OH Pike Co., 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue, 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #54

[Rutledge203]

Wasn’t much to the trial today, the judge just talked about if the defense had any complaints the defense wants to have regular meetings with Billy Wagner not telecom also the judge wants everybody ready for March 13th meeting on discovery

Thank you.

 

[Merrygirl]

CC
Do you think that Jake Wagner is trying to pull something, he is having his attorney to stand up and go on record about him getting pressured from inmates, trying to make it look like a threat to him to tell them what has happened, JMO

personally, I thing the accused should be held responsible for whatever he says, to whomever & whenever he says, once he is told it can be used against him, just like RN & AW. If they blab to others that’s the chance they take. I also don’t think favors should be given for jailmates in exchange for info. JMOO

 

[Dudly]

His attorney is trying to stave off an inmate coming forward to tell something Jake said that is incriminating. Example:

An inmate can say I want a reduced sentence for giving up this information Jake Wagner told me:
"Jake said such and such to me about the case, it shows he knows his dad did it etc...Jake admitted such and such to me about buying surveillance equipment to spy on Hanna etc..."
( Made up examples)

So then Jake's attorney is on record saying that Jake is not talking about his case to the pushy inmates and the pushy inmates are just making things up.

So this covers Jake's a s s if he really did run his mouth....My take on it.....

Good news, the defense is worried, too much heat in the kitchen err courtroom. They want to throw out:

1.) Ballistics evidence
2.) Shoe print evidence
3.) Things the Wagners wrote
4.) All the statements the other Wagners in the case made to LE in those BCI interviews.

Juicy stuff. Can't wait to hear the arguments and rebuttals on these motions. No way will Canepa let this evidence be tossed out. Claws come out...My take on it...

02/10/2020 #47 DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING A PRETRIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BALLISTICS EVIDENCE AND OPINIONS FILED Attorney: MEYERS, GREGORY W

02/10/2020 #48 DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING A PRETRIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SHOEPRINT EVIDENCE AND OPINIONS FILED Attorney: MEYERS, GREGORY W

02/10/2020 #49 DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING A PRETRIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ANY WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS THE STATE INTENDS TO PRESENT IN ITS CASE IN CHIEF FILED Attorney: MEYERS, GREGORY W

02/10/2020 #50 DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING A PRETRIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ANY NON-TESTIFYING CO-DEFENDANT STATEMENTS THE STATE INTENDS TO PRESENT IN ITS CASE IN CHIEF FILED

So this covers Jake's a s s if he really did run his mouth....My take on it.....

Exactly why that was said...

 

[Merrygirl]

DBM—duplicated

 

[Merrygirl]

I guess it is definitely possible. The Motion sometime a year ago requested that other inmates not speak with JW about the case. I don't understand how that would be enforced if he's in general population.
I am not a lawyer.

IMO, I thought I heard them say in JW’s pretrial of 2/10/2020 that the gag order only applies to jail/prison personnel, etc. I don’t believe they can put a gag order to cover other prisoners/jailmates. If JW wishes to blab and knows it can hurt him then he needs to take the responsibility for his actions.

 

[Merrygirl]

Definitely "substantive motions" from Defense again. These be decided by the Judge after Prosecutors response to these. Waiting for an "Evidentiary Hearing". I look forward to that

‘Me too but I believe it says “in Lamine” meaning behind closed doors. We can only hope (fingers crossed).

 

[bowler]

Yah. I thought this motion which was approved, also included inmates but Jake's lawyer said in court that it only applies to employees such as all jail employees, court employees, LE etc...

Is this a 1 listener taping state? If so does it apply to inmates? If yes, bet Grease Bucket is already hooked...


He said he tells his clients not to talk to inmates but some do anyway but he said he thinks Jake is not doing this. I got the impression he's not 100% sure or maybe Jake did blurt out something and his attorney is trying to reduce any damage. There is a reason this was brought up. Hummm....

 

[Dudly]

‘Me too but I believe it says “in Lamine” meaning behind closed doors. We can only hope (fingers crossed).

In U.S. law, a motion in limine (Latin: [ɪn ˈliːmɪnɛ]; "at the start", literally, "on the threshold") is a motion, discussed outside the presence of the jury, to request that certain testimony be excluded. The motion is decided by a judge in both civil and criminal proceedings.

 

[Merrygirl]

In U.S. law, a motion in limine (Latin: [ɪn ˈliːmɪnɛ]; "at the start", literally, "on the threshold") is a motion, discussed outside the presence of the jury, to request that certain testimony be excluded. The motion is decided by a judge in both civil and criminal proceedings.

‘But do we REALLY think they will risk tainting a jury with prior knowledge before the actual trial, even though we armchair jurors want to resolve this now?

 

[Cool Cats]

Is this a 1 listener taping state? If so does it apply to inmates? If yes, bet Grease Bucket is already hooked...

Yes. Ohio is a 1 listener taping State. LE could hook up an inmate to record another inmate and it would be legal.

Legality of Recording Calls in Ohio | Secure Speak

Ohio is one the 38 states with “one party consent” law with regards to tapping phone calls and conversations. The Ohio Statute, Ohio Rev. Code 2933.52 states that, “it is a criminal offense to record or intercept any wire, oral or electronic communication without the consent of one party to the conversation.” With this law therefore, you may record a conversation when you are one of the parties to it even without the consent of the other party. You can also record a conversation between two parties if you have the consent of just one of them.

 

[Merrygirl]

Did anyone else hear the judge say that the evidence organizer was going to be $80k? Wow! I would do it it for 1/2 that amount. Lol

 

[Cool Cats]

Did anyone else hear the judge say that the evidence organizer was going to be $80k? Wow! I would do it it for 1/2 that amount. Lol

Yes, Judge Deering said it could be higher than $80,000 and that is why he hasn't decided on it yet. Cost is getting in the way, that is alot of money when you would think with 4 law firms and Special Prosecutors that they could get it done themselves. Just opinion.
They added another Special Prosecutor a while ago.

 

[Loomis124]

Do you think LE has anyone on the inside?

Not now. But I do think they did early on and Jakey spilled his bragging guts to the confidential informant/inmate at that time. Too late to undo that now. There is a follow-up document that was done during JW's hearing on April 4 concerning this matter. @Ohioblues, if you have, will you please post? TY

I posted it below.

 

[Loomis124]

Finally found it! April 4 hearing was the day Jake showed up with a busted lip.

Twitter

 

[Cool Cats]

Not now. But I do think they did early on and Jakey spilled his bragging guts to the confidential informant/inmate at that time. Too late to undo that now. There is a follow-up document that was done during JW's hearing on April 4 concerning this matter. @Ohioblues, if you have, will you please post? TY

Here it is, court document of who cannot talk to Jake about the case:

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachments/93fcf366-1c6e-4818-9bfa-2aa4e37dfeab-jpeg.178012/

"....and any inmates cooperating with the State in the investigation..."

 

[Loomis124]

DBM

 

[Loomis124]

personally, I thing the accused should be held responsible for whatever he says, to whomever & whenever he says, once he is told it can be used against him, just like RN & AW. If they blab to others that’s the chance they take. I also don’t think favors should be given for jailmates in exchange for info. JMOO

I agree! However, if JW talks/blabs (without being provoked to do so) to a confidential informant/inmate, what he says can and will be used against him by the Prosecution. IMO, he ran his mouth early on and he's liable for it.

 

[Loomis124]

Here it is, court document of who cannot talk to Jake about the case:

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachments/93fcf366-1c6e-4818-9bfa-2aa4e37dfeab-jpeg.178012/

"....and any inmates cooperating with the State in the investigation..."

Yes Mam! Thank you, CC!

 

[Cool Cats]

Yes Mam! Thank you, CC!

 

[Loomis124]

Yes, Judge Deering said it could be higher than $80,000 and that is why he hasn't decided on it yet. Cost is getting in the way, that is alot of money when you would think with 4 law firms and Special Prosecutors that they could get it done themselves. Just opinion.
They added another Special Prosecutor a while ago.

I sure hope Judge Deering rules AGAINST this. There is no reason the 4 defenses cannot figure this Discovery out. They are only stalling and making mountains out of mole hills.

Now. When it comes to the Bruce Dailey files, which sound like a total disorganized nightmare, the Court may have to pay someone $5k to sit down with him and AC and find out what the heck went own between him and JW. JMO