If bathtub-drowning suspect **** ****** had been in a car accident and was sued, he could get “any and all documents relevant to the case, and there are no surprises,” his lawyer said.

But because ****** faces criminal charges - accused of killing his 24-year-old wife in their Hamilton Township bathtub - the court rules are very different.

In Ohio criminal cases, a statewide court rule prevents defense lawyers such as Charlie Rittgers from getting witness statements, police reports and other information that would be shared without question in a car-wreck lawsuit.

Rittgers thinks that’s wrong.

But Prosecutor Rachel Hutzel says her office has turned over hundreds of pages of records - everything that should be given to Rittgers under current rules.

Rittgers wants a Warren County judge to order Hutzel to turn over more information in ******’s case.

Rittgers also is among Ohio defense lawyers rallying against Ohio’s Criminal Rule 16, which governs what evidence prosecutors can withhold or must provide to criminal defense lawyers.

Rittgers and a statewide defense lawyers’ group say restrictions under the Ohio rule need to be lifted to prevent innocent people from being wrongfully convicted and to increase public confidence in the legal system. Some other states and some Ohio counties have changed to a so-called “open-discovery” process.

But prosecutors, police, victims and their advocates object to open discovery, citing concerns about witness safety and defendant’s information that could help them lie to avoid conviction.

“The law is the law, and right now the law is Criminal Rule 16 as it’s currently written; and we are following Criminal Rule 16 to the letter,” Hutzel said.

She called Rittgers’ motion “legal maneuvering” and “gamesmanship,” and said her office already has given Rittgers 400 documents, three CDs containing photographs of autopsy and crime scenes, and 911 recordings, as well as offered to allow him to inspect the physical evidence at the Hamilton Township Police Department.

But Rittgers said much information vital to Widmer’s defense is still lacking.

Hutzel said an autopsy report about ***** ******’s death will be turned over to Rittgers as soon as it’s ready. It typically takes six to eight weeks for lab tests on blood samples to be finished, and Warren County Coroner Russell Uptegrove cannot compile the autopsy report without the results, Hutzel has said.

Uptegrove issued a preliminarily ruling that ***** ******r drowned. Hutzel has said Uptegrove found evidence of a violent struggle, but she has declined to elaborate.

******, however, told a 911 dispatcher that his wife habitually fell asleep in the tub, including the night of her death.

Without the autopsy report, police reports or witness statements, Rittgers said he has nothing “that would provide a clue as to what supports the prosecution’s theory.” Despite the fact that Rule 16 allows withholding of witness statements and police reports, “basic fairness and the right to fundamental due process requires disclosure,” Rittgers argues.

Also, Rittgers said he has learned that Uptegrove testified at the grand jury proceedings that led to ******’s indictment on an aggravated murder charge. ****** faces 20 years to life in prison if convicted in his wife’s Aug. 11 death.

“Without the autopsy report or a transcript of Dr. Uptegrove’s testimony at the grand jury proceedings, defense counsel is left to blindly guess at the state’s basis for alleging that **** caused the death of *****,” Rittgers said. “Absent more specific information from the state, ****’s ability to defend himself is compromised.”

The grand jury testimony is not releasable under Rule 16, Hutzel said, and is disclosed only if a judge determines it conflicts with a witness’ testimony at trial.

Rittgers also wants any information favorable to ******, which Rule 16 does require.

“But such evidence is conspicuously absent from what discovery has been furnished,” Rittgers said. “Surely the investigators for the state have talked to numerous individuals who are intimately familiar with ***** and **** ****** who have made comments supporting ****’s innocence.”

Hutzel said her office has no such evidence, beyond “vague statements that ‘he’s a nice guy.’”

Rittgers has asked Judge Neal Bronson for an Oct. 22 hearing on his requests for the autopsy report, Uptegrove’s grand-jury testimony, and “all evidence favorable to **** ******.”

****** is free on $400,000 bond awaiting a trial set for Nov. 17.

Hutzel’s office opposes Rittgers’ requests.

“We’ve been very forthcoming with information on this case, as with every case,” Hutzel said. “I have no interest in playing a game over this, and right now this is just a bit of gamesmanship. We do not do that with discovery in this office. We are going to win this case, fair and square, without gamesmanship.”

But Ian Friedman, a Cleveland-based attorney and president of the Ohio Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, said the records fight Rittgers is waging is “unfortunately not uncommon.”

What really happens with disclosure of information in courts is very different than most people expect, he said.

“It’s a complete wake-up call, once you get involved in the criminal justice system,” Friedman said. “Very often, what people face is an ambush-style prosecution. ... It is not caused by the prosecutors, but it is a systematic problem that is unavoidable under the current state of Rule 16.”