Again, the plea agreements specified that sentencing would not be finalized until AFTER the defendants had fulfilled their part of the plea agreement - testifying in the trials of Billy and George Wagner.
Billy's trial was the last. To meet the terms of their agreements, the defendants needed to testify in Billy's trial. At the end of Billy's trial, all defendants who made plea deals would be sentenced accordingly.
Sentencing defendants BEFORE they fulfilled the terms of their plea agreement basically nullifies the deal.
There's no mechanism of enforcement now, to compel either Jake or Angela to testify against Billy at his trial. That has been nullified by Judge Hein when he sentenced them before they met the terms of their original plea deal. He not only gave them a break by not making them testify against Billy, he rewarded Jake with a much lighter sentence for murdering 5 or 6 people.
Here's the question we need to ask. Did Judge Hein negate the terms of the original plea deals by accident or deliberately? Did he not realize that the court could no longer compel Jake or Angela to testify against Billy at his trial? Or did he think that Jake and Angela would agree to testify against their co-defendant voluntarily?
I can keep repeating this as often as necessary. I've saved a copy so I can repost if necessary.
If you can find some statute or ruling that allows the judge to compel testimony from Jake and Angie in Billy's trial, that would be great. But for now, the original plea deal is unenforceable.
We must rely on two mass murderers to honor the original deal from the kindness of their hearts. I don't think that will happen and I think the reduced sentence and parole for Jake will actually act as an incentive for him to refuse to testify.
JMO IANAL
^^
bbm
State v. Bethel, 110 Ohio St. 3d 416, 2006-Ohio-4853 -- In a capital homicide a plea agreement involved a proffer inculpating the defendant and his agreement to testify against the codefendant. He failed to do so. Court applies contract law to sort out language of the agreement to determine whether statement could be used against the defendant at his own trial. Court cites a 1911 civil case for the proposition that contracts are to be construed to give effect to every provision therein. Death penalty affirmed.
Just as Ohio law grants the Parole Board complete discretion over release of an inmate (regardless if inmate's sentence by the Court provides they are eligible), the Court has full discretion over any plea agreement (i.e., sentence) negotiated by the parties. In other words, the Court has the final word here and no agreement is valid until the trial Court imposes the sentence-- thereby accepting or rejecting the plea agreement.
To be clear, IMO, it's without question that Hein is void of respect for the prosecutor and the victims of this case but I also think the higher Court has twice rejected the State's request to replace him because he's not violated any law (other than in spirit) for the reasons opined above. That said, I also find Hein's attitude most troubling -- his actions seem more a '
because I can, power trip,' than judicial reasoning. IMO, he presents very mean-spirited.
I'm thinking of another extended prosecution case in Florida for the murder of Professor Dan Markel who was gunned down inside his vehicle when he pulled into his Tallahassee garage in July 2014. (See WS active trial cases).
The key witness in this case is a former ranking member of the Latin Kings who has testified in the trials of three (and soon to be four) co-defendants each (
after being sentenced pursuant to a generous plea deal). Also a capital murder case, the State did not delay sentencing the witness in fear of losing his testimony at future trials and/or nullifying the plea agreement. I seriously doubt his defense would have allowed any sentencing delay as seen in the Ohio case.
In fact, this witness had (has) every reason not to cooperate after the fact since he's a marked man inside/outside of prison for violating his gang code (i.e., snitch) and he didn't even snitch on another gang member in this case! (His co-defendants included a childhood friend and his wife, a wealthy dentist (brother-in-law to the victim) and soon the mother-in law (the wealthy wife of father-in-law dentist)).
Also, during the last trial of the brother-in law in 2023, another convicted co-defendant who testified during her own trial also served as state's witness where she contradicted her own testimony -- admitting perjury. IMO, inmates frequently testify hoping their co-operation will be remembered at sentencing and/or parole. Plea agreements are negotiated in good faith but are always subject to the trial Court accepting or rejecting the plea agreement at sentencing.
Again, the Trial Court has the final say on plea agreements.
ETA: I forgot about this case-- after four years and a negotiated plea agreement:
Berks County President Judge Theresa Johnson rejected the plea as soon as it was presented to her by a prosecutor and ended the [sentencing] hearing after just a few minutes, shutting down a defense lawyer who tried to interject.
“I am not accepting that plea agreement,” Johnson declared, adding, “It doesn’t serve the interests of justice.” She then walked out of the courtroom.
11/18/23 - Judge rejects plea agreement