OH - Pike Co - 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue - 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #77

[sunshineray]

I guess I’m confused. Does the jury have them now as recordings are being played? I haven’t heard or seen them handed out.

No, they don't have them in courtroom

 

[SuziQ]

This one is hard to hear. My God it shows just how evil these acts were.

Sophia showing her daddy around her new house and her new room. This would have been a month or less before the murders right? Dana and her kids moved in to this house in March.

Yep. Knowing that the murders were already being planned, Jake was getting a floorplan to carry out the murders. Imo.

 

[sunshineray]

But you were literally comparing these recordings to what you have experienced with movies a TV shows. Imo.

I remember the wiretaps from the Gotti-era mob trials were cleaned up and voices enhanced and entered into evidence with the jury able to follow along with transcripts in hand.

 

[justtrish]

I wonder if these BCI agents just camp out at the court house in case they are called or if they only come on certain days. I mean the ones we see repeatedly coming to the stand. So the defense says let's take a break first. So she has to stay at the court house and wait around another hour and a half to get cross examined? Why not just get it done before lunch? Is this part of their strategy to delay and make this painful for the jury and those testifying?

 

[joe jones]

If the transcripts of these video/audios are entered into evidence won't the jury be allowed to read them in deliberations? If so, what's the big legal objection to having the witness who transcribed them read it in court? That makes no sense to me. To what detriment would that be to the defense?

stuff can be entered into evidence to ensure it's on the record, such as defense putting the full recording of phone calls on record, that does not mean it gets to go back into jury room with jury when they deliberate,

it means once on record either side can argue for its inclusion, and I think the state intends to argue that the transcripts should go with jury, for now |Judge has ruled that the recording is the evidence, and the jury will have to rely on what they hear

 

[justtrish]

stuff can be entered into evidence to ensure it's on the record, such as defense putting the full recording of phone calls on record, that does not mean it gets to go back into jury room with jury when they deliberate,

it means once on record either side can argue for its inclusion, and I think the state intends to argue that the transcripts should go with jury, for now |Judge has ruled that the recording is the evidence, and the jury will have to rely on what they hear

Are they then allowed to have those recordings in the jury room to play again later?

 

[joe jones]

I hope these realize the defense has nothing is why he is questioning the color of the gun! OMG! How ridiculas.

how do we know it's not two different guns, the defense wants the jury to look carefully at those two photos, all 12 jurors may agree it is same gun, but maybe not, maybe one or more jurors see some differences, this may mean they look a little closer at other evidence from the state

 

[joe jones]

Are they then allowed to have those recordings in the jury room to play again later?

depends on Judge, some Judges require jury to come back into court if they ask to listen to evidence again, some Judges send the evidence back with them

 

[SuziQ]

Here is why transcripts are not being read/shown in court:

Witness has transcripts of all the audio.
Transcripts were created by prosecution witness.
Defense objects to them being read in court because they may not be accurate.
Judge has ruled in favor of defense.

Unless I missed something, the jury does have them. IMO. Of course someone can correct me if I am wrong.

 

[sunshineray]

Here is why transcripts are not being read/shown in court:

Witness has transcripts of all the audio.
Transcripts were created by prosecution witness.
Defense objects to them being read in court because they may not be accurate.
Judge has ruled in favor of defense.

BUT they are allowed to be entered into evidence so they have to be available to the jury during deliberations, thank goodness. They're the only ones that really need to hear them. Hopefully headphones will be provided?

 

[Pru2U]

stuff can be entered into evidence to ensure it's on the record, such as defense putting the full recording of phone calls on record, that does not mean it gets to go back into jury room with jury when they deliberate,

it means once on record either side can argue for its inclusion, and I think the state intends to argue that the transcripts should go with jury, for now |Judge has ruled that the recording is the evidence, and the jury will have to rely on what they hear

That’s what I thought, thank you so much for confirming because I was getting confused & debating on putting myself through the torture of listening to those arguments again.

 

[joe jones]

I remember the wiretaps from the Gotti-era mob trials were cleaned up and voices enhanced and entered into evidence with the jury able to follow along with transcripts in hand.

I think it is because there is so much room for error in transcribing recordings that are so poor, our brains have learned patterns of speech, so we expect certain words to follow on from each other,

some Judges do allow transcripts, but that is usually when both sides have agreed that the transcripts accurately match what is being spoken, here the defense is not in agreement as to the accuracy of the transcripts

 

[Pru2U]

Unless I missed something, the jury does have them. IMO. Of course someone can correct me if I am wrong.

Pretty sure they do not. In every other trial I have seen, there is a directive by the judge to hand them out, a directive to the jury, then a pause & rustling sounds as transcripts are being handed out. I have not seen or heard any of this.

I specifically heard him say the jury would have to rely on the recordings.

 

[Pru2U]

BUT they are allowed to be entered into evidence so they have to be available to the jury during deliberations, thank goodness. They're the only ones that really need to hear them. Hopefully headphones will be provided?

I don’t think they will get them. That was the reason for my first post about this topic. If I were a juror, I would ask for then (knowing I would probably be told no, but I would ask anyway)

 

[sunshineray]

I think it is because there is so much room for error in transcribing recordings that are so poor, our brains have learned patterns of speech, so we expect certain words to follow on from each other,

some Judges do allow transcripts, but that is usually when both sides have agreed that the transcripts accurately match what is being spoken, here the defense is not in agreement as to the accuracy of the transcripts

Can the judge order the defense to go over the transcripts, wouldn't that be fair? Or order an impartial/objective entity to transcript them?

It just seems ridiculous with all the advances made in technology that our courtroom evidence system (unless it's federal courts) is still in the stone age and justice may suffer for it. If they can take an old recording of Appalachian music, recorded on archaic recorders and bring it to life so you can hear every word being sung (sometimes just a capella), then why can't they use that tech for the courts? It makes no sense to me at all.

 

[sunshineray]

Pretty sure they do not. In every other trial I have seen, there is a directive by the judge to hand them out, a directive to the jury, then a pause & rustling sounds as transcripts are being handed out. I have not seen or heard any of this.

I specifically heard him say the jury would have to rely on the recordings.

It seems so ridiculous, not using the transcripts. Why doesn't the judge just hear the arguments for and against now and make a decision?

 

[ohioexpat63]

How much does the defense team get paid by the hour, from Ohio taxpayers?

 

[Chelly]

Transcripts will only be available to jury if judge allows them to be entered into evidence. They have not been entered into evidence. Maybe that will change.

 

[Chelly]

BUT they are allowed to be entered into evidence so they have to be available to the jury during deliberations, thank goodness. They're the only ones that really need to hear them. Hopefully headphones will be provided?

Only the audio tapes are in evidence.
Judge has not allowed transcripts of audio tapes to be entered into evidence. Judge has ruled for the defense.
Transcripts prepared by prosecution witness are open to her interpretation, thus the ruling.

 

[SuziQ]

Pretty sure they do not. In every other trial I have seen, there is a directive by the judge to hand them out, a directive to the jury, then a pause & rustling sounds as transcripts are being handed out. I have not seen or heard any of this.

I specifically heard him say the jury would have to rely on the recordings.

Dang. I feel bad for the jury. Thank you for correcting me.