- WAGNER, IV, GEORGE WASHINGTON
11/03/2020
This cause came on for a hearing on August 31, 2020, upon the following pre-trial motions:
Defendant's
Motion No. 58 - "Defendant's Motion For Bond Hearing"
"Motion of The State of Ohio In A Capital Case And Pursuant to Statute To Hold The Defendant Without Bail"
Defendant's
Motion No. 59 - "Defendant's Motion For An Order Requiring The Prosecution To Provide A Transcript Of Audio Recordings It Intends To Introduce At Trial."
Defendant's
Motion No. 60 - "Defendant's Motion for an Order Compelling the State of Ohio to Provide the Defendant with all Forensic Evidence and or Reports."
The Court finds that with respect to Defendant's
Motion No. 59, the parties agreed that on or before December 31, 2020, the State of Ohio will provide the Defendant with summaries of all recorded telephone calls and other recorded conversations that the State of Ohio intends to use in the trial of this action, as well as transcripts of those positions of any recorded telephone calls and other recorded conversations that the State of Ohio intends to use at the trial of this action.
The Court further finds that with respect to Defendant's
Motion No. 60, the parties have agreed that within thirty (30) days after August 31, 2020, the State of Ohio will provide the Defendant with copies of all lab reports for all forensic tests that the State of Ohio intends to use at the trial of this action, together with bench notes for all such reports.
Thereupon, oral hearing was held upon the Defendant's
Motion No. 58, entitled "Defendant's Motion For Bond Hearing," and upon the "Motion of The State of Ohio In A Capital Case And Pursuant to Statute To Hold The Defendant Without Bail."
The hearing consisted of a stipulation between the State of Ohio and the Defendant that the indictment in the present action charges the Defendant with capital crimes and does contain death penalty specifications.
The hearing also consisted of the sworn, oral testimony of Ryan Scheiderer, Special Agent with the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, exhibits admitted into evidence, and the arguments of counsel.
Having been fully informed in the premises, the Court finds that the filing of an indictment charging the Defendant with a capital offense creates a rebuttable presumption that, unless rebutted, is sufficient to justify holding the Defendant without bail.
The Court finds from the evidence presented at the oral hearing that the Defendant did not rebut the presumption, and that, therefore, the Defendant's motion requesting that the Defendant be released on bail is not well taken and is denied, and that the State of Ohio's motion requesting that the Defendant be held without bail is well taken and is granted.
Bail Denied
https://www.pikecountycpcourt.org/e...IWFVb7yFWRQ0CRMS-Pxb667LH4XcDeSlwp1B7QoMuHLOg