OH Pike County: 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested#44

[GoBuckeyes]

Respectfully snipped by me for focus.

I fully expected AW's and the other defense attorneys to make these objections to crime scene evidence in the trial, but I sincerely doubt their wishes will be granted. JMO, there's no reason to protect the rights of the defendants in this case. Their crimes were brutal, horrific and outrageous. Overkill. They were planned in advance to be that way. After the first brutal murders, the Wagners repeated the same thing over and over and over again, in breathtaking horror and overkill.

They haven't plead insanity. It wasn't in self defense or an accident or fight gone horribly wrong. Every gruesome detail of those murders was intentionally planned to be that way, so I don't see a judge giving the Wagners a break by not letting the jury or the public see the details of the murders. IANAL, JMO.

There is always a reason to protect the rights of the defendants. It's the law. That doesn't require a judge not to allow in evidence though if he or she determines that the probative value outweighs the prejudicial impact. IMO

 

[Johnny B Bad]

I have wondered, about at least one case. Anyone who could do what was done to the Rs, and HHG, could very well have chosen someone to be their test run.

Agree

 

[JustaboyFromMS]

Anyone have a ballpark figure on how many more pretrial hearings the defendants will have before trial approximately?

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Deleted by me.

 

[Puzzles8]

Anyone have a ballpark figure on how many more pretrial hearings the defendants will have before trial approximately?

With these cases, I truly don't know.

This site has good explanations of the criminal trial process.
Pretrial Hearings and Motions - FindLaw

Next link is a little more technical, but explains a lot about the motions in a criminal trial. Helped me understand a lot more about AW's motions. This document is specific to Virginia, but I think most of it would apply anywhere (ok, maybe not in Louisiana!)
https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1155&context=wlucdj

 

[sunshineray]

Just My 2 Cents.....

The defense will fight tooth and nail for the Jury NOT to see the inside of the Rhoden homes, ESPECIALLY if blood stains are still there.

I have a reason to think this because one of Angela's motions, #35, wants to keep photo's of the victims away from the Jury. And her Motion #36 wants to keep victim impact-evidence away from the Jury.

Also, I do not believe it has ever been stated, by LE, that the 3 trailer homes and 1 camper home are being preserved for the Jury TO WALK THROUGH.
My 2 Cents is that the reason for the homes to be preserved is because the homes would have been vandalized and burnt down if not moved.

Actually, it's a way to protect the homes for eventual release to the families.

Don't agree? No problem. All opinions welcomed. Let everyone know what you think......Cool Cats respects differing opinions.....

When it comes to opinions, no one is RIGHT or WRONG, it is your opinion!!!

As far as AW's motion #35 to keep the jury from seeing the photos of the victims at the crime scene or autopsy photos of the injuries the victims suffered, I just can't understand the law behind that. I know the accused are innocent until proven guilty but that photo evidence is really the only sure way of explaining the accurate reality of the crimes comitted to a jury. They are necessary, they let the victims "speak" to what was done to them. jmo

 

[Puzzles8]

With these cases, I truly don't know.

This site has good explanations of the criminal trial process.
Pretrial Hearings and Motions - FindLaw

Next link is a little more technical, but explains a lot about the motions in a criminal trial. Helped me understand a lot more about AW's motions. This document is specific to Virginia, but I think most of it would apply anywhere (ok, maybe not in Louisiana!)
https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1155&context=wlucdj

Second link is bad, try this one

https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1155&context=wlucdj

 

[Betty P]

There is always a reason to protect the rights of the defendants. It's the law. That doesn't require a judge not to allow in evidence though if he or she determines that the probative value outweighs the prejudicial impact. IMO

My apologies, I wasn't clear. Of course any defendant in a criminal trial has rights that need to be protected. Showing evidence of horrific murders they committed doesn't usually violate those rights, though, unless there's some extenuating circumstance. I listed some examples of possible exceptions earlier. These were brutal, well planned executions. The killers had the choice to not kill the Rhodens and Hannah Gilley. They chose weapons, ammunition and methods of attacks on their victims that they knew would maximize the butchery. The engaged in terrible overkill, shooting some victims 3, 4 or 5 times in the face. They deliberately shot some victims in the eye, mimicking some sick low budget movie. They deliberately left small infants to flounder helplessly for 5 hours while drenched in their parents blood.

Given those facts, it doesn't seem likely any judge will find some right of the Wagners that needs to be protected by not allowing jurors to see photos of the crime scenes. Those photos illustrate the depraved planning that went into the execution of those people. Sure, the families and general public shouldn't see them but the judge and jury should. JMO

 

[Betty P]

Anyone have a ballpark figure on how many more pretrial hearings the defendants will have before trial approximately?

No idea, but there will be more. Just guessing, but the prosecution probably hasn't turned over all the evidence yet. Haven't seen them discuss potential witnesses. The question of moving trials to another location hasn't been decided. A lot of things are still up in the air, so to speak. JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

Anyone have a ballpark figure on how many more pretrial hearings the defendants will have before trial approximately?

No deadline on Pre-Trial Motion Hearings.......

POSTED ON JANUARY 7,
2019 BY PORTSMOUTH DAILY TIMES
"Because of what was described as the voluminous amount of materials coming from prosecutors, the defense (for Angela) asked for and was granted without objection from prosecutors an extension of time to file pretrial motions. Deering specifically stated there is no deadline on motions at this point. Last month, Edward Wagner’s attorneys made and were granted the same request regarding motions."

 

[Cool Cats]

Is anything new going to be discussed on March 20 for AW’s second pre trial? Why are there 2 pre trials

Here is something mentioned, from Portsmouth Daily Times, about Angela's March 20 pre-trial hearing.....

"Following Monday’s brief hearing, Angela Wagner was returned to jail but will be back in court 1:30 p.m. March 20. That hearing may contain more substance than hearings to date. Deering indicated it may last half a day depending on how far along the defense is in gaining discovery and what pretrial motions they have made to that point."

 

[OhioBlues]

d

 

[OhioBlues]

Here is something mentioned, from Portsmouth Daily Times, about Angela's March 20 pre-trial hearing.....

"Following Monday’s brief hearing, Angela Wagner was returned to jail but will be back in court 1:30 p.m. March 20. That hearing may contain more substance than hearings to date. Deering indicated it may last half a day depending on how far along the defense is in gaining discovery and what pretrial motions they have made to that point."

My guess is that every photo and piece of evidence will be contested by the defense. The court is not going to allow 75 photos of each victim etc into the trial because they consider it too prejudicial. I hope that the state can show each and every photo but I just don't think it will happen.

jmo

 

[Cool Cats]

My apologies, I wasn't clear. Of course any defendant in a criminal trial has rights that need to be protected. Showing evidence of horrific murders they committed doesn't usually violate those rights, though, unless there's some extenuating circumstance. I listed some examples of possible exceptions earlier. These were brutal, well planned executions. The killers had the choice to not kill the Rhodens and Hannah Gilley. They chose weapons, ammunition and methods of attacks on their victims that they knew would maximize the butchery. The engaged in terrible overkill, shooting some victims 3, 4 or 5 times in the face. They deliberately shot some victims in the eye, mimicking some sick low budget movie. They deliberately left small infants to flounder helplessly for 5 hours while drenched in their parents blood.

Given those facts, it doesn't seem likely any judge will find some right of the Wagners that needs to be protected by not allowing jurors to see photos of the crime scenes. Those photos illustrate the depraved planning that went into the execution of those people. Sure, the families and general public shouldn't see them but the judge and jury should. JMO

I agree Betty, and you might be interested in Angela's Motion #36.

Motion #36....Prohibit Victim Impact Evidence during trial AND during the Mitigation Phase.

Death Penalty trials have 2 trials, first is the guilt phase and second is the mitigation phase to decide the sentence. Normally, the Jury is deciding between the death penalty or giving the defendant life without parole.

Angela's Motion #36 is for BOTH the guilt phase AND the sentencing/mitigation phase.

If Angela is found guilty she will want many mitigating factors put before the Jury----factors showing why she should be allowed to live and get life W/O parole.

But she is trying to stop any victim impact evidence to be presented ----ever----in front of the Jury.

VICTIM IMPACT EVIDENCE DEFINITION:
Evidence that demonstrates the personal characteristics of a homicide victim and the impact the victim’s death had on others.
Victim impact evidence/statements are written or oral information from crime victims, in their own words, about how a crime has affected them. All 50 states allow victim impact evidence/statements.

......My 2 Cents......

 

[Cool Cats]

My guess is that every photo and piece of evidence will be contested by the defense. The court is not going to allow 75 photos of each victim etc into the trial because they consider it too prejudicial. I hope that the state can show each and every photo but I just don't think it will happen.

jmo

My 2 Cents is that because there are so many photos, more than a dozen of Rudger alone, and 8 victims, that there is no way that the defense will be able to keep ALL of them out of trial. I would be very surprised if no photographs of the victims go before the Jury.

It's my understanding that even though Jurors have to be present in court, they do not have to look at the photos. However, they do have to listen to the descriptions given of the photos.

 

[sunshineray]

My guess is that every photo and piece of evidence will be contested by the defense. The court is not going to allow 75 photos of each victim etc into the trial because they consider it too prejudicial. I hope that the state can show each and every photo but I just don't think it will happen.

jmo

I think what matters is a full and acurate depiction of each and every wound all the victims suffered. as to number, there's that old saying, a picture is worth a thousand words. 32 pictures would suffice I'm sure but up to 64 (if every entrance wound has created an exit one) would give the jury the most accurate evidence. Horrific? Yes I know, it was and they should be shown to them. God bless the families and friends for what they need to go through still.

 

[sunshineray]

I agree Betty, and you might be interested in Angela's Motion #36.

Motion #36....Prohibit Victim Impact Evidence during trial AND during the Mitigation Phase.

Death Penalty trials have 2 trials, first is the guilt phase and second is the mitigation phase to decide the sentence. Normally, the Jury is deciding between the death penalty or giving the defendant life without parole.

Angela's Motion #36 is for BOTH the guilt phase AND the sentencing/mitigation phase.

If Angela is found guilty she will want many mitigating factors put before the Jury----factors showing why she should be allowed to live and get life W/O parole.

But she is trying to stop any victim impact evidence to be presented ----ever----in front of the Jury.

VICTIM IMPACT EVIDENCE DEFINITION:
Evidence that demonstrates the personal characteristics of a homicide victim and the impact the victim’s death had on others.
Victim impact evidence/statements are written or oral information from crime victims, in their own words, about how a crime has affected them. All 50 states allow victim impact evidence/statements.

......My 2 Cents......

What could possible be the precedent in the law to back a motion to bar victim's statements in the penalty phase? It would be like the prosecutors filing a motion to bar any mitigating factors from the defense in the penalty phase of a person found guilty of murder. I wonder if they can even do that?

 

[Betty P]

I agree Betty, and you might be interested in Angela's Motion #36.

Motion #36....Prohibit Victim Impact Evidence during trial AND during the Mitigation Phase.

Death Penalty trials have 2 trials, first is the guilt phase and second is the mitigation phase to decide the sentence. Normally, the Jury is deciding between the death penalty or giving the defendant life without parole.

Angela's Motion #36 is for BOTH the guilt phase AND the sentencing/mitigation phase.

If Angela is found guilty she will want many mitigating factors put before the Jury----factors showing why she should be allowed to live and get life W/O parole.

But she is trying to stop any victim impact evidence to be presented ----ever----in front of the Jury.

VICTIM IMPACT EVIDENCE DEFINITION:
Evidence that demonstrates the personal characteristics of a homicide victim and the impact the victim’s death had on others.
Victim impact evidence/statements are written or oral information from crime victims, in their own words, about how a crime has affected them. All 50 states allow victim impact evidence/statements.

......My 2 Cents......

Yes, I think these motions are pretty standard defense stuff. There are some limits on victim impact evidence:

While states vary in precisely the type of statements they allow and which individuals may be permitted to provide them, the U.S. Supreme Court has unambiguously reaffirmed that Booth’s prohibition against victim-impact statements that explicitly ask a jury to impose a death sentence still stands. In a unanimous decision in Bosse v. Oklahoma (2016), the Court made clear that it has never overruled the portion of Booth that prohibited the presentation of testimony from victims' families offering "opinions about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate punishment," and declared that this part of Booth "remain binding precedent until we see fit to reconsider [it]."

Legal Issues: Victim Impact Evidence | Death Penalty Information Center

JMO, the defendants want to prohibit victim impact evidence that reminds the jury of the brutal, nightmarish nature of the murders and it's lifelong impact on surviving family members; also reminders of the children who were orphaned and deprived of their extended family.

GW3 has filed the same motion. Some of this may be due to differences in defense attorneys.

ETA: As someone mentioned earlier, there are many pre-trial hearings taking place in camera for the defendants. We're not privy to what's being discussed, but assume new motions will be posted on the county court web site.

 

[sunshineray]

Yes, I think these motions are pretty standard defense stuff. There are some limits on victim impact evidence:



JMO, the defendants want to prohibit victim impact evidence that reminds the jury of the brutal, nightmarish nature of the murders and it's lifelong impact on surviving family members; also reminders of the children who were orphaned and deprived of their extended family.

GW3 has filed the same motion. Some of this may be due to differences in defense attorneys.

That is interesting about the Supreme Court ruling. I know it's not prohibited for a victim's impact statement to include a plea for mercy (no death penalty). I've seen people do that. So if someone you love is viciously murdered you can make a plea for mercy for their killer but not for vengeance. The convicted, their family members are often allowed to plea for mercy in court also.

 

[Betty P]

What could possible be the precedent in the law to back a motion to bar victim's statements in the penalty phase? It would be like the prosecutors filing a motion to bar any mitigating factors from the defense in the penalty phase of a person found guilty of murder. I wonder if they can even do that?

IDK, but I'm guessing it doesn't happen often. The argument against victim impact statements is that they're prejudicial against the defendant. In some cases where a judge felt a victim's statement was overly prejudicial against the defendant, they've ruled to have the jury disregard it. IDK. There's some discussion of it here:

https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1420&context=wlucdj

Because not all of the Wags have filed motions regarding victim impact evidence, it could indicate a difference in how those defendants and their attorneys are approaching the case. It's possible (JMO only) that the defendants who filed those motions fully expect to fight their case to the finish, without a plea bargain, and want to have maximum advantage when it comes time for the jury to rule on their guilt.

If the Wags can convince the judge to eliminate victim impact evidence before the jury rules on guilt, they think they can get a "not guilty" verdict. JMO, they have this big strategy to use PR in the media, etc. to paint themselves as pious, law abiding, religious people and the Rhodens as dangerous, drug dealing criminals who everyone feared and hated and who deserved to die. Who knows, the Wags may even try to play this as some twisted version of "self defense" that they had to kill the Rhodens to protect themselves and S. If they can succeed in stopping victim impact statements, they think it will help their case.

JMO, the Wags also plan to paint all the surviving Rhoden, Gilley and Manley family members in an evil light, too. They will try to disparage their characters and treat them as dangerous, drug addicted criminals who would have been dangerous for S to be around. I'm guessing that's the argument they used early on after the murders, when they were successful in getting PCSO and DeWine to place the surviving children with foster families instead of with immediate family members. Reader said it was to protect the children from the potential killers, but at that point Reader and DeWine probably thought the family were the killers and that the family members were a danger to the children. JMO

Wags were successful in lying about the Rhodens and their families, painting them as dangerous demons, for a very long time. It took LE over a year before they finally started questioning everything they were told by the W's. Wags probably think they can pull this same game on a jury, too. That's why they don't want victim impact statements - they don't want the victims to be humanized. They don't want the jury to feel sympathy towards the Rhoden victims and family members by hearing them speak in person, express their grief and talk about the victims in a loving way.

It's much easier for the Wags to demonize the Rhodens if they're never allowed to speak for themselves, in person.

ETA: Thinking about the "all the lies they told us" statement about the Wagners from Reader at the time of the arrests, it would be interesting to know how soon FW began piling on the propaganda to protect her family of killers. Would it be possible to go back and see how soon she began telling lies to LE and the nature of those lies? Could examination of her "tips", etc. to LE reveal that she may have known about her family committing the murders right after it happened?