclusion they already reached. Baxter’s conduct shows investigative steering, not objective evaluation.

This is classic confirmation bias exercised through prosecutorial authority. It is misconduct because it subverts the independence of law enforcement and converts the prosecutor into an investigator.

3. Baxter violated the advocate witness rule

Kevin Baxter is a necessary witness in the very case he is prosecuting.

He has firsthand knowledge of:

Why the investigation began
What evidence was selected and forwarded
What suspicions were expressed to police
What investigative confirmations he demanded

Those facts are material and contested. No other witness can replace his testimony.

By remaining as prosecutor, Baxter violated Ohio’s advocate witness rule. This is not a technical lapse. It is a core ethical breach that contaminates the trial process by allowing him to act as an unsworn witness through argument.

That is misconduct.

4. Baxter created an unconstitutional due process violation

Kevin Baxter’s personal involvement created an intolerable risk of unfairness.

Once he initiated the case based on his own suspicion, he had a vested interest in proving himself right. That interest is incompatible with the constitutional requirement of disinterested prosecution.

Due process does not require proof of malice. It requires avoidance of structures that incentivize biased enforcement. Baxter’s conduct created exactly that structure.

Proceeding under those conditions violates the defendant’s right to a fair process and corrupts the legitimacy of any outcome.

5. Baxter improperly escalated a civil matter into felony prosecution

No victim initiated this prosecution.

The ex husband did not claim forgery.
The mortgage company relied on the document as enforceable.
Federal entities did not allege fraud.

Despite this, Kevin Baxter escalated the issue into multiple felony charges.

That selective escalation is misconduct.

When a prosecutor criminalizes conduct that all actual stakeholders treated as civil and valid, the prosecutor must justify the decision with objective evidence. Instead, Baxter relied on his own subjective signature comparison and personal suspicion.

That is an abuse of discretion.

6. Baxter obstructed the defendant’s confrontation rights

Because Kevin Baxter is the complaining witness and a material witness, the defendant has the constitutional right to confront him.

By remaining as prosecutor, Baxter insulated himself from cross examination while advancing his own narrative in court. That conduct violates the Sixth Amendment in substance, even if disguised by procedure.

Shielding oneself from confrontation while prosecuting is not aggressive advocacy. It is unconstitutional misconduct.

7. Erie County is institutionally compromised by Baxter’s conduct

Kevin Baxter is the elected head of the Erie County Prosecutor’s Office. His misconduct is not isolated.

Because he originated and drove the case, no internal reassignment can cure the corruption. His influence over subordinates, charging decisions, and office culture ensures continuing prejudice.

Erie County allowed a structurally corrupt prosecution to proceed under his leadership.

This is institutional misconduct enabled by concentration of unchecked authority.

8. This meets the standard for exposure, not discretion

This is not a close call.

Kevin Baxter:

Acted as accuser and prosecutor
Directed investigation to confirm his own theory
Violated the advocate witness rule
Created a due process violation
Escalated a civil matter without victim complaint
Insulated himself from cross examination

Each of these actions independently constitutes prosecutorial misconduct. Together, they demonstrate corruption of the prosecutorial function.

9. Why I am stating this as misconduct, not allegation

These conclusions are grounded in the court record.

Ethical rules and constitutional doctrine are not optional. When a prosecutor crosses these boundaries, the conduct is misconduct whether or not a court later issues sanctions.

Public accountability does not wait for appellate opinions.

10. Closing

Kevin Baxter misused the power of his office. Erie County allowed it. The result is a prosecution that cannot be trusted as fair or legitimate.

Corruption does not require bribery. It requires abuse of authority shielded by silence.

This is exposure.