Appears to be the judge is ruling on some of the motions and objections the defense brought up in the last hearing.
10/22/2019 JOURNAL ENTRY -- On the 7th day of October, 2019, this cause came on for oral hearing on portions of pending motions filed by the Defendant, that were not resolved at the last hearing held on August 28, 2019. The Defendant was present in Court and was represented by her attorney, Franklin T. Gerlach. The State of Ohio was represented by the Prosecuting Attorney, Rob Junk, and by Special Prosecuting Attorneys, Angela Canepa and Anthony Pierson. Also present was Special Agent Ryan Scheiderer, of the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation. The Court finds that this action was previously scheduled for Jury Trial to commence on Monday, October 21, 2019 at 8:30 a.m., with 4 days allotted for the trial. Upon inquiry, the Court finds that the parties have resolved most of the matters scheduled to be heard on October 7, 2019. At the last hearing held on August 28, 2019, the Court ordered the State of Ohio to provide the Defendant with a copy of the entire transcript of the Defendant's grand jury testimony. Counsel for the Defendant informed the Court at the hearing on this date that the first eight (8) pages of the transcript have not been provided, and the Defendant, through her attorney, requested that the State of Ohio be required to furnish the first eight (8) pages of the transcript. The State of Ohio argued that the first eight (8) pages of the transcript have not been provided to the Defendant for the reason that those 8 pages do not contain any testimony from the Defendant. Having reviewed a copy of the Grand Jury transcript in camera, the Court finds that the first eight (8) pages of the transcript do not contain any testimony of the Defendant, and the Court concludes that the first eight (8) pages of the Grand Jury transcript do not constitute material that the Defendant is entitled to receive through discovery. The Court therefore finds and determines that the State of Ohio has complied with the order of the Court that the entirety of the transcript of the Defendant's Grand Jury testimony be furnished to the Defendant, and the Court denies the Defendant's request for the first eight (8) pages of the transcript, which contain no testimony of the Defendant. Counsel for the Defendant further requested that the State of Ohio furnish the Defendant with audio recordings of any statements of the Defendant, including audio recordings of the Defendant's Grand Jury testimony. Upon consideration, the Court finds the Defendant's request to be well taken, and it is therefore ordered that the State of Ohio shall furnish the Defendant, through her counsel, with copies of audio recordings of any and all statements of the Defendant, including audio recordings of the Defendant's Grand Jury testimony. Counsel for each party further informed the Court that they had reached an agreement concerning discovery of the material previously designated by the prosecuting attorney as "counsel only" material. Upon such agreement of the parties, it is ordered that those materials previously designated by the prosecuting attorneys as "counsel only" material will remain designated as "counsel only," but with the caveat that the defendant's attorney is permitted to show such material to the Defendant within the confines of the law office of defense counsel, but that counsel for the Defendant shall not make any copies or allow any copies to be made of any such "counsel only" material; and counsel for the Defendant shall not permit anyone other than counsel for the Defendant, himself, to remove any such "counsel only" material from his law office. Further, upon agreement of the parties, it is ordered that counsel for each of the parties, and all agents and employees of the parties and their respective counsel, shall refrain from making any extra judicial statements regarding the contents of any of the "counsel only" materials. It is the Court's understanding that the "counsel only" material includes the transcript of the Defendant's Grand Jury testimony, as well as handwriting exemplars and documents used to obtain samples of handwriting, and reports of handwriting analysis. Another matter upon which the parties have not reached an agreement concerns a CCU analysis report. The Court understands that a copy of that report has been provided to the defense, but that certain information had been redacted from the copy of the report provided to the defense. The Defendant, through her counsel, requests that the Defendant be provided a copy of the report, without anything being redacted therefrom. The State of Ohio, through the prosecuting attorneys, indicated to the Court that the State of Ohio objects to the Defendant's request for a copy from which no material has been redacted, on the ground that the redacted material is irrelevant to the present action. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the Special Prosecuting Attorney will provide counsel for the Defendant with an additional copy of the report on this day (October 7, 2019) and will include some of the currently redacted material in the additional copy, and that the State of Ohio will furnish the Court with an unredacted copy of the report to review in camera. The Court will then issue a ruling whether all or any portion of the redacted material should be included in the discovery given to the Defendant. The Court finds that at the hearing on August 28, 2019, the Court indicated that Criminal Rule 16(K) required the State of Ohio to furnish the Defendant with curricula vitae for experts that the State of Ohio intends to call as witnesses at trial. At that hearing on August 28, 2019, the State of Ohio informed the Court that it would provide the names of the experts that it intended to call at trial, as well as each witness's curriculum vitae, by September 6, 2019. The State of Ohio informed the Court at the hearing this day that those names and curricula vitae have been provided to the Defendant. Defense counsel indicated to the Court that there was missing from the information that the State of Ohio had provided concerning experts any information concerning where each expert had previously testified, and that only one of the three experts gave any information concerning whether the expert had previously testified as an expert in court, and provided information as to the identity of the courts and the case numbers in which the expert had testified. The Special Prosecuting Attorney argued to the Court that the State of Ohio had complied with Criminal Rule 16(K) and that if Defendant's attorney desired to request a Daubert Hearing or to conduct voir dire prior to the witness's testifying, to contact the State of Ohio's experts prior to trial, defense counsel was welcome to do that. The Defendant argued to the Court that the State of Ohio had a duty to provide the additional information to the Defendant concerning the State of Ohio's proposed expert witnesses. Having considered the arguments of each party, the Court finds that the State of Ohio has complied with Crim. R. 16(K) concerning proposed expert witnesses in the present case. Upon oral motion of the Special Prosecuting Attorney at the hearing this day, the State of Ohio requested that the jury trial previously scheduled to commence on Monday, October 21, 2019 at 8:30 o'clock a.m. be continued to a later date for reason that the lead investigator for the State of Ohio, Ryan Scheiderer, is unavailable for at least a portion of the trial during the period of October 21-24, 2019. For reasons set forth in the State's oral motion to continue the jury trial, and without objection by the Defendant, the Court finds said oral motion to continue to be well taken, and grants same. It is therefore ordered that the jury trial previously scheduled in this action to commence on October 21, 2019, at 8:30 a.m., be, and hereby is, continued to commence on Monday, November 18, 2019, at 8:30 o'clock p.m., with four (4) days allotted. The Clerk of Courts is instructed to send a copy of this Journal Entry to the Defendant, to counsel for the Defendant, to the Special Prosecuting Attorneys, and to the Prosecuting Attorney, all by ordinary U.S. Mail.
10/22/2019 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY -- This cause came on for the Court's consideration whether the Defendant has the right to obtain through discovery unredacted copies of a "CCU Analysis Report" concerning an HP Envy Touch Smart 15 Notebook PC model 15-j1119wm bearing the S/N 5CG40505KY. At the hearing held on October 7, 2019, the parties indicated to the Court that the State of Ohio had furnished the Defendant with a copy of the above-mentioned report, but with material redacted on pages 2, 3 and 4. It is the Court's understanding that the State of Ohio furnished counsel for the Defendant with another copy of the report on October 7, 2019, and that such copy furnished on October 7, 2019, includes the previously redacted material on page 4, but that the material redacted on pages 2 and 3 of the report remains redacted from the copy furnished on October 7, 2019. Counsel for the State of Ohio has furnished the Court with a copy both of the report having the material on pages 2 and 3 redacted and a copy of the report without any material redacted, and the Court has examined these copies in camera. The Court finds that the material that remains redacted on pages 2 and 3 of the report does not constitute "items related to the particular case indictment, information or complaint" in the present action and that such redacted material is not "material to the preparation of a defense" in the present action. Further, the Special Prosecuting Attorney has stipulated that the material redacted on pages 2 and 3 of the report is not "intended for use by the prosecuting attorney as evidence at the trial" in the present action. Finally, it is the Court's understanding that such redacted material on pages 2 and 3 of the report does not constitute material "obtained from or belonging to the Defendant." The Court concludes that the Defendant does not have the right to receive a copy of the report without the redactions on pages 2 and 3, and the Defendant's request for a copy of the report without such redactions is hereby overruled and denied. It is hereby ordered that the redacted copy of the report and the unredacted copy of the report furnished to the Court shall be filed with the Clerk of Courts, under seal, and that such copies shall not be unsealed, except upon order of this Court or upon the order of a court with jurisdiction superior to this Court.
The last entry is providing a deadline before the trial for attorneys to provide various forms relating to jury instructions, etc.
10/25/2019JOURNAL ENTRY -- REQUIRING PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND VERDICT FORMS This cause is set for jury trial to commence on Monday, November 18, 2019 at 8:30 o'clock a.m. with 4 days allotted. It is hereby ORDERED that on or before November 15, 2019 counsel for each party shall serve and file a complete set of proposed jury instructions, together with OJI citations or legal authorities in support, addressing all issues (standard and special instructions). Counsel for each party shall also submit proposed verdict forms simultaneously with their jury instructions. Counsel for each party shall also furnish the Court, through email or CD, in Microsoft Word format, a copy of such party's proposed jury instructions and verdict forms.
But it's been 20 yrs since, so that's the good part. If you highlight or color your hair, be careful doing so after it grows back. The chemo is still in your hair and it makes it turn strange colors with hair colorants. I ended up looking like Bozo the Clown.
