Chandra Law Logo

Statement regarding Belmont County Court’s decision on private-citizen-initiated criminal charges against Union Local High School Assistant Football Coach Vaughn Butler, Lieutenant Matthew Tippie, and Deputy Tyler Grant

Wednesday, May 21, 2025

The Court's decision blamed the victim of a coach's violence, seeking to justify an attack in response to a comment about a football game. It also defied First Amendment jurisprudence.

Statement regarding Belmont County Court’s decision on private-citizen-initiated criminal charges against Union Local High School Assistant Football Coach Vaughn Butler, Lieutenant Matthew Tippie, and Deputy Tyler Grant
Coach Vaughn Butler, Lt. Matthew Tippie, and Deputy Tyler Grant

ST. CLAIRSVILLE, OH – Today the Belmont County Court – Western Division issued a disappointing decision not to refer for prosecution Union Local High School Assistant Football Coach Vaughn Butler, Barnesville Police Lieutenant Matthew Tippie, and Deputy Tyler Grant, in response to private-citizen-initiated criminal charges filed by local resident Brent Gay.

The charges were for an October 25, 2024 incident in which Butler is alleged to have attacked Mr. Gay following a comment impliedly criticizing the coach's performance during a high-school football game between Union Local High School and Barnesville High School.

The Court in its decision opined that "in this matter perhaps justice is best served sweeping the proverbial dirt under the rug."

Subodh Chandra, Mr. Gay’s lead counsel, issued the following statement:

Mr. Gay’s affidavit alleging criminal acts by the three men was supported by evidence—not just his own testimony and police bodycam video, but two eyewitness affidavits testifying that Coach Butler attacked Mr. Gay.
We respectfully disagree with the Court’s decision. Without even giving Mr. Gay a required hearing, the Court failed to acknowledge probable cause that the accused committed offenses. It was the Court’s duty under the law to determine probable cause. Instead, the opinion literally blames the victim—and even uses the the high-school football game’s 41–0 halftime score and Union Local and Barnesville High’s rivalry to justify both Butler’s assault of Mr. Gay and the law-enforcement officers’ dereliction of duty. The Court cites those as reasons for why it was “probably very smart” for Officer Tippie to not question Butler during halftime.
Elevating football above criminal justice is legally unprecedented.
Even more disturbing, the Court disregarded the First Amendment completely in baselessly claiming that Mr. Gay could be charged with “incitement to violence” and disorderly conduct for making a comment to the coach at the football game.
R.C. 2917.01 (Inciting to Violence) and First Amendment caselaw requires a perpetrator to knowingly engage in conduct “designed to urge or incite another person to commit any offense of violence,” where, the conduct also takes place under circumstances that create a “clear and present danger” that an offense of violence will be committed, and the conduct “proximately results in the commission of any offense of violence.”
That high hurdle, ironically enough, arises from a U.S. Supreme Court case originating in Ohio: Brandenberg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969).
That standard would require Mr. Gay to urge or incite Butler to commit violence—not just make a comment criticizing him about the football game.
As a public-high-school coach, Vaughn Butler is a government official. So he can't violate the First Amendment right to free speech or retaliate for anyone's exercise of it. Simply put, government officials can't engage in violence in response to criticism. The court even unwittingly acknowledged that Mr. Gay was criticizing a government official, saying, "The comment was likely an accusation that Butler had failed to properly prepare himself and his team for the contest with their rival team.... It is axiomatic to say that had this confrontation not been made, no incident would have occurred.... Gay singlehandedly created the atmosphere for which he now complains..."
In short, the court admits that Butler retaliated against Mr. Gay for protected speech critical of a government official's performance.
That this court of law thinks that Mr. Gay could have been charged over a comment, and then apparently try to justify government-official Vaughn Butler’s violence, raises troubling questions about whether First Amendment rights are respected in Belmont County.
The Court doesn’t address the criminal allegations against Deputy Tyler Grant about obstruction of justice and dereliction of duty at all.
Given the errors in the Court’s opinion, we are studying Mr. Gay’s appellate options.

Mr. Gay is represented by Chandra Law’s Subodh Chandra and Ethan Dawson.

The charges can be read here.

Chandra Law assists crime-victim clients with private-citizen-initiated criminal charges in Ohio. If you need help, contact us through our secure contact form.

At Chandra Law, your case is our cause.®

Related Practice Areas
Government Ethics, Misconduct, Fraud, & AbuseLegal Ethics & Professional ResponsibilityMalicious Prosecution, Abuse of Process, and False ArrestCrime Victims: Civil Action for Damages for Criminal Acts Under Ohio Revised Code § 2307.60Private-citizen-initiated criminal charges in Ohio
Tags
private-citizen-initiated-criminal-chargesunion-local-high-schooljudge-eric-costinebrent-gaybarnesvillebelmont-county-courtbelmont-county-sherifftyler-grantbelmont-county-prosecutorvaughn-butlermatthew-tippiebelmont-countyr.c.-2935.09r.c.-2935.10dr.-zachary-shutler

Making the right choice in legal representation can make the difference in whether you achieve a result that protects your legal rights and best interests.

Tell Us About Your Case