OH - Pike Co - 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered - 4 Wagner Family Members Arrested #88

[GoBuckeyes]

I am not yet covinced she actually knew anything at anytime for certain, she may have thought it at some point though, but that is a lot different. There could be more evidence that we are not aware of that comes out. I am interested to know more about her being present when they were discussuing retaliation and about her telling AW to tell LE that AW bought the shoes for Bob. I would like to know the context of those discussions.

The burden in a civil case is much less than in a criminal case so a jury could find her liable. I feel that she probably has most of her assets protected. Most people with a lot of property, land or money usually do. There still are probably some assets to get though.

He published about 10 mins of audio of Jake's testimony. I think that they believed he had recorded it himself while in court which was not allowed. They charged it as wiretapping I beleive. Apparently someone else recorded it and gave to Derek is what Derek said and I guess could not be proven otherwise.

I do think that in most states or maybe in all states that journalist/reporters are protected under shield laws and do not have to provide their confidential sources.

To me it seemed that the court thinking he had recorded it was where the issue came into play. There are quite a few articles about the whole thing on the internet.

He likes to push the envelope in many ways it seems.

Just one article: Ohio editor charged with wiretapping after publishing obtained court recording

In this case, however, his electronic devices and communication were confiscated. It seems obvious that the charges were not supported by facts. jmoo

 

[Covert Operative]

In this case, however, his electronic devices and communication were confiscated. It seems obvious that the charges were not supported by facts. jmoo

He claimed he was not even in the country that day of the testimony so it seems that would have been easy to verify because he could not have been in court, if true. He also admitted to being the person that called about the court room being over capacity.

 

[Cool Cats]

I am not yet covinced she actually knew anything at anytime for certain, she may have thought it at some point though, but that is a lot different. There could be more evidence that we are not aware of that comes out. I am interested to know more about her being present when they were discussuing retaliation and about her telling AW to tell LE that AW bought the shoes for Bob. I would like to know the context of those discussions.

The burden in a civil case is much less than in a criminal case so a jury could find her liable. I feel that she probably has most of her assets protected. Most people with a lot of property, land or money usually do. There still are probably some assets to get though.

It also came up in the trial testimony that at FWF FW was shown the phone photo of Jake's hand holding the Colt 22. FW said it was not Jake's hand and Elizabeth said yes it was Jake's hand and pointed it out.

1.) FW was present during revenge talks (Canepa said in court)
2.) FW offered to cover for Angela about the murder shoes (Angela testimony. True?)
3.) FW saw Jake's hand holding the 22. I believe she knew Ryan sent the photo and was basically accusing Jake of using that gun that night.

If all this is true then it shows she was aware they may have been guilty but I don't believe they told her they did it. If she was certain they were not guilty then why offer to give Angela a cover story for the shoes? To do that means she was worried about the evidence against them. If innocent the shoes are a moot point - as significant as my shoes.

Pike County murder trial: Angela told the prosecution bloody shoeprints belonged to George

The mother of a man accused of killing eight people in Pike County in 2016 will continue testifying Wednesday, but opted out of being recorded by the media, so her testimony won't be broadcast.

www.wcpo.com

Angela admitted she was caught off guard by questions about the Walmart shoes she'd purchased. She said she didn't remember that she'd left the receipt for the shoes behind; Fredericka later offered to lie and tell investigators the shoes were bought for Billy's dad, but Angela said she declined because she'd already lied to officers about them.

Pike County murder trial wiretaps heard: 'We get electrocuted...it's your fault"

Several wiretapped recordings were played for the jury Wednesday, revealing the Wagner family dynamic in 2018, two years after the murders and just months before they were arrested.

www.wcpo.com

Still on June 14, 2018, Angela called George once more, to discuss Beth. The two spoke about the photo of a hand holding a gun that had been shown to family and Angela said, while at the Flying W Farm, owned by Billy's mother Fredericka, Angela opened the photo while Fredericka walked by.

Fredericka said the hand in the photo was not Jake's but Beth disagreed, Angela said.

"Beth looks at her and says 'yes it is,'" said Angela. "Beth said 'that's Jake's thumb all right.'"

"She's full of crap," George responded.

"I know that, alright," said Angela. "Better hope to God they don't call her to the stand."

 

[Betty P]

In this case, however, his electronic devices and communication were confiscated. It seems obvious that the charges were not supported by facts. jmoo

How was he able to publish 10 minutes of Jake's live testimony? Is he implying that someone else in the court room recorded Jake's testimony and gave it to him to publish?

JMO, the prosecution decided this guy is just pulling stunts for publicity and decided to drop the charges and deprive him of any more free publicity.

 

[Covert Operative]

It also came up in the trial testimony that at FWF FW was shown the phone photo of Jake's hand holding the Colt 22. FW said it was not Jake's hand and Elizabeth said yes it was Jake's hand and pointed it out.

1.) FW was present during revenge talks (Canepa said in court)
2.) FW offered to cover for Angela about the murder shoes (Angela testimony. True?)
3.) FW saw Jake's hand holding the 22. I believe she knew Ryan sent the photo and was basically accusing Jake of using that gun that night.

If all this is true then it shows she was aware they may have been guilty but I don't believe they told her they did it. If she was certain they were not guilty then why offer to give Angela a cover story for the shoes? To do that means she was worried about the evidence against them. If innocent the shoes are a moot point - as significant as my shoes.

Pike County murder trial: Angela told the prosecution bloody shoeprints belonged to George

The mother of a man accused of killing eight people in Pike County in 2016 will continue testifying Wednesday, but opted out of being recorded by the media, so her testimony won't be broadcast.

www.wcpo.com

Angela admitted she was caught off guard by questions about the Walmart shoes she'd purchased. She said she didn't remember that she'd left the receipt for the shoes behind; Fredericka later offered to lie and tell investigators the shoes were bought for Billy's dad, but Angela said she declined because she'd already lied to officers about them.

Pike County murder trial wiretaps heard: 'We get electrocuted...it's your fault"

Several wiretapped recordings were played for the jury Wednesday, revealing the Wagner family dynamic in 2018, two years after the murders and just months before they were arrested.

www.wcpo.com

Still on June 14, 2018, Angela called George once more, to discuss Beth. The two spoke about the photo of a hand holding a gun that had been shown to family and Angela said, while at the Flying W Farm, owned by Billy's mother Fredericka, Angela opened the photo while Fredericka walked by.

Fredericka said the hand in the photo was not Jake's but Beth disagreed, Angela said.

"Beth looks at her and says 'yes it is,'" said Angela. "Beth said 'that's Jake's thumb all right.'"

"She's full of crap," George responded.

"I know that, alright," said Angela. "Better hope to God they don't call her to the stand."

The civil attorney must not feel he has enough to move forward with a civil trial against FW at this time. I am not sure any other information or evidence will come out against her. I do not feel they would in any way tell FW what they were going to do or tell her after the fact what they did. I would like to know the context of the conversation about the shoes.

It may have crossed FW mind they could be guilty but many family members of killers do not think they are guilty regardless of how much they find out that points to their guilt. It would seem that Rita would have thought/knew it much sooner than when she decided to stop lying about the notary.

 

[Cool Cats]

It may have crossed FW mind they could be guilty but many family members of killers do not think they are guilty regardless of how much they find out that points to their guilt. It would seem that Rita would have thought/knew it much sooner than when she decided to stop lying about the notary.

Yup.

Rita and FW knew the 4 Wagners were suspects and I think your right, they didn't want to believe it, who would in their shoes?

But I think they realized the evidence against the 4 was getting worse and then the GJ summons probably freaked them out. So covering for them or offering to cover for them was maybe a bit of desperation, disbelief, family preservation, etc......2 Cents

 

[Covert Operative]

Yup.

Rita and FW knew the 4 Wagners were suspects and I think your right, they didn't want to believe it, who would in their shoes?

But I think they realized the evidence against the 4 was getting worse and then the GJ summons probably freaked them out. So covering for them or offering to cover for them was maybe a bit of desperation, disbelief, family preservation, etc......2 Cents

You said it perfectly.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

How was he able to publish 10 minutes of Jake's live testimony? Is he implying that someone else in the court room recorded Jake's testimony and gave it to him to publish?

JMO, the prosecution decided this guy is just pulling stunts for publicity and decided to drop the charges and deprive him of any more free publicity.

This is what was said in that Guardian article.

Snipped from article:

The Guardian published a condensed version of Jake Wagner’s testimony that occurred on his first day on the stand, including audio that was provided to the news media by a third party; the article was written by Myers. In the article, Myers wrote, “The Guardian received a portion of Jake Wagner’s testimony on his first day on the witness stand. The Guardian wants to disclose that the audio was not recorded by a member of the media and was submitted to the Guardian’s newsroom by a courthouse source who is authorized to have their cell phone in the room.”


I won't even acknowledge who it was "rumored" to be because it's just that.... A RUMOR.

 

[Covert Operative]

I could be incorrect, but I thought there were still quite a few things to be ruled on before Billy's trial. It seems Canpea also needs a co-counsel assigned unless Dewine is gonna loan out Wilson. I would think Wilson is pretty busy. Hope the May trial date does not get delayed.

 

[Cool Cats]

I could be incorrect, but I thought there were still quite a few things to be ruled on before Billy's trial. It seems Canpea also needs a co-counsel assigned unless Dewine is gonna loan out Wilson. I would think Wilson is pretty busy. Hope the May trial date does not get delayed.

There is a Motion from the defense to dismiss the Other Acts Evidence and I do not believe it has been ruled on yet. There is a long confusing "court speak" paragraph about it in the Docket. I copied the last part - See below

02/22/2021

NOTICE OF INTENT TO USE OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 404(B) FILED

It is the Court's understanding that counsel for the Defendant intends to file a motion in limine objecting to those specific alleged other acts set forth on the State of Ohio's "Notice of Intent To Use Other Acts Evidence Pursuant to 404(B)" that the Defendant believes to be admissible at trial in this action. The Court will schedule a hearing concerning the admissibility at trial of evidence concerning of such alleged other acts.

As far as Canepa's needing co-counsel, maybe the new Pike County prosecutor will be?

New Pike County Prosecutor Michael Davis was sworn into office on February 15.......
(I think 2023 because article is from March 2023)

Davis will fill out the unexpired term of Rob Junk, who was elected Judge of the Common Pleas Court. Davis said he plans to run for election to the prosecutor’s seat in 2024.

Prosecutor Michael Davis

New prosecutor, Mike Davis, combines new, old programs

The new Pike County Prosecutor Michael A. Davis was sworn in as Prosecutor on February 15 to fill out the term of Rob Junk. Junk who was elected to Judge

www.newswatchman.com

 

[Covert Operative]

There is a Motion from the defense to dismiss the Other Acts Evidence and I do not believe it has been ruled on yet. There is a long confusing "court speak" paragraph about it in the Docket. I copied the last part - See below

02/22/2021

NOTICE OF INTENT TO USE OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 404(B) FILED

It is the Court's understanding that counsel for the Defendant intends to file a motion in limine objecting to those specific alleged other acts set forth on the State of Ohio's "Notice of Intent To Use Other Acts Evidence Pursuant to 404(B)" that the Defendant believes to be admissible at trial in this action. The Court will schedule a hearing concerning the admissibility at trial of evidence concerning of such alleged other acts.

As far as Canepa's needing co-counsel, maybe the new Pike County prosecutor will be?


New Pike County Prosecutor Michael Davis was sworn into office on February 15.......
(I think 2023 because article is from March 2023)

Davis will fill out the unexpired term of Rob Junk, who was elected Judge of the Common Pleas Court. Davis said he plans to run for election to the prosecutor’s seat in 2024.

Prosecutor Michael Davis
View attachment 472677

New prosecutor, Mike Davis, combines new, old programs

The new Pike County Prosecutor Michael A. Davis was sworn in as Prosecutor on February 15 to fill out the term of Rob Junk. Junk who was elected to Judge

www.newswatchman.com

Thanks, I had thought there were quite a few more things that needed to be ruled on, but maybe they have all been settled and I did not realize it.

 

[Cool Cats]

Thanks, I had thought there were quite a few more things that needed to be ruled on, but maybe they have all been settled and I did not realize it.

There might be more to be ruled on.

I will post more if I find any.

I am very curious at which "Bad Acts" will the judge allow?

I think there is a high probability that the defense would not want this "Bad Act" to get in front of the jury. It is incredibly detrimental to Billy's defense. Might as well roll up the carpet and go to prison.

DEFENDANT'S (jake) FATHER/CO-DEFENDANT THREATENING CHRISTOPHER RHODEN, SR. WITH A GUN WITHIN A WEEK OF THE HOMICIDES.

Wagner Court Filing About "Other Acts" | PDF

Prosecutors have said they intend to use "prior acts" of the Wagner family as evidence in trial.

www.scribd.com

Uploaded by The Columbus Dispatch​

 

[Betty P]

There probably are more.

Since trial is 4 months away I think I will look into Billy's case by seeing what is going on with his Motions. From Docket. There are a lot of Motions - 50 plus.

I will post if I can make sense of it. Many of his Motions are just standard and have been ruled on. My interest is the Motions that specifically relate to presenting evidence at trial.

Like which "Bad Acts" will the judge allow.

I think there is a high probability that the defense would not want this "Bad Act" to get in front of the jury. It is incredibly detrimental to Billy's defense. Might as well roll up the carpet and go to prison.

DEFENDANT'S (jake) FATHER/CO-DEFENDANT THREATENING CHRISTOPHER RHODEN, SR. WITH A GUN WITHIN A WEEK OF THE HOMICIDES.

Wagner Court Filing About "Other Acts" | PDF

Prosecutors have said they intend to use "prior acts" of the Wagner family as evidence in trial.

www.scribd.com

Uploaded by The Columbus Dispatch​

No doubt, he won't want that particular bad act included. JMO, it will be.

Here's all the activity on Billy's pre-trial for 2023. Amazing that not much at all happened during that year. There sure have been a lot of delays. Let's hope they can get something done in 2024.

01/05/2023	MOTION, ENTRY, AND CERTIFICATION FOR APPOINTED COUNSEL FEES FILED
01/09/2023	MOTION, ENTRY, AND CERTIFICATION FOR APPOINTED COUNSEL FEES FILED
01/17/2023	WARRANT FOR REMOVAL FROM BUTLER CO JAIL ON JANUARY 18, 2023 AT 1:00PM
01/24/2023	ENTRY CHANGING RATE OF COMPENSATION FOR SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, ANGELA CANEPAFILED AND MAILED COPIES TO COUNSEL
01/25/2023	JOURNAL ENTRY -- THIS CAUSE CAME ON FOR PRE-TRIAL HEARING ON JANUARY 18, 2023; COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT ANNOUNCED TO THE COURT THAT IT WAS THE INTENTION OF THE DEFFENSE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTARY MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE; IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE JUDGE CURRENTLY PRESIDING OVER THIS ACTIONIS RETIRING, WITH HIS LAST DAY IN OFFICE BEING FEBRUARY 8, 2023 AND THAT THE JUDGE-ELECT WILL SUCCEED THE CURRENT JUDGE IN OFFICE IS THE COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY WHO HAS PROSECUTED THIS ACTION, IT WAS AGREED BY THE PARTIES THAT FURTHER HEARINGS IN THIS ACTION, AS WELL AS THE TRIAL IN THIS ACTION, SHOULD BE SCHEDULED BEFORE A VISITING JUDGE TO BE APPOINTED BY THE OHIO SUPREME COURT
01/27/2023	JOURNAL ENTRY-ORDER REGARDING PROTECTION AND DECORUM OF PROCEEDINGSFILED AND MAILED COPIES CDB
01/27/2023	JOURNAL ENTRY ON DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FILED
02/01/2023	MOTION, ENTRY AND CERTIFICATION FOR APPOINTED COUNSEL FEES FILED
02/07/2023	MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL PROSECUTORAttorney: JUNK, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, ROBERT
02/07/2023	ENTRY APPOINTING ANGELA CANEPA AS SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FILED
02/08/2023	MOTION, ENTRY AND CERTIFICATION FOR APPOINTED SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FEES
02/08/2023	MOTION, ENTRY AND CERTIFICATION FOR APPOINTED SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FEES
02/16/2023	JOURNAL ENTRY OF RECUSAL - ROB JUNK, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, PIKE COUNTY RECUSES HIMSELF FROM PRESIDING AS JUDGE IN THIS ACTION FOR THE REASON THAT SAID JUDGE'S IMPARTIALITY MIGHT REASONABLY BE QUESTIONED DUE TO SERVING AS PROSECUTING ATTORNEY AND HAVING DIRECT INVOLVEMENT IN THE ABOVE-MENTIONED CASE
02/27/2023	CERTIFICATE OF ASSIGNMENT -- THE HONORABLE R. ALAN CORBIN, A RETIRED JUDGE OF THE BROWN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, GENERAL AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION, IS ASSIGNED EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 27, 2023 TO PRESIDE IN THE PIKE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, GENERAL AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION, TO HEAR CASE 2018CR000157, STATE OF OHIO VS. GEORGE WASHINGTON WAGNER III AND TO CONCLUDE ANY PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH HE PARTICIPATEDCOPIES FILED MAILED TO COUNSEL
02/28/2023	NOTICE OF HEARING SENT TO ALL REQUIRED PARTIESJudge: CORBIN, R. ALANEvent: STATUS CONFERENCEDate: 03/15/2023 Time: 02:00 PM
02/28/2023	ORDER SCHEDULING STATUS CONFERENCE FOR WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2023 AT 2:00PM
02/28/2023	WARRANT FOR REMOVAL FROM BUTLER CO JAIL ON MARCH 15, 2023 AT 2:00PM FOR STATUS CONFERENCE
03/01/2023	AMENDED WARRANT FOR REMOVAL FROM BUTLER CO JAIL ON MARCH 15, 2023 AT 2:00PM
04/25/2023	MOTION, ENTRY, AND CERTIFICATION FOR APPOINTED COUNSEL FEES FILED
06/15/2023	DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE FILEDAttorney: COLLINS, MARK CAttorney: HAYES, THOMAS F
06/20/2023	DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE FILEDAttorney: COLLINS, MARK CAttorney: HAYES, THOMAS F
06/21/2023	"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Judge: JUNK, ROBERTEvent: MOTION HEARINGDate: 08/30/2023 Time: 01:30 PM
06/22/2023	COSTS FOR NOTICES MAILED
06/22/2023	DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE FILEDAttorney: COLLINS, MARK C
08/23/2023	WARRANT FOR REMOVAL OF DEFENDANT FROM BUTLER CO JAIL ON AUGUST 30, 2023 AT 1:30PM FOR MOTION HEARING
08/30/2023	STATE'S MEMORANDUM CONTRA DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE FILEDAttorney: CANEPA, ANGELA R
08/30/2023	STATE'S SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY FILEDAttorney: CANEPA, ANGELA R
08/30/2023	"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Judge: JUNK, ROBERTEvent: HEARING ON MOTIONDate: 10/04/2023 Time: 01:30 PM
09/01/2023	COSTS FOR NOTICES MAILED
09/06/2023	MOTION, ENTRY AND CERTIFICATION FOR APPOINTED COUNSEL FEES FILED
09/08/2023	WARRANT FOR REMOVAL FROM BUTLER CO JAIL ON OCTOBER 4, 2023 AT 1:30PM
10/03/2023	DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO STATE'S MEMO CONTRA REGARDING CHANGE OF VENUE FILEDAttorney: COLLINS, MARK C
10/16/2023	CLERK'S/AUDITOR'S TRANSCRIPT FEE FOR AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT
10/16/2023	MOTION, ENTRY AND CERTIFICATION FOR APPOINTED SPECIAL PROSECUTOR'S FEES
10/17/2023	MOTION, ENTRY, AND CERTIFICATION FOR APPOINTED COUNSEL FEES
11/20/2023	JUDGMENT ENTRY -- THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS THAT THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE AND HIS AMENDED MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE ARE HEREBY DENIED AND OVERRULED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE; THESE MOTIONS ARE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN ORDER THAT SHOULD VOIR DIRE REVEAL THAT A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY CANNOT BE SECURED, THEN THESE MOTIONS FOR CHANGE OF VENUE CAN BE RENEWED BY THE DEFENDANT AND GRANTED AS APPROPRIATECOPIES FILED EMAILED TO ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD

 

[Cool Cats]

No doubt, he won't want that particular bad act included. JMO, it will be.

Here's all the activity on Billy's pre-trial for 2023. Amazing that not much at all happened during that year. There sure have been a lot of delays. Let's hope they can get something done in 2024.

01/05/2023	MOTION, ENTRY, AND CERTIFICATION FOR APPOINTED COUNSEL FEES FILED
01/09/2023	MOTION, ENTRY, AND CERTIFICATION FOR APPOINTED COUNSEL FEES FILED
01/17/2023	WARRANT FOR REMOVAL FROM BUTLER CO JAIL ON JANUARY 18, 2023 AT 1:00PM
01/24/2023	ENTRY CHANGING RATE OF COMPENSATION FOR SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, ANGELA CANEPAFILED AND MAILED COPIES TO COUNSEL
01/25/2023	JOURNAL ENTRY -- THIS CAUSE CAME ON FOR PRE-TRIAL HEARING ON JANUARY 18, 2023; COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT ANNOUNCED TO THE COURT THAT IT WAS THE INTENTION OF THE DEFFENSE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTARY MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE; IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE JUDGE CURRENTLY PRESIDING OVER THIS ACTIONIS RETIRING, WITH HIS LAST DAY IN OFFICE BEING FEBRUARY 8, 2023 AND THAT THE JUDGE-ELECT WILL SUCCEED THE CURRENT JUDGE IN OFFICE IS THE COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY WHO HAS PROSECUTED THIS ACTION, IT WAS AGREED BY THE PARTIES THAT FURTHER HEARINGS IN THIS ACTION, AS WELL AS THE TRIAL IN THIS ACTION, SHOULD BE SCHEDULED BEFORE A VISITING JUDGE TO BE APPOINTED BY THE OHIO SUPREME COURT
01/27/2023	JOURNAL ENTRY-ORDER REGARDING PROTECTION AND DECORUM OF PROCEEDINGSFILED AND MAILED COPIES CDB
01/27/2023	JOURNAL ENTRY ON DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FILED
02/01/2023	MOTION, ENTRY AND CERTIFICATION FOR APPOINTED COUNSEL FEES FILED
02/07/2023	MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL PROSECUTORAttorney: JUNK, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, ROBERT
02/07/2023	ENTRY APPOINTING ANGELA CANEPA AS SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FILED
02/08/2023	MOTION, ENTRY AND CERTIFICATION FOR APPOINTED SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FEES
02/08/2023	MOTION, ENTRY AND CERTIFICATION FOR APPOINTED SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FEES
02/16/2023	JOURNAL ENTRY OF RECUSAL - ROB JUNK, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, PIKE COUNTY RECUSES HIMSELF FROM PRESIDING AS JUDGE IN THIS ACTION FOR THE REASON THAT SAID JUDGE'S IMPARTIALITY MIGHT REASONABLY BE QUESTIONED DUE TO SERVING AS PROSECUTING ATTORNEY AND HAVING DIRECT INVOLVEMENT IN THE ABOVE-MENTIONED CASE
02/27/2023	CERTIFICATE OF ASSIGNMENT -- THE HONORABLE R. ALAN CORBIN, A RETIRED JUDGE OF THE BROWN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, GENERAL AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION, IS ASSIGNED EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 27, 2023 TO PRESIDE IN THE PIKE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, GENERAL AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION, TO HEAR CASE 2018CR000157, STATE OF OHIO VS. GEORGE WASHINGTON WAGNER III AND TO CONCLUDE ANY PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH HE PARTICIPATEDCOPIES FILED MAILED TO COUNSEL
02/28/2023	NOTICE OF HEARING SENT TO ALL REQUIRED PARTIESJudge: CORBIN, R. ALANEvent: STATUS CONFERENCEDate: 03/15/2023 Time: 02:00 PM
02/28/2023	ORDER SCHEDULING STATUS CONFERENCE FOR WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2023 AT 2:00PM
02/28/2023	WARRANT FOR REMOVAL FROM BUTLER CO JAIL ON MARCH 15, 2023 AT 2:00PM FOR STATUS CONFERENCE
03/01/2023	AMENDED WARRANT FOR REMOVAL FROM BUTLER CO JAIL ON MARCH 15, 2023 AT 2:00PM
04/25/2023	MOTION, ENTRY, AND CERTIFICATION FOR APPOINTED COUNSEL FEES FILED
06/15/2023	DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE FILEDAttorney: COLLINS, MARK CAttorney: HAYES, THOMAS F
06/20/2023	DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE FILEDAttorney: COLLINS, MARK CAttorney: HAYES, THOMAS F
06/21/2023	"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Judge: JUNK, ROBERTEvent: MOTION HEARINGDate: 08/30/2023 Time: 01:30 PM
06/22/2023	COSTS FOR NOTICES MAILED
06/22/2023	DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE FILEDAttorney: COLLINS, MARK C
08/23/2023	WARRANT FOR REMOVAL OF DEFENDANT FROM BUTLER CO JAIL ON AUGUST 30, 2023 AT 1:30PM FOR MOTION HEARING
08/30/2023	STATE'S MEMORANDUM CONTRA DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE FILEDAttorney: CANEPA, ANGELA R
08/30/2023	STATE'S SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY FILEDAttorney: CANEPA, ANGELA R
08/30/2023	"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Judge: JUNK, ROBERTEvent: HEARING ON MOTIONDate: 10/04/2023 Time: 01:30 PM
09/01/2023	COSTS FOR NOTICES MAILED
09/06/2023	MOTION, ENTRY AND CERTIFICATION FOR APPOINTED COUNSEL FEES FILED
09/08/2023	WARRANT FOR REMOVAL FROM BUTLER CO JAIL ON OCTOBER 4, 2023 AT 1:30PM
10/03/2023	DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO STATE'S MEMO CONTRA REGARDING CHANGE OF VENUE FILEDAttorney: COLLINS, MARK C
10/16/2023	CLERK'S/AUDITOR'S TRANSCRIPT FEE FOR AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT
10/16/2023	MOTION, ENTRY AND CERTIFICATION FOR APPOINTED SPECIAL PROSECUTOR'S FEES
10/17/2023	MOTION, ENTRY, AND CERTIFICATION FOR APPOINTED COUNSEL FEES
11/20/2023	JUDGMENT ENTRY -- THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS THAT THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE AND HIS AMENDED MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE ARE HEREBY DENIED AND OVERRULED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE; THESE MOTIONS ARE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN ORDER THAT SHOULD VOIR DIRE REVEAL THAT A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY CANNOT BE SECURED, THEN THESE MOTIONS FOR CHANGE OF VENUE CAN BE RENEWED BY THE DEFENDANT AND GRANTED AS APPROPRIATECOPIES FILED EMAILED TO ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD

So maybe the Bad Acts was ruled on and I just need to read further down. It does say this:

TO HEAR CASE 2018CR000157, STATE OF OHIO VS. GEORGE WASHINGTON WAGNER III AND TO CONCLUDE ANY PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH HE PARTICIPATED

So I guess this means that just the Change of Venue had to conclude. Then they should be ready for trial in 4 months. I really think there would have to be a pretty big reason to postpone it.

He was put in jail on November 13, 2018 and his trial starts May 6, 2024. That means that one week into his trial he will have been in jail exactly 5 1/2 years.

Start of trial means they start going through the jury Voir Dire process. My understanding is that it is some type of rule in Ohio to always try to seat a jury first before filing for Change of Venue.

I'm not sure why the defense went ahead and filed for it. The judge denied their Motion, told them to try to seat a PC jury first and if they can't then they can request the Change of Venue again.

 

[Covert Operative]

So maybe the Bad Acts was ruled on and I just need to read further down. It does say this:


So I guess this means that just the Change of Venue had to conclude. Then they should be ready for trial in 4 months. I really think there would have to be a pretty big reason to postpone it.

He was put in jail on November 13, 2018 and his trial starts May 6, 2024. That means that one week into his trial he will have been in jail exactly 5 1/2 years.

Start of trial means they start going through the jury Voir Dire process. My understanding is that it is some type of rule in Ohio to always try to seat a jury first before filing for Change of Venue.

I'm not sure why the defense went ahead and filed for it. The judge denied their Motion, told them to try to seat a PC jury first and if they can't then they can request the Change of Venue again.

This article states there were about 20 motions still to rule on but it is dated March of 2023,so almost a year ago. The article could also be incorrect.
---He has almost 20 outstanding motions to decide following the retirement of Judge Randy Deering, including a possible change of venue for the trial.--

Pike County massacre: New judge appointed for trial of George 'Billy' Wagner

The Ohio Supreme Court has appointed a new judge for the trial of George "Billy" Wagner III.

www.wlwt.com

The defense had talked in a hearing about the state not to go into the case asking for the death penalty. Canpea said she was preparing something on that to submit to the court,but never heard it mentioned again. Perhaps the state and defense worked that out behind the scenes.

 

[Covert Operative]

There might be more to be ruled on.

I will post more if I find any.

I am very curious at which "Bad Acts" will the judge allow?

I think there is a high probability that the defense would not want this "Bad Act" to get in front of the jury. It is incredibly detrimental to Billy's defense. Might as well roll up the carpet and go to prison.

DEFENDANT'S (jake) FATHER/CO-DEFENDANT THREATENING CHRISTOPHER RHODEN, SR. WITH A GUN WITHIN A WEEK OF THE HOMICIDES.

Wagner Court Filing About "Other Acts" | PDF

Prosecutors have said they intend to use "prior acts" of the Wagner family as evidence in trial.

www.scribd.com

Uploaded by The Columbus Dispatch​

I agree would be very bad for him, but I can't think of anything that will be good for him. If the threat with the gun is only supported by hearsay that is handed down it probably would not be allowed. There may be some direct evidence of the threat that has not come out yet.

The state withdrew three of the bad acts in George's trial but they do pertain to Billy so the acts may get presented in Billy's trial.

The Court notes that at the hearing on May 2, 2022, the State of Ohio withdrew items number 3), 4) and 7) that appear on the fourth page of the State's "Notice of Intent To Use Other Acts Evidence Pursuant to 404(B)" filed on February 22, 2021. The withdrawn items stated as follows:
3) Instance of Defendant's father threatening Defendant's mother with a gun.
4) Allegations that Defendant's father has killed/plotted/threatened to kill others before.
7) Defendant's father/co-defendant threatening Christopher Rhoden, Sr. with a gun within a week of the homicides.

 

[Niner]

This article states there were about 20 motions still to rule on but it is dated March of 2023,so almost a year ago. The article could also be incorrect.
---He has almost 20 outstanding motions to decide following the retirement of Judge Randy Deering, including a possible change of venue for the trial.--

Okay - I had time on my hands - so I put this together - all his motions that have been filed & which were granted & denied. The ones still outstanding I marked in red. At least I did not "see/read" anything about these motions being granted or denied.

01/17/2019 (1) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISCLOSE NAMES OF GRAND JURY WITNESSES FILED
01/17/2019 (2) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSCRIBE THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS PRIOR TO TRIAL FILED
01/17/2019 (3) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A PRE-TRIAL COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS FILED
01/17/2019 (4) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR STENOGRAPHIC RECORD OF ALL COURT PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE FILED
6/5/19 Court's granting Defendant's Motion No. (4) and Defendant's Motion No. (20). It is therefore ORDERED that such Defendant's Motion No. (4) and Defendant's Motion No. (20) be, and hereby are, granted.
01/17/2019 (5) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE OF AGGRAVATING FACTORS AND INFORMATION RELATING TO MITIGATING FACTORS FILED
01/17/2019 (6) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS CAPITAL COMPONENTS OF THIS CASE DUE TO CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW VIOLATIONS FILED
01/17/2019 (7) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUBMIT A DETAILED JURY QUESTIONNAIRE FILED
10/22/19 the Court reserves ruling upon Defendant's Motion No. 7, in order to afford counsel for each party an opportunity to work together to prepare a proposed detailed jury questionnaire agreeable to both parties.
01/17/2019 (8) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO HAVE THE COURT FOLLOW THE O.R.C. SECTION 2945.25(C) STANDARD FOR "DEATH-QUALIFICATION" OF VENIREPERSONS FILED
01/17/2019 (9) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PROHIBIT ANY REFERENCES TO THE FIRST PHASE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS AS THE "GUILT PHASE" FILED
01/17/2019 (10) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SPECIAL PROCEDURES TO INSULATE THE VENIRE AND THE EMPANELLED JURY FILED
01/17/2019 (11) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR INDIVIDUAL SEQUESTERED VOIR DIRE ON DEATH PENALTY, PUBLICITY, AND OTHER ISSUES FILED
01/17/2019 (12) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR COMPREHENSIVE VOIR DIRE FILED
10/22/19 Upon agreement of the parties, the Court grants Defendant's Motion No. 12; provided, however, that the Court will regulate voir dire of prospective jurors, affording each party an opportunity for reasonably comprehensive voir dire.
01/17/2019 (13) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ALTERNATING INDIVIDUAL VOIR DIRE FILED
01/17/2019 (14) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE VENIREPERSONS WHO CANNOT FAIRLY CONSIDER MITIGATING EVIDENCE AND/OR WHO WOULD AUTOMATICALLY VOTE FOR DEATH UPON FINDING OF GUILT IN THE CULPABILITY PHASE FILED
01/17/2019 (15) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PROHIBIT THE STATE'S USE OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO EXCLUDE VENIREPERSONS WITH CONCERNS ABOUT IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY FILED
01/17/2019 (16) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PROHIBIT REFERENCES TO THE JURY THAT A DEATH PENALTY VERDICT IS ONLY A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TRIAL JUDGE FILED
01/17/2019 (17) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO HAVE THE COURT FOLLOW CRITERIA OUTLINED WITHIN WITHERSPOON V. ILLINOIS AND WAINWRIGHT V. WHITT FOR "DEATH QUALIFICATION" FILED
01/17/2019 (18) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DAILTY TRANSCRIPTS FILED
01/17/2019 (19) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A COURTROOM DECORUM ORDER TO ENSURE A FAIR TRIAL FILED
10/22/19 Upon agreement of the parties, the Court grants Defendant's Motion No. 19; and the Court shall issue a specific court room decorum order.
01/17/2019 (20) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RECORD ALL SIDEBAR PROCEEDINGS FILED
6/5/19 Court's granting Defendant's Motion No. (4) and Defendant's Motion No. (20). It is therefore ORDERED that such Defendant's Motion No. (4) and Defendant's Motion No. (20) be, and hereby are, granted.
01/17/2019 (21) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO HAVE REASONS FOR DEFENSE OBJECTIONS AND REASONS FOR OVERRULING DEFENSE OBJECTIONS PLACED ON THE RECORD FILED
01/17/2019 (22) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PERMIT ACCUSED TO APPEAR IN CIVILIAN CLOTHING AND WITHOUT RESTRAINTS AT ALL PROCEEDINGS FILED
6/5/19 the Court granting Defendant's Motion No. (22) to the extent that the Defendant be permitted to appear at all proceedings in civilian clothing and without visible restraints.
01/17/2019 (23) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PROPERLY PRESERVE AND CATALOG ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FILED
01/17/2019 (24) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THAT A COMPLETE COPY OF THE PROSECUTOR'S FILE BE MADE AND TURNED OVER TO THE COURT FOR REVIEW AND TO BE SEALED FOR APPELLATE REVIEW, IF NECESSARY FILED
01/17/2019 (25) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS TO TURN OVER AND ADVISE THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF ALL INFORMATION ACQUIRED DURING THE COURSE OF INVESTIGATION FILED
01/17/2019 (26) MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE FILED
01/17/2019 (27) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A JURY VIEW FILED
10/22/19 Upon agreement of the parties, the Court grants Defendant's Motion No. 27.
01/17/2019 (28) DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE DECEASED FILED
01/17/2019 (29) DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT THE PREJUDICIAL DISPLAY OF TANGIBLE THINGS AND/OR PHOTOGRAPHS FILED
01/17/2019 (30) DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT VICTIM-IMPACT EVIDENCE DURING THE TRIAL AND, IF NECESSARY, THE MITIGATION PHASE FILED
01/17/2019 (31) DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT THE STATE FROM EMPLOYING PREJUDICIAL ARGUMENTS AND THEMES FILED
01/17/2019 (32) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DETERMINE AND LIMIT PLAINTIFF'S MITIGATION PHASE EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY FILED
01/17/2019 (33) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR INSTRUCTION THAT THE DEFENDANT BEARS NO BURDEN OF PROOF AT THE MITIGATION PHASE FILED
01/17/2019 (34) DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO LIMIT SCOPE OF ANY REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE STATE IN THE MITIGATION PHASE FILED
01/17/2019 (35) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PROHIBIT THE PROSECUTOR FROM ARGUING AND THE COURT FROM GIVING INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING STATUTORY MITIGATING FACTORS NOT RAISED BY THE DEFENSE FILED
01/17/2019 (36) DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF MITIGATING EVIDENCE THAT POST-DATES DEFENDANT'S ARREST FILED
01/17/2019 (37) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AVOID COERSIVE PRACTICES DURING MITIGATION PHASE DELIBERATIONS FILED
01/17/2019 (38) DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT THE STATE FROM COMMENTING ON DEFENDANT'S UNSWORN STATEMENT FILED
01/17/2019 (39) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ALLOW THE DEFENSE TO ARGUE LAST AT THE MITIGATION PHASE FILED
01/17/2019 (40) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO CONSIDER MERCY IN ITS MITIGATION PHASE DELIBERATIONS, AND TO PROHIBIT THE PROSECUTOR FROM ARGUING THAT THE JURY SHOULD NOT CONSIDER MERCY FILED
01/17/2019 (41) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO INSTRUCT THE JURY OIN THE SPECIFIC MITIGATING FACTORS RAISED BY DEFENSE FILED
12/28/20 (42) DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING A PRE-TRIAL DAUBERT HEARING TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BALLISTICS EVIDENCE AND OPINIONS FILED (MOTION 42)
9/21/21 ` the Court granted Defendant's Motion 42 and Defendant's Motion 43 and ordered that a Daubert hearing would be held concerning the admissibility of ballistics evidence and opinions and concerning the admissibility of shoeprint evidence and opinions.
12/28/20 (43) DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTNG A PRE-TRIAL DAUBERT HEARING TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SHOEPRINT EVIDENCE AND OPINIONS FILED (MOTION 43)
9/21/21 the Court granted Defendant's Motion 42 and Defendant's Motion 43 and ordered that a Daubert hearing would be held concerning the admissibility of ballistics evidence and opinions and concerning the admissibility of shoeprint evidence and opinions.
12/28/20 (44) MOTION TO REVOKE ANDREW WILSON'S APPOINTMENT AS SPECIAL PROSECUTING ATTORNEY FILED (MOTION 44)
4/11/21 At the hearing on this 5th day of April, 2021, the Defendant, through his attorney, orally withdrew the Defendant's Motion 44.
12/23/20 (45) DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING A PRETRIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ANY NON-TESTIFYING CO-DEENDANT STATEMENTS THE STATE INTENDS TO PRESENT IN ITS CASE IN CHIEF FILED (MOTION 45) /21
9/21/21 Concerning Defendant's Motion 45, counsel for the Defendant indicated to the Court that he believes that argument and consideration of such motion would be premature as of the time of the hearing of April 5, 2021, and that the defense would like to reserve argument and consideration of Defendant's Motion 45 until the defendant's attorneys have familiarized themselves with all of the statements of non-testifying co-defendants. Counsel for the Defendant indicated that the Defendant will supplement Motion 45 by making objections to specific portions of the statements of non-testifying co-defendants, if defense counsel believes that portions thereof should be inadmissible at trial.
12/28/20 (46) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING THE PROSECUTION TO PROVIDE A TRANSCRIPT OF AUDIO RECORDINGS IT INTENDS TO INTRODUCE AT TRIAL FILED (MOTION 46)
9/21/21 The Court with respect to Defendant's Motion 46 and Motion 48 that the State of Ohio has now furnished the Defendant with transcripts of audio recordings as requested in such motions.
3/2/22 Defendant then orally withdrew Defendant's Motions Nos. 46, 47 and 48,
12/28/2020 (47) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING THE STATE OF OHIO TO PROVIDE THE DEFENDANT WITH ALL FORENSIC EXPERT REPORTS AND UNDERLYING DATA FILED (MOTION 47)
2/2/22 Defendant then orally withdrew Defendant's Motions Nos. 46, 47 and 48,
02/23/2021 (48)--DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PROSECUTION TO PROVIDE TRANSCRIPTS OF AUDIO RECORDINGS IT INTENDS TO INTRODUCE AT TRIAL FILED
3/2/22 Defendant then orally withdrew Defendant's Motions Nos. 46, 47 and 48,
3/22/22 (49) Defendant's Motion No. 49, counsel for the Defendant and counsel for the State of Ohio made oral arguments regarding the issue of the timeliness of the State of Ohio's "Notice of Intent To Use Other Acts Evidence Pursuant to 404(B)" which was served and filed on February 22, 2021. State of Ohio's "Notice of Intent To Use Other Acts Evidence Pursuant to 404(B)" filing.
9/21/21 The Court therefore overrules and denies the Defendant's Motion 49 as it concerns the issue of timeliness of the notice. The Court will schedule a hearing concerning the admissibility at trial of evidence concerning of such alleged other acts.
06/28/2021 (50) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PROSECUTION TO PROVIDE ANY WRITTEN AND RECORDED STATEMENTS FROM THE CO-DEFENDANT AND THE EVIDENCE DERIVED FROM THE STATEMENTS WITH REQUEST FOR ORAL HEARING FILED
07/19/2021 (51) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE PROSECUTION IN DISMISSING THE MURDER SPECIFICATIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT GEORGE WAGNER III (MOTION 51)

06/15/2023 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE FILED [No Motion #]
11/20/23 THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS THAT THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE AND HIS AMENDED MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE ARE HEREBY DENIED AND OVERRULED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE; THESE MOTIONS ARE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN ORDER THAT SHOULD VOIR DIRE REVEAL THAT A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY CANNOT BE SECURED, THEN THESE MOTIONS FOR CHANGE OF VENUE CAN BE RENEWED BY THE DEFENDANT AND GRANTED AS APPROPRIATE

link: https://cpcourt.pikecounty.oh.gov/eservices/home.page.6

 

[Covert Operative]

Okay - I had time on my hands - so I put this together - all his motions that have been filed & which were granted & denied. The ones still outstanding I marked in red. At least I did not "see/read" anything about these motions being granted or denied.

01/17/2019 (1) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISCLOSE NAMES OF GRAND JURY WITNESSES FILED
01/17/2019 (2) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSCRIBE THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS PRIOR TO TRIAL FILED
01/17/2019 (3) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A PRE-TRIAL COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS FILED
01/17/2019 (4) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR STENOGRAPHIC RECORD OF ALL COURT PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE FILED
6/5/19 Court's granting Defendant's Motion No. (4) and Defendant's Motion No. (20). It is therefore ORDERED that such Defendant's Motion No. (4) and Defendant's Motion No. (20) be, and hereby are, granted.
01/17/2019 (5) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE OF AGGRAVATING FACTORS AND INFORMATION RELATING TO MITIGATING FACTORS FILED
01/17/2019 (6) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS CAPITAL COMPONENTS OF THIS CASE DUE TO CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW VIOLATIONS FILED
01/17/2019 (7) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUBMIT A DETAILED JURY QUESTIONNAIRE FILED
10/22/19 the Court reserves ruling upon Defendant's Motion No. 7, in order to afford counsel for each party an opportunity to work together to prepare a proposed detailed jury questionnaire agreeable to both parties.
01/17/2019 (8) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO HAVE THE COURT FOLLOW THE O.R.C. SECTION 2945.25(C) STANDARD FOR "DEATH-QUALIFICATION" OF VENIREPERSONS FILED
01/17/2019 (9) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PROHIBIT ANY REFERENCES TO THE FIRST PHASE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS AS THE "GUILT PHASE" FILED
01/17/2019 (10) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SPECIAL PROCEDURES TO INSULATE THE VENIRE AND THE EMPANELLED JURY FILED
01/17/2019 (11) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR INDIVIDUAL SEQUESTERED VOIR DIRE ON DEATH PENALTY, PUBLICITY, AND OTHER ISSUES FILED
01/17/2019 (12) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR COMPREHENSIVE VOIR DIRE FILED
10/22/19 Upon agreement of the parties, the Court grants Defendant's Motion No. 12; provided, however, that the Court will regulate voir dire of prospective jurors, affording each party an opportunity for reasonably comprehensive voir dire.
01/17/2019 (13) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ALTERNATING INDIVIDUAL VOIR DIRE FILED
01/17/2019 (14) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE VENIREPERSONS WHO CANNOT FAIRLY CONSIDER MITIGATING EVIDENCE AND/OR WHO WOULD AUTOMATICALLY VOTE FOR DEATH UPON FINDING OF GUILT IN THE CULPABILITY PHASE FILED
01/17/2019 (15) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PROHIBIT THE STATE'S USE OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO EXCLUDE VENIREPERSONS WITH CONCERNS ABOUT IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY FILED
01/17/2019 (16) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PROHIBIT REFERENCES TO THE JURY THAT A DEATH PENALTY VERDICT IS ONLY A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TRIAL JUDGE FILED
01/17/2019 (17) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO HAVE THE COURT FOLLOW CRITERIA OUTLINED WITHIN WITHERSPOON V. ILLINOIS AND WAINWRIGHT V. WHITT FOR "DEATH QUALIFICATION" FILED
01/17/2019 (18) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DAILTY TRANSCRIPTS FILED
01/17/2019 (19) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A COURTROOM DECORUM ORDER TO ENSURE A FAIR TRIAL FILED
10/22/19 Upon agreement of the parties, the Court grants Defendant's Motion No. 19; and the Court shall issue a specific court room decorum order.
01/17/2019 (20) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RECORD ALL SIDEBAR PROCEEDINGS FILED
6/5/19 Court's granting Defendant's Motion No. (4) and Defendant's Motion No. (20). It is therefore ORDERED that such Defendant's Motion No. (4) and Defendant's Motion No. (20) be, and hereby are, granted.
01/17/2019 (21) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO HAVE REASONS FOR DEFENSE OBJECTIONS AND REASONS FOR OVERRULING DEFENSE OBJECTIONS PLACED ON THE RECORD FILED
01/17/2019 (22) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PERMIT ACCUSED TO APPEAR IN CIVILIAN CLOTHING AND WITHOUT RESTRAINTS AT ALL PROCEEDINGS FILED
6/5/19 the Court granting Defendant's Motion No. (22) to the extent that the Defendant be permitted to appear at all proceedings in civilian clothing and without visible restraints.
01/17/2019 (23) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PROPERLY PRESERVE AND CATALOG ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FILED
01/17/2019 (24) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THAT A COMPLETE COPY OF THE PROSECUTOR'S FILE BE MADE AND TURNED OVER TO THE COURT FOR REVIEW AND TO BE SEALED FOR APPELLATE REVIEW, IF NECESSARY FILED
01/17/2019 (25) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS TO TURN OVER AND ADVISE THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF ALL INFORMATION ACQUIRED DURING THE COURSE OF INVESTIGATION FILED
01/17/2019 (26) MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE FILED
01/17/2019 (27) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A JURY VIEW FILED
10/22/19 Upon agreement of the parties, the Court grants Defendant's Motion No. 27.
01/17/2019 (28) DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE DECEASED FILED
01/17/2019 (29) DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT THE PREJUDICIAL DISPLAY OF TANGIBLE THINGS AND/OR PHOTOGRAPHS FILED
01/17/2019 (30) DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT VICTIM-IMPACT EVIDENCE DURING THE TRIAL AND, IF NECESSARY, THE MITIGATION PHASE FILED
01/17/2019 (31) DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT THE STATE FROM EMPLOYING PREJUDICIAL ARGUMENTS AND THEMES FILED
01/17/2019 (32) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DETERMINE AND LIMIT PLAINTIFF'S MITIGATION PHASE EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY FILED
01/17/2019 (33) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR INSTRUCTION THAT THE DEFENDANT BEARS NO BURDEN OF PROOF AT THE MITIGATION PHASE FILED
01/17/2019 (34) DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO LIMIT SCOPE OF ANY REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE STATE IN THE MITIGATION PHASE FILED
01/17/2019 (35) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PROHIBIT THE PROSECUTOR FROM ARGUING AND THE COURT FROM GIVING INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING STATUTORY MITIGATING FACTORS NOT RAISED BY THE DEFENSE FILED
01/17/2019 (36) DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF MITIGATING EVIDENCE THAT POST-DATES DEFENDANT'S ARREST FILED
01/17/2019 (37) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AVOID COERSIVE PRACTICES DURING MITIGATION PHASE DELIBERATIONS FILED
01/17/2019 (38) DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT THE STATE FROM COMMENTING ON DEFENDANT'S UNSWORN STATEMENT FILED
01/17/2019 (39) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ALLOW THE DEFENSE TO ARGUE LAST AT THE MITIGATION PHASE FILED
01/17/2019 (40) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO CONSIDER MERCY IN ITS MITIGATION PHASE DELIBERATIONS, AND TO PROHIBIT THE PROSECUTOR FROM ARGUING THAT THE JURY SHOULD NOT CONSIDER MERCY FILED
01/17/2019 (41) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO INSTRUCT THE JURY OIN THE SPECIFIC MITIGATING FACTORS RAISED BY DEFENSE FILED
12/28/20 (42) DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING A PRE-TRIAL DAUBERT HEARING TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BALLISTICS EVIDENCE AND OPINIONS FILED (MOTION 42)
9/21/21 ` the Court granted Defendant's Motion 42 and Defendant's Motion 43 and ordered that a Daubert hearing would be held concerning the admissibility of ballistics evidence and opinions and concerning the admissibility of shoeprint evidence and opinions.
12/28/20 (43) DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTNG A PRE-TRIAL DAUBERT HEARING TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SHOEPRINT EVIDENCE AND OPINIONS FILED (MOTION 43)
9/21/21 the Court granted Defendant's Motion 42 and Defendant's Motion 43 and ordered that a Daubert hearing would be held concerning the admissibility of ballistics evidence and opinions and concerning the admissibility of shoeprint evidence and opinions.
12/28/20 (44) MOTION TO REVOKE ANDREW WILSON'S APPOINTMENT AS SPECIAL PROSECUTING ATTORNEY FILED (MOTION 44)
4/11/21 At the hearing on this 5th day of April, 2021, the Defendant, through his attorney, orally withdrew the Defendant's Motion 44.
12/23/20 (45) DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING A PRETRIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ANY NON-TESTIFYING CO-DEENDANT STATEMENTS THE STATE INTENDS TO PRESENT IN ITS CASE IN CHIEF FILED (MOTION 45) /21
9/21/21 Concerning Defendant's Motion 45, counsel for the Defendant indicated to the Court that he believes that argument and consideration of such motion would be premature as of the time of the hearing of April 5, 2021, and that the defense would like to reserve argument and consideration of Defendant's Motion 45 until the defendant's attorneys have familiarized themselves with all of the statements of non-testifying co-defendants. Counsel for the Defendant indicated that the Defendant will supplement Motion 45 by making objections to specific portions of the statements of non-testifying co-defendants, if defense counsel believes that portions thereof should be inadmissible at trial.
12/28/20 (46) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING THE PROSECUTION TO PROVIDE A TRANSCRIPT OF AUDIO RECORDINGS IT INTENDS TO INTRODUCE AT TRIAL FILED (MOTION 46)
9/21/21 The Court with respect to Defendant's Motion 46 and Motion 48 that the State of Ohio has now furnished the Defendant with transcripts of audio recordings as requested in such motions.
3/2/22 Defendant then orally withdrew Defendant's Motions Nos. 46, 47 and 48,
12/28/2020 (47) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING THE STATE OF OHIO TO PROVIDE THE DEFENDANT WITH ALL FORENSIC EXPERT REPORTS AND UNDERLYING DATA FILED (MOTION 47)
2/2/22 Defendant then orally withdrew Defendant's Motions Nos. 46, 47 and 48,
02/23/2021 (48)--DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PROSECUTION TO PROVIDE TRANSCRIPTS OF AUDIO RECORDINGS IT INTENDS TO INTRODUCE AT TRIAL FILED
3/2/22 Defendant then orally withdrew Defendant's Motions Nos. 46, 47 and 48,
3/22/22 (49) Defendant's Motion No. 49, counsel for the Defendant and counsel for the State of Ohio made oral arguments regarding the issue of the timeliness of the State of Ohio's "Notice of Intent To Use Other Acts Evidence Pursuant to 404(B)" which was served and filed on February 22, 2021. State of Ohio's "Notice of Intent To Use Other Acts Evidence Pursuant to 404(B)" filing.
9/21/21 The Court therefore overrules and denies the Defendant's Motion 49 as it concerns the issue of timeliness of the notice. The Court will schedule a hearing concerning the admissibility at trial of evidence concerning of such alleged other acts.
06/28/2021 (50) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PROSECUTION TO PROVIDE ANY WRITTEN AND RECORDED STATEMENTS FROM THE CO-DEFENDANT AND THE EVIDENCE DERIVED FROM THE STATEMENTS WITH REQUEST FOR ORAL HEARING FILED
07/19/2021 (51) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE PROSECUTION IN DISMISSING THE MURDER SPECIFICATIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT GEORGE WAGNER III (MOTION 51)

06/15/2023 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE FILED [No Motion #]
11/20/23 THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS THAT THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE AND HIS AMENDED MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE ARE HEREBY DENIED AND OVERRULED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE; THESE MOTIONS ARE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN ORDER THAT SHOULD VOIR DIRE REVEAL THAT A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY CANNOT BE SECURED, THEN THESE MOTIONS FOR CHANGE OF VENUE CAN BE RENEWED BY THE DEFENDANT AND GRANTED AS APPROPRIATE

link: https://cpcourt.pikecounty.oh.gov/eservices/home.page.6

Wow thank you for all of that.Most of them could probably be ruled on fairly quickly, but that judge does not seem to be in a hurry with his rulings.

 

[rescuemom]

Wow thank you for all of that.Most of them could probably be ruled on fairly quickly, but that judge does not seem to be in a hurry with his rulings.

Any thoughts, impressions or reputation about this judge??

 

[Covert Operative]

Any thoughts, impressions or reputation about this judge??

He seems to think about the motions a long time before ruling and he speaks way to slow for my liking. ha