@IType - THANK YOU!! For mentioning that there is a page 2 of the docket! No wonder I couldn't find any new motions on there.
Here's what is on page 2 - just in case this has not been posted yet.
for GW4:
Docket Information
Date Docket Text
08/31/2022 COURT ORDER FOR JURY VIEW -- 845 BETHEL HILL RD, CAMP CREEK TWP, PIKE COUNTY
08/31/2022 COURT ORDER FOR JURY VIEW -- 52 HAVENER LANE, VILLAGE OF SOUTH WEBSTER, SCIOTO COUNTY
08/31/2022 MOTION NO. 109 DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FILED
Attorney: PARKER, JOHN PATRICK
Attorney: NASH, JR, RICHARD M
09/01/2022 JOURNAL ENTRY -- This cause came on to be heard upon the Defendant's Motion No. 96, entitled "MOTION IN LIMINE ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS IN VIOLATION OF THE HEARSAY RULE" filed on June 21, 2022. The record shows that on August 25, 2022, the Defendant filed a "SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION NO. 96, MOTION IN LIMINE ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS IN VIOLATION OF THE HEARSAY RULE," and that on August 30, 2022, the State of Ohio filed a "MEMORANDUM CONTRA MOTION IN LIMINE ON THE ADMISSION OF STATEMENTS."
Initially, with regard to the part of Defendant's Motion No. 96 designated as "B. The fight," Court finds that the State of Ohio, through its counsel, has represented to the Court and to counsel for the Defendant that the State of Ohio will not attempt to introduce evidence at trial concerning an alleged physical fight between Billy Wagner and Chris Rhoden, Sr. alleged to have occurred prior to the homicides that are subjects of this action. Based upon such representations of counsel for the State of Ohio, the Court orders that the State of Ohio shall not attempt to introduce evidence of such alleged physical fight between Billy Wagner and Chris Rhoden, Sr. alleged to have occurred prior to the homicides that are subjects of this action and that the State of Ohio shall not make any reference at trial to such alleged physical fight Billy Wager and Chris Rhoden, Sr. alleged to have occurred prior to the homicides that are subjects of this action.
Having considered all of the Defendant's arguments in support of that part of Defendant's Motion No. 96 designated as "A. Test messages allegedly made by Hannah Rhoden" and having considered all arguments of the State of Ohio in opposition to such part of the Defendant's Motion No. 96, the Court finds that the part of the Defendant's Motion No. 96 designated as "A. Test messages allegedly made by Hannah Rhoden" is not well taken, and it is ordered that Defendant's Motion No. 96 is hereby overruled and denied as such motion concerns test messages allegedly made by Hannah Rhoden.
The Court finds that it has not been shown that the State of Ohio intends to offer such text messages to prove the truth of any matter asserted therein.
With respect to the specific test message that is quoted in the memorandum to the Defendant's Motion No. 96 to state "I won't sign papers ever it won't happen they will have to kill me first.," the Court finds, based upon the State of Ohio's expressed reason for introducing the statement, that the statement does not constitute hearsay as defined in Evid.R. 801(C). See State v. Osie, 140 Ohio St.3d 131, 2014-Ohio-2966.
Further, if the statement "I won't sign papers ever it won's happen they will have to kill me first." did constitute hearsay, the Court finds that the statement fits within the exception to the hearsay rule set forth in Evid. R. 803(3) as a "then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health) . . . ."
The Court is not convinced that the above-quoted alleged text message language fits the hearsay exception set forth in Evid. R. 804(B)(6) entitled "Forfeiture by Wrongdoing." It appears to the Court that in order for the alleged statement to fit within the exception set forth in Evid. R. 804(B)(6), it would be necessary to show that the wrongdoing of the party seeking to have the statement excluded must have been for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying in the proceeding at which the statement is being offered. However, based upon the Court's determination that the text message is not hearsay and that, even if it were hearsay, the text message would fit the exception to the hearsay rule stated in Evid. R. 803(3), the Court finds that it is unnecessary for admissibility that the statement fit the exception set forth in Evid. R. 804(B)(6).
The Court further finds that it has not been shown that the probative value of admitting the statement "I won't sign papers ever it won't happen they will have to kill me first." is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, as argued by the Defendant.
Finally, the Court finds that it has not been shown that admitting the statement objected to by the Defendant would violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
09/02/2022 JOURNAL ENTRY - SUPPLEMENTARY COURTROOM DECORUM ORDER -- For the protection of the rights of the parties to a fair trial and for the decorum of the within proceedings, upon the Court's own motion it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Persons in the courtroom, other than participants in the trial, must remain quiet during all proceedings. There shall be no talking, shaking of heads in approval or disapproval of any statements, actions, rulings, testimony, or proceedings, or any other signals of approval or disapproval of the proceedings. Such displays may threaten to influence the jurors and imperil the rights of the parties.
2. No signs, banners, buttons, clothing with messages, or other distracting, disruptive, or potentially improper or prejudicial material shall be allowed in the courtroom, the courthouse, the parking lot or grounds of the courthouse.
3. The atmosphere of the courtroom shall be free from emotional outbursts or expressions.
4. Counsel and parties shall not make any public statements regarding this action unless the same are made on the record in open court.
This Order shall supplement all previous orders concerning courtroom decorum.
09/02/2022 DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY FILED
Attorney: PARKER, JOHN PATRICK
Attorney: NASH, JR, RICHARD M
09/02/2022 MOTION FOR MEDIA ACCESS FILED
Attorney: GREINER, JOHN C
09/02/2022 DEFENDANT'S AMENDED NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY FILED
Attorney: PARKER, JOHN PATRICK
Attorney: NASH, JR, RICHARD M
09/02/2022 SUBPOENA ISSUED TO OFFICER MORGAN MUSIC, CPD; DEP CHANDLER, PCSO; MIKE MOSLEY; JUSTIN WARING; MIRANDA CABLE; ALAN LEWIS
09/05/2022 JOURNAL ENTRY ORDERING CONTINUANCE -- DUE TO THE ILLNESS OF A PERSON INVOLVED WITH THE TRIAL, AND UPON THE AGREEMENT OF COUNSEL FOR EACH PARTY, AND FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE JURY TRIAL IN THIS ACTION IS HEREBY CONTINUED FROM TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2022 AT 9:00AM UNTIL MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2022, AT 9:00AM
09/06/2022 JOURNAL ENTRY -- The Court is informed that on September 2, 2022, at approximately 3:50 p.m. the Clerk of Courts received, via facsimile transmission, a motion entitled "MOTION FOR MEDIA ACCESS" filed on behalf of The Cincinnati Enquirer, Sinclair Broadcasting, WLW-TV, WCPO, WXIX, The Scioto Valley Guardian, Court TV, and Law and Crime TV ("movants"), asking the Court "for an order permitting the recording of the testimony of Jake and Angela Wagner, for an order permitting the audio recording of any witness who opts out of being video recorded and for the placement of a second camera to record the lawyers interrogating witnesses." The movants further filed a "MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT" of their motion.
As counsel is aware, the Court has permitted media access in this case, approving the location of a video camera and microphone in the courtroom atop a book case, approximately 8 feet from the floor, beside the courtroom speaker, where view can be had of the Defendant, defense counsel, the prosecuting attorney, both special prosecuting attorneys, the witness chair, the bench, the judge, the court reporter, and courtroom monitors. The camera is so positioned that it is behind the jurors and the alternate jurors and there is virtually no chance that the jurors will be unintentionally videoed or that the camera will present a distraction to the jurors. The Court has also permitted the positioning of a second microphone for the media near the witness chair. Further, a number of seats are reserved in the courtroom for members of the media.
It is hereby ordered that the State of Ohio and the Defendant shall each serve and file a response to the movants' "MOTION FOR MEDIA ACCESS" on or before Thursday, September 8, 2022, at 4:00 o'clock p.m., stating the position of each such party concerning the requests of the movants' "MOTION FOR MEDIA ACCESS" and including an argument in support of each such party's position. Timely filing of the parties' responses with the Clerk of Courts by facsimile transmission (740-947-1729) or by email shall be permitted.
Non-oral hearing is scheduled on the "MOTION FOR MEDIA ACCESS" for Friday,
September 9, 2022, at 8:30 o'clock a.m.
COPIES FILED, MAILED TO COUNSEL AND DEFENDANT, ALSO EMAILED TO COUNSEL
link:
https://cpcourt.pikecounty.oh.gov/e...1RvKXYZ33NNKfh7QP6Ap5soM2JUH52tf4G4htp95tcMag
oh so true!
