By Janice Morse
The Cincinnati Enquirer

DAYTON, Ohio - The Montgomery County Prosecutor's message to an attorney is clear: testify or face arrest.

The Ohio Supreme Court Thursday held firm on its previous decision telling Beth Lewis Trimmer to break attorney-client privilege and reveal what she might know about a missing-child case.

As a result of the decision, Trimmer could go to jail if she continues to refuse to tell a grand jury what a now-dead client may have revealed about the fate of Erica Nicole Baker. Erica was 9 years old when she vanished from her Kettering neighborhood while walking her dog on Feb. 7, 1999. No trace of her has been found.

Jan Marie Franks, a woman who died in 2001, may have told Trimmer what happened to Erica, authorities have said. Trimmer represented Franks in matters unrelated to Erica's disappearance.

Trimmer said she believes her lawyers will appeal to a federal court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

But Mathias H. Heck Jr., Montgomery County prosecutor, said Thursday he would not stand for further delays in the two-year legal battle. At Heck's request, Montgomery County Common Pleas Judge Michael Hall set a hearing for Monday to consider issuing a warrant for Trimmer's arrest.

"As an attorney, she knows, and should finally do, the right thing, and without delay, obey the court orders and submit herself to answer questions relating to the disappearance of Erica Baker," Heck said.

"Erica's family, this community, the Common Pleas Court, the 2nd District Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of Ohio cannot tolerate any attempts to delay this matter any longer."

Misty Baker, Erica's mother, said she thinks Trimmer deserves to be jailed if she won't cooperate.

"I've lost all respect for her and I've lost all respect for the justice system," Baker said. "I think we have suffered quite enough ... If she broke the law, she should go to jail."

But Trimmer expressed surprise Thursday: "A warrant for my arrest?" she said. "To my knowledge, at this point there is not a valid subpoena."

Heck said three courts and 11 judges have all reached the same conclusion: Trimmer should testify. And, he said, no subpoena needs to be re-issued because previous contempt orders stand; they were only put on hold while Trimmer's appeals were pending.

Trimmer said her battle is legitimate. "It's not just stall tactic. This is exactly how you're supposed to challenge a law that you think is being misinterpreted," she said.

She has argued that the Ohio law could infringe on a defendant's constitutional right to effective assistance of an attorney.

"I feel like I have an obligation to make sure this law is tested as far as it can be tested ... and to make sure it's being applied correctly," she said.

Lawyers representing Trimmer had asked the court to reconsider its precedent-setting March 3 decision. In that decision, the court said Ohio law allows lawyers to reveal confidential information under certain conditions - and that those conditions were met in the case.

E-mail jmorse@enquirer.com