OH - Pike Co - 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue - 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #80

[sunshineray]

Judge just set precedent for Angela to opt out.

Unless he hears different/more from the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court

 

[sunshineray]

Media last ditch...can we have audio...judge nope...again JW is the concern, his having to change midstream in the midst of his testimony, all about JW's rights, feelings and safety

 

[GoBuckeyes]

Because this legal team always has a way of getting what they want. They have everyone here thinking GW4 is a saint. A victim of the two Wagner's who have already confessed. Billy will be next on the "he really isn't that bad" list.

That's not my opinion in the slightest. They each deserve at least LWOP. MOO

 

[ohioexpat63]

I couldnt care less about JWs safety in prison. I mean this entire hearing was forced on the judge, unfortunately.

 

[sunshineray]

End result now is the camera guy being told he has to be more careful than they been...AC brought it up and judge agreeing and adding

 

[sunshineray]

Unbelievable that is how hearing ends, admonishing the camera people...and we are black screen...I'm tapping out

 

[joe jones]

and every witness who says I am scared what may happen to me afterwards, no matter how innocuous the testimony they will give - it is a broad ruling, the media will challenge it,

it may also be a factor post this trial; we shall see what if any ramifications it has on media being allowed into courts in Ohio, and whether the opting out issue will be removed for everyone

only opt out I have ever seen are rape shield victims, minors and undercover LE,

the Judge set a precedent when the Sheriff opted out,

 

[sunshineray]

Apologies to Betty P for the mix-up there, it was not done intentionally.

 

[altojack]

A "locked trial" does not impair emergency access/exit. You are correct that it means Judge Deering does not want folks traipsing in and out for a variety of reasons but mostly for security purposes.

The locked doors are also attended by court bailiffs who unlock the doors when the court is in recess and folks can enter/exit the courtroom freely but once the court is seated the doors are locked and you may not enter or exit the courtroom. I recently attended a locked trial where one of the defense attorneys sat outside the courtroom door with the rest of us until the next recess because he arrived late!

The locked courtroom doors are monitored by court bailiffs so be assured that under a courtroom emergency, the doors would not be locked and occupants would not be trapped inside the courtroom.

ETA: I mostly attend US District Court (Federal trials) where cameras have always been prohibited, and in my home state, media cameras are only allowed for advisements and arraignments, subject to court approval. Ohio is very far advanced here allowing media coverage.

I've got it now and understand. I've followed a few cases from here On WS only to find cameras prohibited. Disappointing but that's the way they role in that particular state.
Thank you for your very clear response Seattle.

 

[Pru2U]

Unless he hears different/more from the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court

You’re right. Judge does have 7 days to respond in writing (to get better clarification on how to conduct the hearings & when). I don’t know that Angie has 7 days before she testifies though.

Her attorney will use same argument (minus the part about switching mid stream) so I don’t believe he will make her testify on camera or audio. JMO

 

[GoBuckeyes]

This was the Order…. [per tweet from reporter @

https://twitter.com/x/status/1584941271713710080

]

I think the “Effective immediately the trial court may not restrict
public access to the proceedings, including media access and the ability to photograph or record witnesses, unless a hearing is held on the issue and the court "finds that (1) there exists a reasonable and substantial basis for believing that public access could harm or endanger the fairness of the adjudication, (2) the potential for harm outweighs the benefits of public access, and (3) there are no reasonable alternatives to closure." State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Geauga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Juv. Div., 90 Ohio St.3d 79, 85, 734 N.E.2d 1214, 1220 (2000).” portion is/was causing some confusion, esp as the Judge they’d continue today with the opt-out and hearing tomorrow morning. I don’t know if this means he’s going as far as defying the Order, because he has scheduled that Hearing for tomorrow but still questions abounds.

After reading the Order and forming my own opinion, it seems clear that that the judge is defying the order. MOO

 

[Betty P]

Betty just brought it up, it hasn't been mentioned in court

Are they not still holding the hearing to decide if JW goes live on TV?

Yes. Jake was scheduled to testify again today. Because of the ruling, they couldn't allow him to testify because he wanted to opt out. Instead they called a witness who didn't opt out.

Been away a while. Looks like the judge ruled to let Jake opt out, due to safety concerns in prison. Court adjourned for the day.

 

[ohioexpat63]

I think the judge made the right call as it pertains to JW. If this hearing was prior to JWs direct then he may have ruled differently. As i said, i dont care what happens to JW for being a snitch. He made that bed. I do care if showing JWs testimony now could result in a mistrial.

 

[Betty P]

After reading the Order and forming my own opinion, it seems clear that that the judge is defying the order. MOO

IDK, he scheduled the hearing for tomorrow, so he hasn't violated it. Having a hearing for each opt out witness is what the Appeals Court ordered.

Granted its a confused mess. But at least the Scioto paper guy gets to run photos of opt out witnesses or something.

 

[joe jones]

The people this affects the most are the victims' relatives, not all of them will be able to attend court, we have heard that the Rhoden, Manley and Gilley families are large, I am sure they have waited years to hear the person who murdered their family testify,

and they are only getting a small amount of what JW testifies to through the media, why were their opinions not sought as to JW being allowed to opt out, the state is prosecuting GW on behalf of the people of Ohio, those people include the victims' families,

I have never seen prosecutors arguing for the rights of the guilty, the person who has admitted to killing 5 victims if you are the state, 8 if you are defense, the state should have been arguing on the side of the victims to be able to see justice being done, not arguing for JW to be protected,

as I posted earlier though they want to keep JW testimony from being recorded so BW attorneys don't see it, unless they come to court to watch him testify

 

[Chelly]

Angenette Levy

@Angenette5
·
5m

UPDATE: Prosecution, Jake Wagner's lawyers and GW4's lawyers all opposed allowing Jake Wagner to testify on camera or using audio. State and JW's lawyers said it creates a security risk for JW. "Snitches get Stiches", essentially. https://youtube.com/watch?v=csVvW3D0l7o…

 

[sunshineray]

Yes. Jake was scheduled to testify again today. Because of the ruling, they couldn't allow him to testify because he wanted to opt out. Instead they called a witness who didn't opt out.

Been away a while. Looks like the judge ruled to let Jake opt out, due to safety concerns in prison. Court adjourned for the day.

That witness was just some corrections officer in the courtroom that was waiting for the defendant and witness to come in. He was called to testify for the hearing not the trial. He was to testify about the peril JW would be in IF made to testify on camera or audio

 

[arielilane]

I noticed Courtney is tweeting, James and Todd to name a few are not tweeting at this time.

https://twitter.com/CFranciscoWCPO

#PikeCoMurderTrial will begin in an hour or so. Right now, a judge is hearing media arguments about the right to show Jake Wagner's testimony. Will update you soon.

Press attorney said one thing that is an issue is the media access to the room. If someone opts out of being recorded, it is hard for media to get inside the room because the court locks room 15 minutes before. So, that affects our ability to get inside to write the courtroom.

Judge points out that has not be strictly enforced. Judge said he just wanted to keep distractions to a minimum.

Judge said he has allowed people to leave the room whenever but reentry is restricted.

Judge: the difficulty of not having any rules at all, is if we allow one to do it, we have to allow all to do it, and then we have too much activity.

Judge doesn't have a problem allowing the press to come inside the courtroom a little later if needed.

Side note: Jake Wagner just arrived to the courthouse. Jury is supposed to be here by 10:00.

Press attorney telling judge there's great interest in this trial, and there's great interest in certain witness testimony. The press wouldn't object to every witness who opts out of being recorded. It would object to witnesses like a co-defendant like Jake and Angela Wagner.

Judge said he feels like he needs to follow the court of appeals decision which says if the media objects to any opt outs, the court should hold a hearing on it.

Defense: It would be an unnecessary burden on a witness to have to explain why they object to being recording. The reasons why could be irrelevant.

Judge: I have to assume the court of appeals feels there's a hearing requirement in there somewhere, and that's their interpretation of it, and that trumps my interpretation.

Jake Wagner's council now telling judge they have had no contact with Jake since Monday when he began testifying. However, we have no reason to think he's changed his mind about objecting to being recorded.

Jake's council said before a hearing on his opt out, they'd like to talk to him first to make sure he still does not want to be recorded. He said Jake likely feels his safety in prison could be jeopardized since he's testifying against family.

In the media room, we are discussing the fact that for years, we've publicized his plea deal agreement to cooperate with the state. We've post his photos every day he arrives to court, we post his quotes all day long. If people care, they know... regardless of if we record.

Of course, we have no say... but just a little insider info for you.

Tweets continue here:

https://twitter.com/CFranciscoWCPO

Defense argues the press has no constitutional right to record inside the courtroom.

Press attorney: Inmate safety is not a factor that goes into the order to allow opt outs. Whoever he's in danger of, they know he cooperated already. There's no indication that there's more marginal danger if it's recorded.

Press attorney: there's no evidence that recording testimony impacts the fairness of a trial.

Prosecution called Robert Horton to witness. He works at Chillicothe Correctional Institution. He's worked there 19 years.

He said he's seen inmates threatened, attacked and injured because they testified against other inmates.

He said it could even put staff at risk for having to deal with that.

Press attorney: It's been publicized that he agreed to testify against his brother. So that's been well known. Correct? Horton: Absolutely. Press attorney: You've been trained to handle that. Horton: Absolutely.

Judge: public access could harm the fairness of the trial, the potential for harm outweighs public access. So, restriction of recording remains in place.

Judge: If media need to leave the room to respond to work, and need to come back in, then they'll be permitted if they sit in the back to avoid distractions.

Press attorney asked if we can at least record his voice. Judge said he wants to keep the rules the same for this witness so as to not change things mid testimony.

 

[dgfred]

What exactly kind of 'danger' could JW possibly be in danger of (now or later)? Only people to get him would be in jail. Put him in solitary for goodness sake.

 

[rescuemom]

Inmates with nothing to loose are going to attack, maim and kill other inmates if they decide to. Inmates can have visitors who will tell them what they know has happened in this case and about JWs testimony. To do this to protect him is disgusting!