I don't believe this has been posted yet - or I might have missed it.
GW4 update on court docket:
04/13/2022 JOURNAL ENTRY -- This cause came on for a hearing on April 5, 2022, upon pre-trial motions filed by the Defendant. Scheduled for hearing this day were Defendant's Motions No. 76, 78, 79, 83 and 84.
The Defendant was present in court and was represented at the hearing by his attorneys, John Patrick Parker and Richard M. Nash, Jr. The State of Ohio was presented at the hearing by the Prosecuting Attorney, Robert Junk, and by Special Prosecuting Attorneys Angela Canepa and David A. Wilson.
The Court further finds that the Defendant appeared for the hearing this day in civilian clothing and without restraints visible outside his clothing.
At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the State of Ohio and counsel for the Defendant each acknowledged an agreement between the parties that
Defendant's Motions No. 78, 79, 83 and 84 would be continued for hearing on May 2, 2022, and that this action would come on for hearing this day only upon the issue of the admissibility of shoeprint evidence and opinions, pursuant to Defendant's Motion No. 76. The Court finds that by Journal Entry filed on March 7, 2022, the Court had granted Defendant's Motion No. 76 to the extent that Motion No. 76 requested that the Court conduct a pretrial evidentiary hearing (a Daubert hearing) concerning the proposed testimony of William J. Bodziak regarding shoeprint evidence and opinions.
William J. Bodziak was the sole witness whose testimony was offered at the hearing, called on behalf of the State of Ohio, with the Defendant, through his attorneys, conducting cross-examination. Counsel for each party also made oral arguments.
Having been fully informed in the premises, the Court found that Defendant's Motion No. 76 is not well taken to the extent that such motion requests that the Court not allow William J. Bodziak to be tendered an expert witness at trial concerning his findings and opinions regarding footwear impression evidence, and the Court
denied Defendant's Motion No. 76 to the extent that such motion requests that the Court not allow such testimony. Counsel for the State of Ohio was directed to prepare, circulate and submit a separate Journal Entry consistent with the Court's decision.
The Court then inquired of the Defendant whether he is satisfied with the frequency with which he is seeing his attorneys, and the Defendant indicated that he is satisfied. The Court further inquired of the Defendant whether he is satisfied with the services being provided by his attorneys in representing him in this action, and the Defendant indicated that he is satisfied. Upon further inquiry by the Court, the Defendant indicated that he has no complaints concerning the process or the proceedings.
Upon the court's inquiry, counsel for the Defendant indicated to the Court that defense counsel is satisfied with the access they have been provided to the Defendant, and that they have no complaints concerning the process or proceedings.
There being no further matters before the Court, the hearing was adjourned.
The Clerk of Courts is directed to send a copy of this Journal Entry to the Defendant, to counsel for the Defendant, to the Prosecuting Attorney, and to each of the Special Prosecuting Attorneys, all by ordinary U.S. Mail
link:
https://www.pikecountycpcourt.org/e...0d-38iTGGuLOog1Iv538duoJpix4FyNrNzuTv2FaT48Nw