Latest docket update!
09/08/2022 STATE'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS, CINCINNATI ENQUIRER, SINCLAIR BROADCASTING, WLW-TV, WCPO TV, WXIX TV, COURT TV, AND CRIME TV AND THE SCIOTO VALLEY GUARDIAN MOTION FOR AN ORDER ALLOWING PETITIONERS TO RECORD WITNESSES.
09/08/2022 DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER'S MOTION FILED
09/08/2022 SUPPLEMENTAL ENTRY UPON DEFENDANTS MOTION NO. 98 FILED
09/08/2022 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR MEDIA ACCESS FILED W/AFFIDAVIT OF GRACE WONG (FAX)
09/08/2022 DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY FILED (FAX)
09/09/2022 RETURN FROM FOREIGN SHERIFF (ROSS)-SUBPOENA SERVED BY WORK SERVICE ON JUSTIN WARING ON 9-6-2022
09/09/2022 JOURNAL ENTRY--The Court is informed that on September 2, 2022, at approximately 3:50 p.m. a motion entitled "MOTION FOR MEDIA ACCESS" was 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.
By Journal Entry filed on September 6, 2022, the Court issued a Journal Entry ordering that the State of Ohio and the Defendant serve and file a response to the movants' "MOTION FOR MEDIA ACCESS" on or before Thursday, September 8, 2022. The Court finds that on September 8, 2022, both the State of Ohio and the Defendant, through counsel, filed their responses to the movants' MOTION FOR MEDIA ACCESS. The Court further finds that, although not ordered to do so, the movants also filed a "SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR MEDIA ACCESS" on September 8, 2022.
The Court further finds that both the State of Ohio and the Defendant request that the movants' motion be denied.
Concerning the first and second parts of the movants' argument - that the Court should permit the audio recording of witnesses who "opt out" of being video recorded or photographed and, specifically, that the Court should permit the testimony of Jake and Angela Wager to be recorded and broadcast [presumably even if they object], due to "their involvement in the criminal activities," the Court finds that the language of Sup.R. 12(C) is clear that the Court may not permit the filming, videoing, recording, or taking of photographs of any victim or witness who objects. If one feels that the language of the rule, standing alone, is unclear, the commentary to the rule clarifies it in providing as follows: "The filming, videotaping, recording, or taking of photographs of victims or witnesses who object shall not be permitted." In further clarification, the Ohio Supreme Court has stated that "
t seems clear that a defendant is a "witness" when he is testifying," thus indicating that the rule prohibiting filming, videotaping, recording, or taking of photographs of witnesses who object applies also to any defendants who testify, but only at the time of giving such testimony.
Therefore, the request of the movants to record the testimony of Edward Jacob ("Jake") Wagner and Angela Jo Wagner shall be subject to the right of each such prospective witness's to object to being filmed, videotaped, recorded or photographed. To the extent that the movants are questing that the Court order that one or more of the movants be permitted to film, videotape, record or photograph the testimony of any victim or witness, including Edward Jacob ("Jake") Wagner and Angela Jo Wagner, even if objected to by the witness, the movants' request is not well taken.
Subject to the limitations set forth in Sup.R. 12, including Sup.R. 12(C), however, the Court has, and intends to continue to permit the broadcasting or recording by electronic means and the taking of photographs in the trial proceedings in this action.
Concerning part three of the movants' motion - the request to mount a second camera above and behind the witness stand - the Court finds that the positioning of the video camera already approved by the Court provides a view of those seated at each of the counsel tables, the podium, the witness chair, the judge's bench, and courtroom monitors. It seems to the Court that such coverage should be sufficient to satisfy public access to the trial. From the standpoint of the Court, it is also important that the location of the camera not be a distraction to the members of the jury. The Court finds that the location already approved by the Court will lessen any risk of distracting the attention of the jurors as well as rendering inadvertent videoing of the members of the jury virtually impossible. The Court concludes that by its orders the Court has protected all rights involved under the First and Sixth Amendments to the constitution.
As noted in the response of the Defendant, and as both parties and their respective counsel are aware, the Court has approved media access to all pre-trial hearings and has made additional provisions for media access to the trial, itself. In addition to the positioning of a video camera and two microphones in the courtroom, the Court has reserved space in the courtroom for media personnel. This is not a case in which the court has imposed a "gag order" like the one condemned in State ex rel. Toledo Blade Company v. Henry County Court of Common Pleas, et al, 125 Ohio St.3d 149 (2010), 2010-Ohio-1533, 926 N.E.2d 634; nor is this a case in which the proceedings have been closed to the media.
The Court concludes that the requests contained in the movants' MOTION FOR MEDIA ACCESS are not well taken. It is therefore ORDERED that the movants' motion be, and hereby is, overruled and denied. It is the Court's intention to continue to provide access to the media, with the expanded access to the trial as previously approved.
link: https://cpcourt.pikecounty.oh.gov/e...VoU0-mBismGiUp0Qp*4cqgp8uAEqcwKWSGeo6q-bjZBHw
does not say "what" time the trial starts - I shall leave it at 9am I have in my notes - unless I hear anything different.
ohiocourtofclaims.gov
