Isn’t that RW?
OH Pike Co., 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue, 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #56
- Thread starter tlcya
- Start date
- Status
Isn’t that RW?
Cool Cats
I EXPECT DOUGHNUTS
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 12,414
- Reaction score
- 95,734
Wow! You are right it's Robin. The jacket and pants match what she is wearing when you see her at the end of the video! Thankx.
Yes, I'm pretty sure it is her. Looks like the black cowboy hat she has had in the courtroom and looks like a camo jacket when the picture is enlarged
DBM
You have aroused my curiosity about the horse-related question...
Niner
Long time Websleuther
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 86,920
- Reaction score
- 292,880
from the court site for GW3
08/19/2020JOURNAL ENTRY -- On this 22nd day of June, 2020, this cause came on for a pre-trial hearing. The Defendant was present in court and was represented his attorneys, Mark C. Collins and Thomas F. Hayes, each of whom has been appointed by the Court to represent the Defendant. Also, present were Attorneys Kaitlyn C. Stephens and Emily Enstett, each of whom are part of the defense team, but neither of whom are attorneys appointed by the Court to represent the Defendant in the present action. The Defendant appeared for the pre-trial hearing in civilian clothing and without restraints visible outside of his clothing. The State of Ohio was represented at the pre-trial hearing by the Prosecuting Attorney, Rob Junk, and by Special Prosecuting Attorneys Angela R. Canepa and David A. Wilson. Mr. Wilson was appointed as special prosecutor on this day of the pre-trial hearing. Also present for the pre-trial hearing was Special Agent Ryan Scheiderer, of the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation ("Ohio BCI&I"). The Court finds that on June 19, 2020, the office of the Ohio Attorney General filed a "Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Counsel" in this action. Carol Hamilton O'Brien, Chief Counsel and Deputy Attorney General for Law Enforcement, of the Ohio Attorney General's Office, who had signed the "Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Counsel" on behalf of the Ohio Attorney General's Office, appeared at the pre-trial hearing on June 22, 2020, in order to explain and argue the motion. Rob Junk, the Pike County Prosecutor, informed the Court that the State of Ohio had no objection to the Court's granting the Ohio Attorney General's Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Counsel, and that he is satisfied that the State of Ohio is able to effectively prosecute the present action with the present prosecution team, which includes the Prosecuting Attorney, Special Prosecuting Attorney Angela Canepa, and Special Prosecuting Attorney David A. Wilson. Prosecuting Attorney Rob Junk indicated to the Court that the withdrawal of the Ohio Attorney General's Office would not delay the progress of the present action, and that all discoverable material would be provided to the Defendant. Mark C. Collins, attorney for the Defendant informed the Court that he had received a copy of the "Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Counsel" by email from Chief Counsel O'Brien and that the defense takes no position upon the withdrawal of the Ohio Attorney General's Office from the prosecuting of this action as long as the withdrawal of the Attorney General's Office does not inhibit the provision of discovery to the Defendant and does not cause undue delay in the progress of the present action. Chief Counsel O'Brien informed the Court that she and Special Prosecutor Canepa had been in contact with each other since Ms. Canepa's resignation from the Ohio Attorney General's Office; that any material of which the Attorney General's Office is in possession that relates to the present action will be turned over to the Prosecuting Attorney and his team of special prosecutors; and that the Bureau of Criminal Investigation and Identification will remain actively involved in the case. Based on the record made at the pre-trial hearing, the Court granted the Ohio Attorney General's "Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Counsel." The Court finds that a pre-trial hearing was previously scheduled in this action for April 15, 2020, but that, due to concerns about the COVID-19 emergency, the pre-trial hearing was continued to June 22, 2020, upon agreement of the parties. Special Prosecuting Attorney Canepa informed the Court at the pre-trial hearing that a meeting had been held between counsel for the State of Ohio and counsel for the Defendant on March 13, 2020, at the offices of the Ohio BCI&I in order to peruse the items of discovery and for counsel for the State of Ohio to provide some assistance to the Defendant's attorneys in organizing the items of discovery provided. Special Prosecutor Canepa further indicated to the Court that following the discovery meeting on March 13, 2020, defense counsel provided Special Prosecutor Canepa with a 10-terabyte external hard drive, and Special Counsel Canepa has caused all material contained on the State of Ohio's master hard drive to be loaded from the State of Ohio's master hard drive onto the 10-terabyte external hard drive furnished by defense counsel. As a last step in the process of furnishing discovery, Special Prosecutor Canepa next intends to make sure that all material contained on the copy of the shared hard drive furnished by the Ohio Attorney General's Office to the Prosecutor's Office on June 22, 2020, is also contained on the prosecutors' master hard drive. This step is to be completed by August 21, 2020. If any of the material on the shared hard drive is not contained on the master hard drive, then such additional material will be furnished to the Defendant's counsel on or before August 21, 2020. Therefore, on or before August 21, 2020, the State of Ohio will furnish all discoverable material to the Defendant and shall certify that discovery is complete. The Court further finds that defense counsel filed a "Bond Motion" on June 17, 2020, requesting that a reasonable bond be set, with appropriate restrictions in place. The Court further finds that on the 22nd day of June, 2020, the State of Ohio filed a "Motion Of The State of Ohio In A Capital Case And Pursuant To Statute To Hold The Defendant Without Bail," requesting that the Defendant remain in jail without bail, which was previously ordered on December 4, 2018. Upon agreement of the parties, hearing upon the Defendant's "Bond Motion" and upon the State of Ohio's motion to hold the defendant without bail, together with a status conference, were scheduled for Thursday, August 6, 2020, at 1:30 p.m.; however, prior to the journalization of this Entry, the motion hearing and the status conference were continued upon motion of the defendant. Counsel for the Defendant and counsel for the State of Ohio shall also provide the Court as soon as possible with information concerning the possibility of creating a searchable data base to facilitate using the discoverable material and presenting evidence at trial. The Court further finds that on June 22, 2020, the State of Ohio filed an "Omnibus Identification of Discovery Provided" in this action, and that on the third page of such document, under the heading "Notice of Intention To Use Evidence," the State of Ohio indicated that pursuant to Evidence Rule 404(B)(1)(a), the State served notice of its intention to use "other acts" for any of the purposes specifically allowable under Evidence Rule 404(B). Upon the agreement of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that the State of Ohio shall specify to counsel for the Defendant any and all "other acts" evidence that the State of Ohio intends to use at trial in this action pursuant to Rule 404(B) on or before September 8, 2020. Upon the court's inquiry, the Defendant indicated to the Court that he is satisfied with the frequency with which he is seeing his attorneys; that he is satisfied with the services being provided by his attorneys in representing him in this action; and that he has no complaints concerning the process or the proceedings. The Court inquired of the defense attorneys if they were satisfied with accessibility to their client. Counsel for the Defendant indicated that due to the COVID-19 emergency, defense counsel had been unable to see the Defendant as often as desired, but that video conferencing was now available again through the facilities at the United States Court House in Columbus. The Court inquired of the Defendant whether the Defendant had any questions or anything else that he wanted to say concerning the proceedings, and the Defendant indicated that he did not have any questions or anything else that he wanted to say. There being no further matters before the Court, said Court was adjourned. Copy of this Journal Entry mailed to the Defendant, to counsel for the Defendant, to the Prosecuting Attorney, and to the Special Prosecuting Attorneys, all by ordinary U.S. Mail.
link: https://www.pikecountycpcourt.org/e...GsM0TbuTJOwCAvpEzXejVsYfN9b2z4ldodCcccZYU7xKQ
and I see on the Hearings - they no longer have the "Evidentiary Hearing" for 9/8 - ?? or was it there earlier? I'll have to go back & see if I posted that or if someone else did? Anyone remember? Or was that date just mentioned in an article? I just scanned the docket & don't see that date mentioned anywhere....
08/19/2020JOURNAL ENTRY -- On this 22nd day of June, 2020, this cause came on for a pre-trial hearing. The Defendant was present in court and was represented his attorneys, Mark C. Collins and Thomas F. Hayes, each of whom has been appointed by the Court to represent the Defendant. Also, present were Attorneys Kaitlyn C. Stephens and Emily Enstett, each of whom are part of the defense team, but neither of whom are attorneys appointed by the Court to represent the Defendant in the present action. The Defendant appeared for the pre-trial hearing in civilian clothing and without restraints visible outside of his clothing. The State of Ohio was represented at the pre-trial hearing by the Prosecuting Attorney, Rob Junk, and by Special Prosecuting Attorneys Angela R. Canepa and David A. Wilson. Mr. Wilson was appointed as special prosecutor on this day of the pre-trial hearing. Also present for the pre-trial hearing was Special Agent Ryan Scheiderer, of the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation ("Ohio BCI&I"). The Court finds that on June 19, 2020, the office of the Ohio Attorney General filed a "Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Counsel" in this action. Carol Hamilton O'Brien, Chief Counsel and Deputy Attorney General for Law Enforcement, of the Ohio Attorney General's Office, who had signed the "Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Counsel" on behalf of the Ohio Attorney General's Office, appeared at the pre-trial hearing on June 22, 2020, in order to explain and argue the motion. Rob Junk, the Pike County Prosecutor, informed the Court that the State of Ohio had no objection to the Court's granting the Ohio Attorney General's Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Counsel, and that he is satisfied that the State of Ohio is able to effectively prosecute the present action with the present prosecution team, which includes the Prosecuting Attorney, Special Prosecuting Attorney Angela Canepa, and Special Prosecuting Attorney David A. Wilson. Prosecuting Attorney Rob Junk indicated to the Court that the withdrawal of the Ohio Attorney General's Office would not delay the progress of the present action, and that all discoverable material would be provided to the Defendant. Mark C. Collins, attorney for the Defendant informed the Court that he had received a copy of the "Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Counsel" by email from Chief Counsel O'Brien and that the defense takes no position upon the withdrawal of the Ohio Attorney General's Office from the prosecuting of this action as long as the withdrawal of the Attorney General's Office does not inhibit the provision of discovery to the Defendant and does not cause undue delay in the progress of the present action. Chief Counsel O'Brien informed the Court that she and Special Prosecutor Canepa had been in contact with each other since Ms. Canepa's resignation from the Ohio Attorney General's Office; that any material of which the Attorney General's Office is in possession that relates to the present action will be turned over to the Prosecuting Attorney and his team of special prosecutors; and that the Bureau of Criminal Investigation and Identification will remain actively involved in the case. Based on the record made at the pre-trial hearing, the Court granted the Ohio Attorney General's "Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Counsel." The Court finds that a pre-trial hearing was previously scheduled in this action for April 15, 2020, but that, due to concerns about the COVID-19 emergency, the pre-trial hearing was continued to June 22, 2020, upon agreement of the parties. Special Prosecuting Attorney Canepa informed the Court at the pre-trial hearing that a meeting had been held between counsel for the State of Ohio and counsel for the Defendant on March 13, 2020, at the offices of the Ohio BCI&I in order to peruse the items of discovery and for counsel for the State of Ohio to provide some assistance to the Defendant's attorneys in organizing the items of discovery provided. Special Prosecutor Canepa further indicated to the Court that following the discovery meeting on March 13, 2020, defense counsel provided Special Prosecutor Canepa with a 10-terabyte external hard drive, and Special Counsel Canepa has caused all material contained on the State of Ohio's master hard drive to be loaded from the State of Ohio's master hard drive onto the 10-terabyte external hard drive furnished by defense counsel. As a last step in the process of furnishing discovery, Special Prosecutor Canepa next intends to make sure that all material contained on the copy of the shared hard drive furnished by the Ohio Attorney General's Office to the Prosecutor's Office on June 22, 2020, is also contained on the prosecutors' master hard drive. This step is to be completed by August 21, 2020. If any of the material on the shared hard drive is not contained on the master hard drive, then such additional material will be furnished to the Defendant's counsel on or before August 21, 2020. Therefore, on or before August 21, 2020, the State of Ohio will furnish all discoverable material to the Defendant and shall certify that discovery is complete. The Court further finds that defense counsel filed a "Bond Motion" on June 17, 2020, requesting that a reasonable bond be set, with appropriate restrictions in place. The Court further finds that on the 22nd day of June, 2020, the State of Ohio filed a "Motion Of The State of Ohio In A Capital Case And Pursuant To Statute To Hold The Defendant Without Bail," requesting that the Defendant remain in jail without bail, which was previously ordered on December 4, 2018. Upon agreement of the parties, hearing upon the Defendant's "Bond Motion" and upon the State of Ohio's motion to hold the defendant without bail, together with a status conference, were scheduled for Thursday, August 6, 2020, at 1:30 p.m.; however, prior to the journalization of this Entry, the motion hearing and the status conference were continued upon motion of the defendant. Counsel for the Defendant and counsel for the State of Ohio shall also provide the Court as soon as possible with information concerning the possibility of creating a searchable data base to facilitate using the discoverable material and presenting evidence at trial. The Court further finds that on June 22, 2020, the State of Ohio filed an "Omnibus Identification of Discovery Provided" in this action, and that on the third page of such document, under the heading "Notice of Intention To Use Evidence," the State of Ohio indicated that pursuant to Evidence Rule 404(B)(1)(a), the State served notice of its intention to use "other acts" for any of the purposes specifically allowable under Evidence Rule 404(B). Upon the agreement of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that the State of Ohio shall specify to counsel for the Defendant any and all "other acts" evidence that the State of Ohio intends to use at trial in this action pursuant to Rule 404(B) on or before September 8, 2020. Upon the court's inquiry, the Defendant indicated to the Court that he is satisfied with the frequency with which he is seeing his attorneys; that he is satisfied with the services being provided by his attorneys in representing him in this action; and that he has no complaints concerning the process or the proceedings. The Court inquired of the defense attorneys if they were satisfied with accessibility to their client. Counsel for the Defendant indicated that due to the COVID-19 emergency, defense counsel had been unable to see the Defendant as often as desired, but that video conferencing was now available again through the facilities at the United States Court House in Columbus. The Court inquired of the Defendant whether the Defendant had any questions or anything else that he wanted to say concerning the proceedings, and the Defendant indicated that he did not have any questions or anything else that he wanted to say. There being no further matters before the Court, said Court was adjourned. Copy of this Journal Entry mailed to the Defendant, to counsel for the Defendant, to the Prosecuting Attorney, and to the Special Prosecuting Attorneys, all by ordinary U.S. Mail.
link: https://www.pikecountycpcourt.org/e...GsM0TbuTJOwCAvpEzXejVsYfN9b2z4ldodCcccZYU7xKQ
and I see on the Hearings - they no longer have the "Evidentiary Hearing" for 9/8 - ?? or was it there earlier? I'll have to go back & see if I posted that or if someone else did? Anyone remember? Or was that date just mentioned in an article? I just scanned the docket & don't see that date mentioned anywhere....
Niner
Long time Websleuther
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 86,920
- Reaction score
- 292,880
Okay - never mind - I DO see it in the post I just did....
Upon the agreement of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that the State of Ohio shall specify to counsel for the Defendant any and all "other acts" evidence that the State of Ohio intends to use at trial in this action pursuant to Rule 404(B) on or before September 8, 2020.
so - not an actual "hearing date".
Upon the agreement of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that the State of Ohio shall specify to counsel for the Defendant any and all "other acts" evidence that the State of Ohio intends to use at trial in this action pursuant to Rule 404(B) on or before September 8, 2020.
so - not an actual "hearing date".
The defense has had the ballistics evidence for a long time. It was listed in discovery docs early on. The defense revealed it in an early attempt to discredit it. I agree, the ludicrous motion to let Billy out on bond is a desperate move. It doesn't look good.
Right, just a deadline.
Defense do finding to pretend the state hasn't turned over all the evidence.
Cool Cats
I EXPECT DOUGHNUTS
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 12,414
- Reaction score
- 95,734
Hi 9'er, thanks for the information. I'm trying to make heads or tails out of all these dates ..
March 13, 2020 -
Prosecution and defense met at BCI because defense wanted the prosecution to help them organize the discovery. (Apparently the discovery is too much to handle on their own - my words.)
Following the discovery meeting on March 13, 2020 -
Defense gives prosecution a 10-terabyte external hard drive and the defense wants the prosecution to load all discovery material from the Attorney General's office and all material from the State's Master Hard Drive onto it.
June 17th 2020 -
Defense files a Bond Motion to get Billy out of jail, in that case he would then be the caretaker at FWF while awaiting trial.
June 22nd 2020 -
Billy's pretrial hearing.
In response to the defense Bond Motion the State of Ohio filed a "Motion Of The State of Ohio In A Capital Case And Pursuant To Statute To Hold The Defendant Without Bail," requesting that the Defendant remain in jail without bail.
State of Ohio filed an "Omnibus Identification of Discovery Provided"
the State served notice of its intention to use "other acts" for any of the purposes specifically allowable under Evidence Rule 404(B).
As soon as possible Counsel for the Defendant and Counsel for the State of Ohio shall provide the Court with information concerning the possibility of creating a searchable data base to facilitate using the discoverable material and presenting evidence at trial.
August 6, 2020, at 1:30 p.m -
A hearing was scheduled for Billy's Bond Motion and also for a Status Conference but for reasons unknown this was cancelled and both have been postponed/continued.
August 21st 2020 -
Prosecution is to have completed the download of all discovery material onto the defense's 10-terabyte external hard drive and the prosecution shall certify that discovery is complete.
September 8th 2020 -
In regards to the State's Omnibus filing the State of Ohio shall specify to counsel for the Defendant any and all "other acts" evidence that the State of Ohio intends to use at trial.
"Other acts" evidence is evidence that on some other occasion the defendant, or a witness, behaved in a way that demonstrates his character. (In Billy's case I assume his past bad behaviors.)
How to Admit Other Acts Evidence.
Last edited:
bowler
Well-Known Member
Since 1975 possession of up to 100 grams has been decriminalized, however. Several of the state's major cities have also enacted further reforms. Medical use was legalized in 2016 through a bill passed by the state legislature. The first legal sales of medical cannabis occurred in January 2019.
Don't guess sales would mean legal grow.
Is this
It's not relevant as it had nothing g to do with the murders. That's not to say the defense won't try it anyway. They're probably getting desperate now.
Last edited:
Berrybell
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2015
- Messages
- 521
- Reaction score
- 3,629
Deleted by me
Last edited:
Just posting some good links and information.
Please see Evidence Rule 404 (B).
Rule 404 - Character Evidence not Admissible to Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes, Ohio R. Evid. 404 | Casetext Search + Citator
––--------------------------------------------------------
IMO, this is how the prosecution intends to use the evidence against the Wagners, rather than against their character. (BBM)
"It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident."
------------------------------------------------------------
JMO, lastly, the following paragraph appears at the end of every Discovery document presented by the prosecution to the defendents, meaning the defense has already been put ON NOTICE of the State's intent.
(BBM)
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO USE EVIDENCE
The prosecution, in accordance with Rule 12, Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, hereby informs defendant of the general intention to use all discoverable evidence pertaining to this case as set forth by Rule 16, Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure. The prosecution will permit discovery of this evidence in accordance with Rule 16, Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure. Additionally, pursuant to Evidence Rule 404 (B)(1)(a), the State hereby serves notice of its intention to use other acts, herein disclosed, for any of the purposes specifically allowable under Evidence Rule 404(B).
Please see Evidence Rule 404 (B).
Rule 404 - Character Evidence not Admissible to Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes, Ohio R. Evid. 404 | Casetext Search + Citator
––--------------------------------------------------------
IMO, this is how the prosecution intends to use the evidence against the Wagners, rather than against their character. (BBM)
"It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident."
------------------------------------------------------------
JMO, lastly, the following paragraph appears at the end of every Discovery document presented by the prosecution to the defendents, meaning the defense has already been put ON NOTICE of the State's intent.
(BBM)
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO USE EVIDENCE
The prosecution, in accordance with Rule 12, Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, hereby informs defendant of the general intention to use all discoverable evidence pertaining to this case as set forth by Rule 16, Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure. The prosecution will permit discovery of this evidence in accordance with Rule 16, Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure. Additionally, pursuant to Evidence Rule 404 (B)(1)(a), the State hereby serves notice of its intention to use other acts, herein disclosed, for any of the purposes specifically allowable under Evidence Rule 404(B).
Cool Cats
I EXPECT DOUGHNUTS
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 12,414
- Reaction score
- 95,734
BBM
Here are some Motions that show the Defense will try to keep out "other acts" that the Wagner's committed.
Jake:
"..As one example of the motions argued Tuesday, defense attorney Gregory Meyers asked the court not to allow the prosecution to mention his client’s alleged previous behavior during his murder trial.."
DEFENDANT'S MOTION #23 MOTION TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE RELATING TO OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS OR ACTS
"..There is some evidence Mr. Wagner was violent with one of the victims prior to the murders,” said state Special Prosecutor Angela Canepa, seemingly indicating the prosecution wants to present that alleged incident as part of the case against Wagner.."
"..The prosecutors wrote that messages from Hanna Rhoden to other family members discussed violence she had endured from Jake Wagner.."
Billy:
"..The prosecutors also referred to an incident a few weeks before the murders that Local 12 had reported on previously in which family members claimed Billy Wagner and Christopher Rhoden had been in a physical fight.."
01/17/2019 (26) MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE
GW4:
MOTION NO. 15: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE RELATING TO OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS OR ACTS
Angela:
(33) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE RELATING TO OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS OR ACTS
AG withdraws from Rhoden case, new details about Wagner-Rhoden relationship revealed
Past suspect behaviors, grisly murder scene photos may play parts in Rhoden trials - Portsmouth Daily Times
https://www.pikecountycpcourt.org/e...MOo-LnDSVbHAEnGldPIH-UJ1ODl3duJ3N3*LuX6vqCa4A
Well, they will need a lot of luck to win that. It's extremely unlikely there are any murder cases where a man who killed his partner was successful in suppressing evidence of his previous instances of violence against her.
Meanwhile, they should stop violating Judge Deering's gag order by revealing details about evidence in the murders prior to jury selection and start of the trial.
Thanks, CC. I'm aware of those motions, and IIRC, the state answered "Contra" to every one. I doubt that will change. It's probably going to come down to what the Court will allow, which was the reason for my other post. It will be allowed if it's material to the motive, planning, etc. JMO
I agree, Betty. Defense attorneys have the State's Discovery. When are they going to hand over Reciprocal discovery? Or, am I understanding correctly? Wouldn't journal entries have to be made for those, too?
Cool Cats
I EXPECT DOUGHNUTS
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 12,414
- Reaction score
- 95,734
Yes! I'm surprised more is not under seal away from the public. Even if the Defense knows that maybe most of what they want to suppress will be allowed at trial it still needs to be filed and on record or maybe it would get mentioned on appeal if not filed? Opinion.
Legal Definition of in limine
relating to, or being a motion, petition, or order regarding the admissibility of evidence whose exclusion is sought especially on the ground that it is prejudicial
From Jake's Defense:
#20 MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE GRUESOME OR REDUNDANT PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE DECEASED
#22 MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT VICTIM-IMPACT EVIDENCE DURING THE TRIAL AND, IF NECESSARY, THE MITIGATION PHASE
#23 MOTION TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE RELATING TO OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS OR ACTS
#31 MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT THE STATE FROM COMMENTING ON DEFENDANT'S UNSWORN STATEMENT
#42 DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING LIMITED ADMISSIBILITY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORDS
Don't see this one for Jake but it was filed for Angie:
(32) DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING THE INADMISSIBILITY OF PRIOR TESTIMONY FROM A WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION
Legal Dictionary - Law.com
Last edited:
- Status