OH - Pike Co - 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered - 4 Wagner Family Members Arrested #89

[joe jones]

No wonder they couldn't find words to craft an agreement that state and BW and his defence could agree to, to remove DP pre trial (so it wasn't a capital trial) which would mean BW signing away his right to not have double jeopardy attached, and for the trial to be stopped if JW didn't testify so that DP went back on table and a new trial started for BW, this was the agreement they were attempting to work out. it's insanity, who would sign an agreement to allow yourself to be tried twice, and JW has been sentenced surely the state would be considered to be moving into the realm of prosecutorial misconduct when trying to pressure a co dependent who has been sentenced to testify against another, she would be almost said to be inducing JW to testify by punishing his father if he doesn't
Lots of ethical and legal issues imo, all of this is included in AC motion to get the DP back on table
I don't understand why BW defence was even considering such a convoluted agreement, it relies on JW holding all the cards,
State knows without JW and/or AW if moves to a circumstantial case, they have no forensics linking BW to the 4 crime scenes, they have no eye witness to him shooting anybody, they have nothing to say he was with his family that night, his phone being there could be easily explained away,
So we wait upon the higher courts ruling

 

[joe jones]

Duplicate post

 

[Covert Operative]

No wonder they couldn't find words to craft an agreement that state and BW and his defence could agree to, to remove DP pre trial (so it wasn't a capital trial) which would mean BW signing away his right to not have double jeopardy attached, and for the trial to be stopped if JW didn't testify so that DP went back on table and a new trial started for BW, this was the agreement they were attempting to work out. it's insanity, who would sign an agreement to allow yourself to be tried twice, and JW has been sentenced surely the state would be considered to be moving into the realm of prosecutorial misconduct when trying to pressure a co dependent who has been sentenced to testify against another, she would be almost said to be inducing JW to testify by punishing his father if he doesn't
Lots of ethical and legal issues imo, all of this is included in AC motion to get the DP back on table
I don't understand why BW defence was even considering such a convoluted agreement, it relies on JW holding all the cards,
State knows without JW and/or AW if moves to a circumstantial case, they have no forensics linking BW to the 4 crime scenes, they have no eye witness to him shooting anybody, they have nothing to say he was with his family that night, his phone being there could be easily explained away,
So we wait upon the higher courts rulingtT

If I were a murderer, I would not help the State prosecute me either. The judge had no legal reason to dismiss the DP for Billy or legal reason to sentence AW and JW before Billy's trial that I have heard. Jake came to the prosecution and wanted to confess and wanted a plea deal. He may have brought some of the details of the plea deal to the table. Angela then followed suit because she said she did not want Jake to have to testify against her. Jake may still feel the need to testify against Billy since he testified against George and put him away for life. Angela may also do the same or they may decide they are not helping the State at all, and they have no incentive to at this time.

The Prosecutor is not trying to pressure a co-defendant that has already been sentenced to testify against another. The judge relieved Jake from everything. He even removed Jake's DP in essence because Jake's could have been put back on him if he chose not to testify or not to testify truthfully. Jake had not been sentenced and was not supposed to be (per previous agreement) sentenced before Billy's trial. It would have been the same scenario as in George's trial. The judge knew all of this would hurt her case and he decided that is exactly what he would do, hurt her case and he was proud of it. He was proud he could help murderers that had killed 8 people. I do believe he is proud of this.

I do think she has a chance of having the DP reinstated but I believe that it is hard to have a judge's ruling reversed by an appeals court. It would seem that a judge would have to let theh lawyers know in advance that he was considering dismissing the DP and allow them to file motions on it and then to have arguments on it before he did it. Sentencing Jake really seems like it could be the bigger issue for the State to me. I don't think there could be many people that think this judge would give Billy the DP if reinstated, no matter how many people he had killed. I am sure Jake figured that out pretty quickly.

 

[Seattle1]

as ive said im not defending the Judge but im truly trying to see all the possible sides to this. sadly last time I asked this some here accused me of running some online smear campaign against Canepa but I am asking this genuinely….when you say his “explanations and rationale don’t hold water”, what do you mean by that?

Are you talking legally? Do you believe the higher courts will reverse his decision? And/or that he did not have the legal authority he claimed to have in order to remove the death penalty without a motion filed by one of the parties first? Sincerely trying to understand. If he’s in the wrong legally then hopefully the higher courts will reverse his decision.

I'm very much looking forward to the appellate decision because it seems to me that the State made an agreement with Jake (and Angela) that was not appropriate for multiple defendants, and why I think the parties kept dragging their feet to pencil out at even a draft, at a minimum, for the Court to view and grasp a sense of the dilemma AC previously described they were facing. (Be reminded the defendants were once being tried all together).

On the other hand, there's Ohio case law that speaks to the terms of Jakes plea agreement being enforceable as a contract and failure to perform per the terms of the contract (i.e., promise to testify truthfully) faces the penalty imposed for breach of the contract ( i.e., puts the DP back on the table).

Except none of this is can be properly sorted when the Judge ruled to prematurely sentence the defendants per his unique interpretation of his authority under the Statute! It's a mess. And I still can't believe that Judge Hein is the best that the State could offer for this brutal case with so many victims. MOO

 

[INfisherman]

I'm very much looking forward to the appellate decision because it seems to me that the State made an agreement with Jake (and Angela) that was not appropriate for multiple defendants, and why I think the parties kept dragging their feet to pencil out at even a draft, at a minimum, for the Court to view and grasp a sense of the dilemma AC previously described they were facing. (Be reminded the defendants were once being tried all together).

On the other hand, there's Ohio case law that speaks to the terms of Jakes plea agreement being enforceable as a contract and failure to perform per the terms of the contract (i.e., promise to testify truthfully) faces the penalty imposed for breach of the contract ( i.e., puts the DP back on the table).

Except none of this is can be properly sorted when the Judge ruled to prematurely sentence the defendants per his unique interpretation of his authority under the Statute! It's a mess. And I still can't believe that Judge Hein is the best that the State could offer for this brutal case with so many victims. MOO

Just asking your opinion - does it reek to you that someone pulling strings elsewhere just wants these trials to end for whatever reasons? What Hein has done just makes no sense at all other than things were moving at a snail’s pace in certain regards. He really sabotaged the prosecution’s plans IMO.

 

[Seattle1]

Pike County Murder Trial: Judge wants to dismiss death penalty, sentence other Wagners ahead of Billy's trial

Judge Jonathan Hein made an unexpected announcement regarding the death penalty during an otherwise routine hearing ahead of the murder trial of George "Billy" Wagner III in Pike County.

www.wcpo.com

11/20/24

WAVERLY, Ohio — Judge Jonathan Hein made an unexpected announcement regarding the death penalty during an otherwise routine hearing ahead of the murder trial of George "Billy" Wagner III in Pike County.

[..]

Both sides said they've been working toward an agreement with regards to the death penalty Billy currently faces. Under the plea agreement for Jake Wagner, the death penalty is dropped for himself, his mother and his father if he testifies truthfully in trial; that same agreement played a part in George Wagner IV's trial in 2022.

Because such a deal never seems to have been struck before, Prosecutor Angela Canepa said negotions have been slow going. She said they've been working on a deal that would seem to both remove the death penalty specifications ahead of Billy's trial while still being able to have insurance of some kind if Jake were to testify untruthfully at trial.

Hein pointed out that attorneys have had around four months already to come up with such a deal.

Then he made an unexpected announcement.

"So, here are the orders coming out of today's hearing," said Hein. "On representation by the State of Ohio, the death penalty specification is dismissed. The case proceeds without that specification."

'Why are you trying to sabotage this case?': Judge throws wrench into Wagner trial

The father of the family charged in the murders of eight people in one night in Pike County could find out Wednesday if his trial will be moved.

local12.com

11/20/24

In exchange for testifying against George and Billy, the death penalty was said to be taken off the table for all four, but that was only after they would testify as they did against their oldest son, George IV, who was convicted on all charges and sentenced to life in prison two years ago.

Hein also has yet to rule on whether to allow evidence of other potential crimes committed by the Wagners that weren't prosecuted to be presented at trial or the change in venue. Canepa declined comment after the hearing.

Billy Wagner's defense lawyer, Marc Collins, said afterward that he was prepared to work through the weekend to get an agreement with prosecutors.

"If we're moving at too slow a pace, the government, and in theory us, because it's not getting done, he's not going to stand for it," said Collins.

 

[MTW2011]

I'm very much looking forward to the appellate decision because it seems to me that the State made an agreement with Jake (and Angela) that was not appropriate for multiple defendants, and why I think the parties kept dragging their feet to pencil out at even a draft, at a minimum, for the Court to view and grasp a sense of the dilemma AC previously described they were facing. (Be reminded the defendants were once being tried all together).

On the other hand, there's Ohio case law that speaks to the terms of Jakes plea agreement being enforceable as a contract and failure to perform per the terms of the contract (i.e., promise to testify truthfully) faces the penalty imposed for breach of the contract ( i.e., puts the DP back on the table).

Except none of this is can be properly sorted when the Judge ruled to prematurely sentence the defendants per his unique interpretation of his authority under the Statute! It's a mess. And I still can't believe that Judge Hein is the best that the State could offer for this brutal case with so many victims. MOO

If there’s Ohio case law that discusses this and a plea agreement being enforceable, it really makes me wonder why AC was repeatedly saying, essentially, the opposite. Sure it’s not idea if a higher court needs to step in and enforce a plea agreement, BUT that being a possibility per Ohio case law is much different than how AC has been representing it in Court, JMOO. If true, that leaves me with some hope that there is some enforceability availability to the State, but again I know that’s not ideal.

Surely AC has to know of this relevant Ohio case law, no? She made it sound like it would be a done deal, forever, if Judge Hein proceeded to sentencing before this trial. MOO.

 

[Covert Operative]

If there’s Ohio case law that discusses this and a plea agreement being enforceable, it really makes me wonder why AC was repeatedly saying, essentially, the opposite. Sure it’s not idea if a higher court needs to step in and enforce a plea agreement, BUT that being a possibility per Ohio case law is much different than how AC has been representing it in Court, JMOO. If true, that leaves me with some hope that there is some enforceability availability to the State, but again I know that’s not ideal.

Surely AC has to know of this relevant Ohio case law, no? She made it sound like it would be a done deal, forever, if Judge Hein proceeded to sentencing before this trial. MOO.

Anything in the plea deal for Jake and Angela is over and done now, if you are talking about theirs. Jake's plea deal would have been enforceable as far as putting his DP and his families DP back, but that is not the case now that he is sentenced. The judge made sure of that when he sentenced them. State vs Gilbert. The judge knew that, and she knows that, and she has not appealed anything related to the sentencing/their plea deal.

If the plea deal is reinstated for Billy, it is still up to Jake whether he chooses to testify or not. He can't be punished if he chooses not to testify.
State vs Gilbert is a good case to read and it's clearer, at least to me exactly what the judge chose to do to her case. The judge basically told her in pretrial he was screwing up her case and they both cited State vs Gilbert in that pretrial when they were discussing what it did to her case.

 

[Seattle1]

If there’s Ohio case law that discusses this and a plea agreement being enforceable, it really makes me wonder why AC was repeatedly saying, essentially, the opposite. Sure it’s not idea if a higher court needs to step in and enforce a plea agreement, BUT that being a possibility per Ohio case law is much different than how AC has been representing it in Court, JMOO. If true, that leaves me with some hope that there is some enforceability availability to the State, but again I know that’s not ideal.

Surely AC has to know of this relevant Ohio case law, no? She made it sound like it would be a done deal, forever, if Judge Hein proceeded to sentencing before this trial. MOO.

To my knowledge, a plea deal is an agreement between the prosecution and the defendant-- applicable to the agreements with Jake and Angela, where the same plea agreements are subject to the the approval of the trial court Judge.

Are we to believe this plea agreement was approved in 2022 by Judge Randy Deering (trial court Judge for GW4) and deemed it approved for all?

If true, it seems to me that AC should have started researching the death penalty specification for this anticipated 'deal never struck before' for Billy soon after GW4's trial ended instead of waiting until Nov 2024, and still not getting it done! IMO, you can't have it both ways.

Again, I'm anxious to hear the decision by the appellate court because I really have no idea how the Court will rule here.

I thought AC had a solid argument to disqualify Judge Hein yet Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy determined AC's request to remove Judge Hein lacked proof and therefore lacked merit so I obviously know nothing! JMO

 

[Betty P]

Pike County Murder Trial: Judge wants to dismiss death penalty, sentence other Wagners ahead of Billy's trial

Judge Jonathan Hein made an unexpected announcement regarding the death penalty during an otherwise routine hearing ahead of the murder trial of George "Billy" Wagner III in Pike County.

www.wcpo.com

11/20/24

WAVERLY, Ohio — Judge Jonathan Hein made an unexpected announcement regarding the death penalty during an otherwise routine hearing ahead of the murder trial of George "Billy" Wagner III in Pike County.

[..]

Both sides said they've been working toward an agreement with regards to the death penalty Billy currently faces. Under the plea agreement for Jake Wagner, the death penalty is dropped for himself, his mother and his father if he testifies truthfully in trial; that same agreement played a part in George Wagner IV's trial in 2022.

Because such a deal never seems to have been struck before, Prosecutor Angela Canepa said negotions have been slow going. She said they've been working on a deal that would seem to both remove the death penalty specifications ahead of Billy's trial while still being able to have insurance of some kind if Jake were to testify untruthfully at trial.

Hein pointed out that attorneys have had around four months already to come up with such a deal.

Then he made an unexpected announcement.

"So, here are the orders coming out of today's hearing," said Hein. "On representation by the State of Ohio, the death penalty specification is dismissed. The case proceeds without that specification."

'Why are you trying to sabotage this case?': Judge throws wrench into Wagner trial

The father of the family charged in the murders of eight people in one night in Pike County could find out Wednesday if his trial will be moved.

local12.com

11/20/24

In exchange for testifying against George and Billy, the death penalty was said to be taken off the table for all four, but that was only after they would testify as they did against their oldest son, George IV, who was convicted on all charges and sentenced to life in prison two years ago.

Hein also has yet to rule on whether to allow evidence of other potential crimes committed by the Wagners that weren't prosecuted to be presented at trial or the change in venue. Canepa declined comment after the hearing.

Billy Wagner's defense lawyer, Marc Collins, said afterward that he was prepared to work through the weekend to get an agreement with prosecutors.

"If we're moving at too slow a pace, the government, and in theory us, because it's not getting done, he's not going to stand for it," said Collins.

The problem the state has here is that they're dealing with Billy Wagner. Remember when he tried to fire his own attorneys in court? He's an extremely belligerent, stubborn man without a great deal of intellect. He's always going to demand a trial, even if it's obvious doing so will work against him. Short of having the judge drop all charges against him, he's going to demand a trial, period. Unfortunately, with this judge that's a possibility.

Based on what we learned about Billy and his personality from his wife and son's testimony, he thinks he can do no wrong and probably feels he was more than justified in his role in murdering 8 innocent people in their sleep. He has no shame, takes no responsibility for anything, feels no guilt about putting other people's lives at risk. The judge seemed to think he could get Billy to go along with his game, but he doesn't understand Billy or how he thinks.

 

[Seattle1]

The problem the state has here is that they're dealing with Billy Wagner. Remember when he tried to fire his own attorneys in court? He's an extremely belligerent, stubborn man without a great deal of intellect. He's always going to demand a trial, even if it's obvious doing so will work against him. Short of having the judge drop all charges against him, he's going to demand a trial, period. Unfortunately, with this judge that's a possibility.

Based on what we learned about Billy and his personality from his wife and son's testimony, he thinks he can do no wrong and probably feels he was more than justified in his role in murdering 8 innocent people in their sleep. He has no shame, takes no responsibility for anything, feels no guilt about putting other people's lives at risk. The judge seemed to think he could get Billy to go along with his game, but he doesn't understand Billy or how he thinks.

It's never been clear to me why the parties are trying to borrow trouble with Billy!

Why wasn't the State holding to the same process with Billy as with GW4 where the death penalty specifications were dismissed before closing statements and Juror deliberations-- when the State was satisfied that Jake testified truthfully. Billy was the worst offender and IMO, he certainly didn't deserve a better bargain than GW4.

Death penalty off the table for George Wagner if convicted in the Pike County massacre

Jake Wagner agreed to confess if the death penalty was removed as a possible penalty for all four Wagner family members

wchstv.com

Nov 22, 2022

The removal of the death penalty in George's trial means prosecutors believe Jake testified truthfully.

Said Angela Canepa,“Based on our agreement with Edward Jacob Wagner that he appear and testify truthfully, we are inclined to dismiss those death penalty specifications before the jury – before closing arguments before the jury instructions and before they’re deliberating.”

 

[Betty P]

It's never been clear to me why the parties are trying to borrow trouble with Billy!

Why wasn't the State holding to the same process with Billy as with GW4 where the death penalty specifications were dismissed before closing statements and Juror deliberations-- when the State was satisfied that Jake testified truthfully. Billy was the worst offender and IMO, he certainly didn't deserve a better bargain than GW4.

Death penalty off the table for George Wagner if convicted in the Pike County massacre

Jake Wagner agreed to confess if the death penalty was removed as a possible penalty for all four Wagner family members

wchstv.com

Nov 22, 2022

The removal of the death penalty in George's trial means prosecutors believe Jake testified truthfully.

Said Angela Canepa,“Based on our agreement with Edward Jacob Wagner that he appear and testify truthfully, we are inclined to dismiss those death penalty specifications before the jury – before closing arguments before the jury instructions and before they’re deliberating.”

It was presumed all along that the DP wouldn't apply to Billy either because Jake would testify against him as well. If Jake testified, DP wouldn't apply. No one considered it an issue.

It wasn't until this new judge decided to NOT make Jake (and Angela) testify at Billy's trial that the entire plea agreement unraveled.

Who knows? The whole event was highly unusual and, to some, unnecessary. We'll probably never know why it happened. We can only hope and pray that two cold-blooded mass murderers don't soon end up free to kill again.

JMO, MOO

 

[Betty P]

I thought AC had a solid argument to disqualify Judge Hein yet Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy determined AC's request to remove Judge Hein lacked proof and therefore lacked merit so I obviously know nothing! JMO

Ohio is in a strange place now when it comes to judges. JMO That's all I can say.

JMO, MOO

 

[Covert Operative]

To my knowledge, a plea deal is an agreement between the prosecution and the defendant-- applicable to the agreements with Jake and Angela, where the same plea agreements are subject to the the approval of the trial court Judge.

Are we to believe this plea agreement was approved in 2022 by Judge Randy Deering (trial court Judge for GW4) and deemed it approved for all?

If true, it seems to me that AC should have started researching the death penalty specification for this anticipated 'deal never struck before' for Billy soon after GW4's trial ended instead of waiting until Nov 2024, and still not getting it done! IMO, you can't have it both ways.

Again, I'm anxious to hear the decision by the appellate court because I really have no idea how the Court will rule here.

I thought AC had a solid argument to disqualify Judge Hein yet Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy determined AC's request to remove Judge Hein lacked proof and therefore lacked merit so I obviously know nothing! JMO

The deal that has never been struck before is the DP deal they were trying to work out with Billy is what I understand. I believe Judge Hein was pressuring them to come to a DP deal so that they would not have to have a DP qualified jury. That has not been said outright but has been hinted at in motions and in court. He was not the judge in 2022 or 2023 and that is why she was not working on any DP deal for Billy. Judge Hein was assigned in May 2024. They have also presented a few plea deal scenarios to Billy, but he refuses any of them, the judge has mentioned it several times in court and also to Billy a couple of times.

[td]06/03/2024[/td][td]CERTIFICATE OF ASSIGNMENT -- JONATHAN P. HEIN, A RETIRED JUDGE OF THE DARKE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, GENERAL AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION, IS ASSIGNED EFFECTIVE MAY 29, 2024, TO PRESIDE IN THE PIKE COUNTY COMMON PLEAS TO HEAR CASE 2018CR000157, STATE OF OHIO V GEORGE WAGNER III AND TO CONCLUDE ANY PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH THE JUDGE PARTICIPATED[/td]

There was no plea deal approved in 2022 for George, he went to trial. George's DP would not have been removed if Jake had not testified truthfully.

I think she has a chance of getting the DP reinstated but I also think it's very hard to win an appeal against a judge's ruling. I am not sure how much having it reinstated would actually help her case at this point because I certainly do not think the judge would hand down a DP sentence to Billy.

 

[Covert Operative]

In the legal case "State v. Gilbert" from Ohio, the "defendant testifying" refers to the situation where Kareem Gilbert, the defendant, was required to testify against his father as part of a plea bargain agreement with the state, but later refused to do so, leading to legal complications regarding whether he breached the terms of the deal and should face further consequences for not fulfilling his part of the agreement.

Key points about the case:

• Plea bargain:
  Gilbert agreed to testify against his father in a murder case in exchange for the state dropping or amending some charges against him.
• Breach of agreement:
  After being sentenced, Gilbert refused to testify against his father as promised in the plea bargain.
• Legal dispute:
  The state then argued that Gilbert had violated the plea agreement by not providing truthful testimony, leading to a legal dispute about whether he should face further penalties for not fulfilling his part of the deal.

State v. Gilbert, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2014-Ohio-4562, ___ N.E.3d ___-- Once a defendant has been sentenced by a trial court, that court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a motion by the state to vacate the defendant’s guilty plea and sentence based upon the defendant’s alleged violation of a plea agreement.

 

[Seattle1]

It was presumed all along that the DP wouldn't apply to Billy either because Jake would testify against him as well. If Jake testified, DP wouldn't apply. No one considered it an issue.

It wasn't until this new judge decided to NOT make Jake (and Angela) testify at Billy's trial that the entire plea agreement unraveled.

Who knows? The whole event was highly unusual and, to some, unnecessary. We'll probably never know why it happened. We can only hope and pray that two cold-blooded mass murderers don't soon end up free to kill again.

JMO, MOO

True. However the point I've been trying to make is why was it necessary to have an agreement to dismiss the death penalty specifications for Billy BEFORE his trial, and not treat him like GW4 where this agreement was done before jury deliberations and after Jake testified truthfully.

In other words, the prosecution had none of this 'never done before deal' with the prior defendant to create such a firestorm. Why now? Why borrow trouble with Billy? Makes no sense to me. JMO.

Because such a deal never seems to have been struck before, Prosecutor Angela Canepa said negotions have been slow going. She said they've been working on a deal that would seem to both remove the death penalty specifications ahead of Billy's trial while still being able to have insurance of some kind if Jake were to testify untruthfully at trial.

 

[Betty P]

True. However the point I've been trying to make is why was it necessary to have an agreement to dismiss the death penalty specifications for Billy BEFORE his trial, and not treat him like GW4 where this agreement was done before jury deliberations and after Jake testified truthfully.

In other words, the prosecution had none of this 'never done before deal' with the prior defendant to create such a firestorm. Why now? Why borrow trouble with Billy? Makes no sense to me. JMO.

I see what you're saying and agree. They may have needed to clarify that to some extent before Billy's trial. IANAL, so I'm not an expert. However, it doesn't seem it was necessary to take the second step of negating Jake's plea deal, removing the requirement that he and his mother testify against Billy. JMO

 

[Covert Operative]

True. However the point I've been trying to make is why was it necessary to have an agreement to dismiss the death penalty specifications for Billy BEFORE his trial, and not treat him like GW4 where this agreement was done before jury deliberations and after Jake testified truthfully.

In other words, the prosecution had none of this 'never done before deal' with the prior defendant to create such a firestorm. Why now? Why borrow trouble with Billy? Makes no sense to me. JMO.

I think we would need to ask the Judge why and why now? It was not necessary to dismiss his DP specifications before his trial or necessary to sentence Jake and Angela before Billy's trial. I think the judge created the firestorm.

I doubt very seriously the judge could ever think that a DP agreement could be reached, there is not a middle ground in there that I could see for an agreement.

 

[Betty P]

I think we would need to ask the Judge why and why now? It was not necessary to dismiss his DP specifications before his trial or necessary to sentence Jake and Angela before Billy's trial. I think the judge created the firestorm.

I doubt very seriously the judge could ever think that a DP agreement could be reached, there is not a middle ground in there that I could see for an agreement.

Those were my first questions when the news broke.

 

[Covert Operative]

From the article attached. -The ruling was filed on Wednesday, Nov. 27. Hein cited concerns that litigation surrounding the death penalty could delay the trial or open the potential for a retrial.

Are those concerns reason enough in Ohio to dismiss a Death Penalty? Maybe, I do not know.

I would think the judge would at least have to have a motion from defense or prosecution and hear oral arguments from both sides before they dismissed it. If it is reinstated, depending on the wording of the appeals court he still may go through the proper procedure and dismiss it anyway.

Judge dismisses possibility of death penalty for Billy Wagner in Pike Co. massacre trial

A judge has dismissed the possibility of the death penalty against Billy Wagner in the Pike County massacre trial.

www.wlwt.com