Sixteen years after admitting her role in the Kirtland cult murders, Deborah Olivarez is once again attempting to withdraw her guilty plea.
But this time, the state's star witness has filed a motion in Lake County Common Pleas Court claiming there was misconduct committed by county prosecutors and the investigating officer.
Olivarez, now 55, said she trusted then-Prosecutor Stephen LaTourette more than court-appointed defense lawyer John Hurley Jr., according to the motion, which she filed acting as her own attorney.
"Defendant was repeatedly told by Prosecutor Steven (sic) LaTourette that defendant would only serve five years," Olivarez stated.
"I believed Prosecutor LaTourette when he said these things."
She also accuses LaTourette, who later became a congressman, of bribing her with money, soda and fast food during co-defendant Ron Luff's trial.
"Prosecutor Steven LaTourette told defendant, 'I will pay you $50 if you will just say that you are guilty.' Prosecutor LaTourette provided me with Diet Coke from his personal supply and provided me with food, i.e. McDonald's, Burger King, Chinese and other drinks as a way to buy my testimony."
LaTourette denied the allegations.
"It is true that she provided valuable testimony against other defendants in the cult case, but these accusations she raises now for the first time are beyond ridiculous," the congressman said through a spokeswoman.
"It defies logic that somebody could be induced to plead guilty to five counts of conspiracy to commit aggravated murder ... for fifty bucks and some free Diet Coke."
Olivarez is also claiming she had an "intimate relationship" with Kirtland police Sgt. Ronald Andolsek while released from jail on bond in 1990 to have back surgery.
"Defendant spent many hours with Officer Andolsek at his home," she stated. "Officer Andolsek attempted to keep this a secret but many knew of this relationship."
Olivarez is also alleging the officer made her dinner on several occasions, bought her a "boom box" for Christmas, allowed her to drive his car and corresponded with her for the first five years she was in prison.
"That's news to me. This is the first I heard of her allegations," Andolsek said when contacted at the station Wednesday.
Olivarez is seeking a jury trial.
"Defendant will demonstrate that her plea was tainted by prosecutorial misconduct, police misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel and by the state violating defendant's plea agreement," she wrote.
Chief Assistant Prosecutor Karen Kowall is asking Judge Eugene A. Lucci to dismiss the case.
"Defendant has not offered any proof to substantiate her claims and has failed to establish any basis for her motion to withdraw her guilty plea," Kowall stated in her opposing brief. "(Olivarez) has not provided any evidence which would warrant withdrawal of the guilty plea ... other than her own self-serving allegations."
Olivarez remains at the Ohio Reformatory for Women in Marysville since being sentenced to serve seven to 25 years in 1991.
She has been credited by prosecutors for her extensive cooperation in helping them convict her 12 co-defendants in the Kirtland cult massacre.
Cult leader Jeffrey Lundgren was executed last year for shooting a family of five to death and burying their bodies in makeshift graves in April 1989.
Olivarez previously attempted to get her plea thrown out by claiming it was not made "voluntarily, intelligently or knowingly."
Those claims were previously rejected three times without a hearing by the 11th District Court of Appeals and Ohio Supreme Court.
However, this is the first time she has raised the unsupported allegations of misconduct, Kowall said.
Lucci did not rule on the motion Wednesday during a status hearing with Olivarez's attorney, Eric Allen.
If Olivarez does not voluntarily withdraw her request in the next week or two, the judge can issue a ruling with or without a hearing.
After the status conference, Kowall said, "It is our position the court should rule on it on legal principles."
The prosecutor noted that by law, a defendant cannot raise or litigate any defense or alleged lack of due process that she raised or should have raised at appeal.
