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

[tuesdaysgone]

I’m not supporting how the Judge has acted towards her and what he’s said, but I would (respectfully) point out, if we take what he said as true, then she’s done several things that have frustrated him and in his mind/opinion he’s given her several opportunities to correct course and she’s done none of that.

Two quick examples that the Judge has said - believing that discussions about removing the death penalty & conversations that he believed were happening, based on her representations to the court over *multiple* hearings over *multiple* months. Only to find out recently that wasn’t entirely true. Second that she’s (as he said) “months” where she could’ve filed an amended charge/info in regards to the different County/crime scene issue, and she seemingly left that to the last minute to drop on him and the defense. I’m *not* saying she’s doing anything wrong, just trying to play devil’s advocate here. If we try to believe the Judge’s own words, then feeling “misled” over several months + believing you’re getting closer to moving the case to trial only to find out last minute that’s not true = the unhappy and frustrated Judge we see. Is it warranted? Right? I don’t know the answer to those questions but IMOO he’s not responding this way just because she “challenged” him on something.

And not for nothing but I’ve yet to see a legal rationale for why she waited this long to bring up the change of County for one of the crime scenes in relation to the charges and the information….it’s not as if the state just found that issue and worked to correct it ASAP. they’ve known about that so I’m not sure why it was only just coming out now. JMOO, sorry

Those are all very valid points. Hopefully, it has awakened the prosecution.

I respectfully don’t agree with giving JW parole after taking the lives of five people. This case has gone on too long. That is not entirely on the prosecution. His disrespect of AC, the victims and their families is apparent in his courtroom. It is also known outside of this case that Judge Hein is very opposed to life without parole. What constitutes a heinous crime if not this? What is the value of a life… in this case 8? The families have suffered for years. They need and deserve closure. They may have a brief time to heal then parole hearings will begin. Is this Justice? So, imo devaluing the victims and their families to teach AC a lesson is absurd.

 

[Covert Operative]

Respectfully, I see what you are saying, despite as others have claimed, I think none of that of that changes just how significantly severing charges changes the next steps in *this* trial.

Again - just seeing it from the Judge’s perspective. He’s trying to schedule *one* trial right now. He’s waiting on the higher Courts to make some rulings that could affect scheduling and details on how this *one* trial proceeds. Now he’s hearing about potential severing of charges, and State hasn’t formulated a full response yet…now he’s thinking ahead if this happens what evidence does he need to exclude from this *one* trial? What motions and additional hearings for those motions will he need to schedule? How will the affect scheduling of this *one* trial?

And now that charges are severed, when will he need to schedule the one for the other charges? Can he even schedule that now? I just think it’s a big can of worms and those criticizing him for seemingly acting willy nilly aren’t seeing just how much (from his perspective, and arguably not I can see it) of a downstream effect it can and would have. And if this Judge truly is concerned about “thinking ahead” as he says he is…..then I can really see why “last minute” things like this are frustrating to him. But of course JMOO..

I appreciate your point of view. I do not think Billy will be rescheduled or have a trial for the charges that are severed or at least for the ones that I heard them mention in the last pretrial. Those do not directly pertain to him so there would be no need to have a trial for those that I heard them mention, or it seems that way from what was discussed. There may be other ones in their motion when they file it that they did not mention that come into play and get severed. I think they have two weeks to file a motion and then the State had two weeks to respond. The defense has to submit a motion to sever, then the state has to do their full response is how it sounded to me. I think defense wants to sever 15,16,17,18,19,20. Canepa seemed open to severing charges except for conspiracy and Rico charges. The defense had not filed their motion to sever yet and the judge did seem minimally irritated at that. The judge brought up severance of charges is how I remember it. Wonder why the defense has not filed to sever charges in all this time? Maybe I will listen to the pretrial again when I get a chance.

If the judge was thinking ahead as he claims, I cannot see why he would possibly have sentenced Jake before Billy's trial. He is fully aware of State vs Gilbert. Removing Billy's DP and sentencing Angela and Jake before Billy's trial has the potential to cause the biggest downstream effect I can think of to this point. Hopefully Jake will still testify.

 

[MTW2011]

Those are all very valid points. Hopefully, it has awakened the prosecution.

I respectfully don’t agree with giving JW parole after taking the lives of five people. This case has gone on too long. That is not entirely on the prosecution. His disrespect of AC, the victims and their families is apparent in his courtroom. It is also known outside of this case that Judge Hein is very opposed to life without parole. What constitutes a heinous crime if not this? What is the value of a life… in this case 8? The families have suffered for years. They need and deserve closure. They may have a brief time to heal then parole hearings will begin. Is this Justice? So, imo devaluing the victims and their families to teach AC a lesson is absurd.

I agree, and I hope she will consider her next steps in this case a bit more carefully going forward, especially as she knows how this Judge has been so far.

I’m no prosecutor but if I was, and if I was in her position (knowing that the Judge already has me on thin ice), I think one of the last things I would do would be to publicly accuse him of sabotaging the case and being dismissive of victims…but that’s just my opinion.

I think he actually gave her a decent (albeit maybe not for the “right” reasons) opportunity to explain her recent decision making when he asked her what is her duty to the victims in court. I’m not sure what the “good” answer would’ve been in his mind, but I don’t think explaining how strongly you will take input from victims - without citing any legal basis for doing so - helped her case….at least not with this Judge. Sadly. JMOO.

 

[Niner]

Just checking the dockets for new info.

for GW4

Appeals case
Docket Information:
Date Docket Text
12/27/2024 JOINT MOTION FOR ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR ORAL ARGUMENT FILED
COPIES FILED, EMAILED RETD TO COUNSEL; 4 TO COURT OF APPEALS

01/28/2025 ENTRY GRANTING JOINT MOTION REQUESTING ADDITIONAL TIME FOR ORAL ARGUMENT; EACH SIDE SHALL BE ALLOTTED 25 MINUTES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
COPIES FILED EMAILED TO COUNSEL, 4 MAILED TO COURT OF APPEALS

link: https://cpcourt.pikecounty.oh.gov/eservices/searchresults.page?x=PiTM2zf3SXBPcRjV3ydQjQ

 

[INfisherman]

Yes, I sure did, I was expecting him to take Billy to lunch before they took him back to jail.

Ooof - that probably would’ve been quite the sizable bill.

 

[Cool Cats]

Ooof - that probably would’ve been quite the sizable bill.

Probably why they give out baloney sandwiches

2 Cents

 

[Betty P]

I agree, and I hope she will consider her next steps in this case a bit more carefully going forward, especially as she knows how this Judge has been so far.

I’m no prosecutor but if I was, and if I was in her position (knowing that the Judge already has me on thin ice), I think one of the last things I would do would be to publicly accuse him of sabotaging the case and being dismissive of victims…but that’s just my opinion.

I think he actually gave her a decent (albeit maybe not for the “right” reasons) opportunity to explain her recent decision making when he asked her what is her duty to the victims in court. I’m not sure what the “good” answer would’ve been in his mind, but I don’t think explaining how strongly you will take input from victims - without citing any legal basis for doing so - helped her case….at least not with this Judge. Sadly. JMOO.

I think Angela Canepa's record in handling these trials has been very good. It speaks for itself. The problem is with a judge behaving and making decisisons in such an unorthodox and unprofessional way. AC has to do what's necessary to protect the state's cases (plural, because JMO, all the Wagner prosecutions are now at risk of being damaged). Because of these recent rulings, there are going to be many appeals in the future. The state has to minimize the damage and protect communities going forward to make sure some very dangerous mass murderers aren't released from prison in the coming years.

IMO, the judge is going to do what he wants to do regardless of anything AC does or says.

JMO, IANAL

 

[MTW2011]

I think Angela Canepa's record in handling these trials has been very good. It speaks for itself. The problem is with a judge behaving and making decisisons in such an unorthodox and unprofessional way. AC has to do what's necessary to protect the state's cases (plural, because JMO, all the Wagner prosecutions are now at risk of being damaged). Because of these recent rulings, there are going to be many appeals in the future. The state has to minimize the damage and protect communities going forward to make sure some very dangerous mass murderers aren't released from prison in the coming years.

IMO, the judge is going to do what he wants to do regardless of anything AC does or says.

JMO, IANAL

Hate to belabor this point but I think Canepa could do exactly what you’re saying with “minimize the damage” and protect the community (more) if she did a few simple things.

Judge told her to file written objections, but she did not. He told her to stop interrupting him during hearings when he is speaking, and she did not.
He told her he would consider her objections if they were received in written form ahead of time and if she had none filed to not make them orally the day of, she did neither.

She could have a much more solid footing when this all reaches a higher Court if she could point to this Judge and this record and say “I did every single (absurd) thing he asked me of me and he still acted in this way”. Instead she can’t do that. JMOO

 

[Betty P]

Hate to belabor this point but I think Canepa could do exactly what you’re saying with “minimize the damage” and protect the community (more) if she did a few simple things.

Judge told her to file written objections, but she did not. He told her to stop interrupting him during hearings when he is speaking, and she did not.
He told her he would consider her objections if they were received in written form ahead of time and if she had none filed to not make them orally the day of, she did neither.

She could have a much more solid footing when this all reaches a higher Court if she could point to this Judge and this record and say “I did every single (absurd) thing he asked me of me and he still acted in this way”. Instead she can’t do that. JMOO

Thanks, I'll have to go back and verify the accuracy of that. Links to back up the claims would be helpful. No offense. I don't trust anything that judge says. In the previous trials, defense attorneys sometimes made false claims about what the state did and didn't do.

I think she's done a stellar job thus far and will be able to handle Billy's case as far as is necessary.

There will be absolutely ZERO reason to blame her for any further shockingly bad decisions made by this judge. He alone is responsible for that.

 

[Covert Operative]

Thanks, I'll have to go back and verify the accuracy of that. Links to back up the claims would be helpful. No offense. I don't trust anything that judge says. In the previous trials, defense attorneys sometimes made false claims about what the state did and didn't do.

I think she's done a stellar job thus far and will be able to handle Billy's case as far as is necessary.

There will be absolutely ZERO reason to blame her for any further shockingly bad decisions made by this judge. He alone is responsible for that.

I agree.
I think the judge could be the one to minimize the damage and protect the community more if he didn't decide that cold blooded murderers should get the possibility of parole. Because a lawyer interrupts a judge would not be extreme enough for a normal judge to then help sabotage a case unless they have some deep issues. The judge may take the issues up with the lawyer, but to go to those lengths to help the killers case is about as extreme as it can get in my opinion. The judge wants justice for the defendants it seems to me, not the victims.

There was no reason to blame her for this judge's bad decisions and his bad decisions alone thus far in my opinion. This judge will find a way to blame her or to put the blame on some reason if he gives Billy a lighter sentence than he should get. His reasoning for giving Jake a chance at parole made absolutely no sense. Gender Bias? I think he may know a thing or two about gender bias himself.

 

[MTW2011]

Thanks, I'll have to go back and verify the accuracy of that. Links to back up the claims would be helpful. No offense. I don't trust anything that judge says. In the previous trials, defense attorneys sometimes made false claims about what the state did and didn't do.

I think she's done a stellar job thus far and will be able to handle Billy's case as far as is necessary.

There will be absolutely ZERO reason to blame her for any further shockingly bad decisions made by this judge. He alone is responsible for that.

No offense taken, but as I don’t want anyone to think I’m just making up spurious claims, here’s some notes / timestamps from recent hearings. (Video clips referenced from local FOX19 news livestream:

)

around 38 minutes the Judge is speaking - he puts up his hands seemingly in an effort to tell Canepa to wait until he is finished speaking. She ends up interrupting him

41:55 - Canepa interrupts multiple times while the Judge is speaking. Accuses him of trying to "sabotage" the case. Here even her co-counsel can be heard asking her to "let me talk". Canepa repeatedly shakes her head in (understandably in what I’d say is digust and shock) at the Judge

43:09 - Judge is explaining, again, the reason for him dismissing the death penalty. Canepa continues to visibly shake her head in disbelief (I just don’t see how that was going to help any already irate Judge )

44:00 - Judge reminds the State how they have represented to both the defense and to him - over 4 months - that this was "not a death penalty case" and yet he says Canepa is very angry over him removing it without their motion. He explains his confusion since the representations they've been making to the court were that it was going to be removed anyways.

47:15 Canepa asks the Judge if "you think this is funny?!" (IMOO he made no indication that anything he said or what was being said was "funny"…)

48:03 - Canepa laughing audibly in disbelief (likely annoying this Judge who was already cranky even more)

48:55 - several minutes before the hearing is even concluded, and while the Judge is talking, Canepa starts to pack up all her belongings and get ready to go (I’ve seen some other judges who would’ve called that out and been very annoyed over that, he didn’t comment on it; probably the best for both of them).

Insert something, something about catching more flies with honey....just my opinion. I really am not supporting what he’s decided and how, but I find it really difficult that acting this way would’ve helped ease the already escalated tensions in the room. And this was only from the one hearing….

 

[Seattle1]

Hate to belabor this point but I think Canepa could do exactly what you’re saying with “minimize the damage” and protect the community (more) if she did a few simple things.

Judge told her to file written objections, but she did not. He told her to stop interrupting him during hearings when he is speaking, and she did not.
He told her he would consider her objections if they were received in written form ahead of time and if she had none filed to not make them orally the day of, she did neither.

She could have a much more solid footing when this all reaches a higher Court if she could point to this Judge and this record and say “I did every single (absurd) thing he asked me of me and he still acted in this way”. Instead she can’t do that. JMOO

I have the utmost respect for AC and how she's been a true champion for the victims-- but I do worry she conflates her role as the prosecutor with that of victim advocate. For example, the family should have been represented at the change of venue Motion hearing either by the advocate for the victims, or counsel, where Judge Hein could have been reminded of their Statutory right to be heard and their reasons for opposition considered during the hearing -- and not after the Court's ruling-- by way of appeal.

Also, I recently re-listened to AC's opening statement for GW4's trial and I found myself feeling anxious. What I heard was a prosecution who was then (and now) very reliant on JW's testimony especially. Also, AC has decades of trial experience and I found myself very distracted by number of 'ums,' and overall poor delivery. I realized it worked for the jurors because JW delivered but if he does not testify during Billy's trial, I worry about the prosecution's presentation of the evidence if left to AC alone -- and I know nothing about the new co-counsel.

And it doesn't help at all that little man Hein is so disrespectful towards AC. I'm still hoping he sees the light and recuses himself. I know, wishful thinking... JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

I have the utmost respect for AC and how she's been a true champion for the victims-- but I do worry she conflates her role as the prosecutor with that of victim advocate. For example, the family should have been represented at the change of venue Motion hearing either by the advocate for the victims, or counsel, where Judge Hein could have been reminded of their Statutory right to be heard and their reasons for opposition considered during the hearing -- and not after the Court's ruling-- by way of appeal.

Also, I recently re-listened to AC's opening statement for GW4's trial and I found myself feeling anxious. What I heard was a prosecution who was then (and now) very reliant on JW's testimony especially. Also, AC has decades of trial experience and I found myself very distracted by number of 'ums,' and overall poor delivery. I realized it worked for the jurors because JW delivered but if he does not testify during Billy's trial, I worry about the prosecution's presentation of the evidence if left to AC alone -- and I know nothing about the new co-counsel.

And it doesn't help at all that little man Hein is so disrespectful towards AC. I'm still hoping he sees the light and recuses himself. I know, wishful thinking... JMO

I don't care about Fred and her property. Her son killed 8 people and can't get mommy to cover for him.

I have some worry about Jake and Angie testifying. I feel this is necessary but maybe more will come out than we realize. Maybe Jake and Angie's testimony will be read in Court.

2 Cents

 

[Betty P]

I agree, and I hope she will consider her next steps in this case a bit more carefully going forward, especially as she knows how this Judge has been so far.

I’m no prosecutor but if I was, and if I was in her position (knowing that the Judge already has me on thin ice), I think one of the last things I would do would be to publicly accuse him of sabotaging the case and being dismissive of victims…but that’s just my opinion.

I think he actually gave her a decent (albeit maybe not for the “right” reasons) opportunity to explain her recent decision making when he asked her what is her duty to the victims in court. I’m not sure what the “good” answer would’ve been in his mind, but I don’t think explaining how strongly you will take input from victims - without citing any legal basis for doing so - helped her case….at least not with this Judge. Sadly. JMOO.

I think it’s a non-issue. He needs start acting responsibly and return his attention to the trial. I assume that will happen moving forward. He’s delayed this trial enough.

He claims to want the trial to be completed without delay, but continues to do the opposite.

 

[MTW2011]

I have the utmost respect for AC and how she's been a true champion for the victims-- but I do worry she conflates her role as the prosecutor with that of victim advocate. For example, the family should have been represented at the change of venue Motion hearing either by the advocate for the victims, or counsel, where Judge Hein could have been reminded of their Statutory right to be heard and their reasons for opposition considered during the hearing -- and not after the Court's ruling-- by way of appeal.

Also, I recently re-listened to AC's opening statement for GW4's trial and I found myself feeling anxious. What I heard was a prosecution who was then (and now) very reliant on JW's testimony especially. Also, AC has decades of trial experience and I found myself very distracted by number of 'ums,' and overall poor delivery. I realized it worked for the jurors because JW delivered but if he does not testify during Billy's trial, I worry about the prosecution's presentation of the evidence if left to AC alone -- and I know nothing about the new co-counsel.

And it doesn't help at all that little man Hein is so disrespectful towards AC. I'm still hoping he sees the light and recuses himself. I know, wishful thinking... JMO

I agree with a lot of this.
And I think just based on her reaction to the dismissal of the DP spec. & her reactions to hearing he would proceed with sentencing ahead of trial ….it underscores how reliant she was going to be on their testimony against GW. But JMOO.

And yes, why weren’t the victims represented at the Motion hearing? It’s not as if the state doesn’t have robust resources for this case. I don’t agree with the tone and delivery of the Judge but he seemed to take extra efforts to advise them in the gallery that (unfortunately) the Courts are not bound by what resolutions victims may want for a case. He even asked Canepa about this and gave her the chance for her to say it in her own way in front of them. Who knows his real reasoning behind that, but nevertheless it allowed the victims’ families to hear an important point about this process.

And I don’t doubt at all what Canepa says about how she feels for these victims and the work she does for them, but she’s in the unique position where she can equip.the families with things like a victim’s advocate and make sure their position is noted on the record in court. Judging by just how surprised and shocked she was at the removal of the death penalty, I worry how surprised and shocked the families may have been . Hopefully it wasn’t a shock to them, but then again IMOO it shouldn’t have been such a shock to the state either as they’ve represented that this was not going to be a DP case come trial.

 

[Covert Operative]

I have the utmost respect for AC and how she's been a true champion for the victims-- but I do worry she conflates her role as the prosecutor with that of victim advocate. For example, the family should have been represented at the change of venue Motion hearing either by the advocate for the victims, or counsel, where Judge Hein could have been reminded of their Statutory right to be heard and their reasons for opposition considered during the hearing -- and not after the Court's ruling-- by way of appeal.

Also, I recently re-listened to AC's opening statement for GW4's trial and I found myself feeling anxious. What I heard was a prosecution who was then (and now) very reliant on JW's testimony especially. Also, AC has decades of trial experience and I found myself very distracted by number of 'ums,' and overall poor delivery. I realized it worked for the jurors because JW delivered but if he does not testify during Billy's trial, I worry about the prosecution's presentation of the evidence if left to AC alone -- and I know nothing about the new co-counsel.

And it doesn't help at all that little man Hein is so disrespectful towards AC. I'm still hoping he sees the light and recuses himself. I know, wishful thinking... JMO

I feel that the family and victims advocate did not think at all that the judge would go against the previous ruling of Judge Corbin that ruled they would try to seat a jury in Pike county before they would change venues. There was already a ruling on the venue before Judge Hein. I think they learned after that this judge would not abide by anything that had previously been ruled on by another judge or that had been agreed on by another judge. I do not think he would care what they argued, he just said that in court he wish he had been told beforehand to try to make them look bad.

The prosecution is reliant on Jakes testimony, especially if his proffer and/or prior testimony cannot be brought into Billy's trial. The judge very much knew this and decided to sentence Jake before Billy's trial anyway. There may be a lot of evidence that cannot be presented if Jake does not testify, not just his specific testimony.

 

[Covert Operative]

I agree with a lot of this.
And I think just based on her reaction to the dismissal of the DP spec. & her reactions to hearing he would proceed with sentencing ahead of trial ….it underscores how reliant she was going to be on their testimony against GW. But JMOO.

And yes, why weren’t the victims represented at the Motion hearing? It’s not as if the state doesn’t have robust resources for this case. I don’t agree with the tone and delivery of the Judge but he seemed to take extra efforts to advise them in the gallery that (unfortunately) the Courts are not bound by what resolutions victims may want for a case. He even asked Canepa about this and gave her the chance for her to say it in her own way in front of them. Who knows his real reasoning behind that, but nevertheless it allowed the victims’ families to hear an important point about this process.

And I don’t doubt at all what Canepa says about how she feels for these victims and the work she does for them, but she’s in the unique position where she can equip.the families with things like a victim’s advocate and make sure their position is noted on the record in court. Judging by just how surprised and shocked she was at the removal of the death penalty, I worry how surprised and shocked the families may have been . Hopefully it wasn’t a shock to them, but then again IMOO it shouldn’t have been such a shock to the state either as they’ve represented that this was not going to be a DP case come trial.

I am sure they were all shocked since Judge Corbin had already ruled that there would be no change of venue before they tried to seat a jury in Pike County.

She was shocked at the dismissal of the DP because with no request from either side to dismiss or no prior notice to them that he was going to dismiss Billy's DP and to go ahead and sentence Angela and Jake. It was going to be a DP case during trial up to the time that he dismissed the DP, unless they came to an agreement on the DP. Once again they cannot come to an agreement without Billy also agreeing which he would also NOT do. The judge rewarded Billy and his defense for not coming to an agreement but penalized the prosecution for it.

 

[Covert Operative]

No offense taken, but as I don’t want anyone to think I’m just making up spurious claims, here’s some notes / timestamps from recent hearings. (Video clips referenced from local FOX19 news livestream:

)

around 38 minutes the Judge is speaking - he puts up his hands seemingly in an effort to tell Canepa to wait until he is finished speaking. She ends up interrupting him

41:55 - Canepa interrupts multiple times while the Judge is speaking. Accuses him of trying to "sabotage" the case. Here even her co-counsel can be heard asking her to "let me talk". Canepa repeatedly shakes her head in (understandably in what I’d say is digust and shock) at the Judge

43:09 - Judge is explaining, again, the reason for him dismissing the death penalty. Canepa continues to visibly shake her head in disbelief (I just don’t see how that was going to help any already irate Judge )

44:00 - Judge reminds the State how they have represented to both the defense and to him - over 4 months - that this was "not a death penalty case" and yet he says Canepa is very angry over him removing it without their motion. He explains his confusion since the representations they've been making to the court were that it was going to be removed anyways.

47:15 Canepa asks the Judge if "you think this is funny?!" (IMOO he made no indication that anything he said or what was being said was "funny"…)

48:03 - Canepa laughing audibly in disbelief (likely annoying this Judge who was already cranky even more)

48:55 - several minutes before the hearing is even concluded, and while the Judge is talking, Canepa starts to pack up all her belongings and get ready to go (I’ve seen some other judges who would’ve called that out and been very annoyed over that, he didn’t comment on it; probably the best for both of them).

Insert something, something about catching more flies with honey....just my opinion. I really am not supporting what he’s decided and how, but I find it really difficult that acting this way would’ve helped ease the already escalated tensions in the room. And this was only from the one hearing….

I do not think most people think that because the judge and lawyer do not see eye to eye that it would be ok for a judge to derail/sabotage a case for spite. What she said was true and it needed to be said to him. At that point she said that to him he had already told her he was doing those things. Her saying those things had no bearing on what he had already decided in my opinion. I believe the judge had been smirking at times during their exchange when she said that to him about not being funny. He does that a lot in court.

I have read every motion and I have never seen that the State said they would just dismiss the DP before trial. I have never seen the State say in a pretrial that they would outright dismiss the DP. If she was going to do that she would not appeal to try to get it reinstated. I do believe that if they came to an agreement with Billy then it would have been dismissed with a stipulation. The stipulation was that it would be put back on if Jake did not testify and Billy would not agree with that. I can't blame him for not agreeing to that as I would not help the state prosecute me either if I was a killer. Now, it does not matter that much if the DP is put back is how I see it. I could never see this judge handing down a DP to Billy or even a LWOP sentence and I am sure Jake and Angela can see that also, which could lessen Jake's motivation to testify in Billy's case. However spawn of satan's (as he was referred to by a victim's mother) "religion" may motivate him to testify if he still is that religiously inclined when trial gets here. The DP cannot be brought back on Angela and Jake at this point.

Interrupting a judge does not make for a reason to dismiss a DP and sentence two witnesses that are suppose to testify before the trial. Angela's testimony was very damning to Billy but not on the level of Jake's testimony. There are other actions a judge can take towards a lawyer if there is a problem of how they conduct themselves that does not including sabotaging their case.

The only thing I can say that I do like the judge has done, is to remove the behind closed doors discussions in chamber. Everyone now gets to see what a jerk he actually is and that Billy has an additional lawyer in Judge Hein.

 

[Cool Cats]

No offense taken, but as I don’t want anyone to think I’m just making up spurious claims, here’s some notes / timestamps from recent hearings. (Video clips referenced from local FOX19 news livestream:

)

around 38 minutes the Judge is speaking - he puts up his hands seemingly in an effort to tell Canepa to wait until he is finished speaking. She ends up interrupting him

41:55 - Canepa interrupts multiple times while the Judge is speaking. Accuses him of trying to "sabotage" the case. Here even her co-counsel can be heard asking her to "let me talk". Canepa repeatedly shakes her head in (understandably in what I’d say is digust and shock) at the Judge

43:09 - Judge is explaining, again, the reason for him dismissing the death penalty. Canepa continues to visibly shake her head in disbelief (I just don’t see how that was going to help any already irate Judge )

44:00 - Judge reminds the State how they have represented to both the defense and to him - over 4 months - that this was "not a death penalty case" and yet he says Canepa is very angry over him removing it without their motion. He explains his confusion since the representations they've been making to the court were that it was going to be removed anyways.

47:15 Canepa asks the Judge if "you think this is funny?!" (IMOO he made no indication that anything he said or what was being said was "funny"…)

48:03 - Canepa laughing audibly in disbelief (likely annoying this Judge who was already cranky even more)

48:55 - several minutes before the hearing is even concluded, and while the Judge is talking, Canepa starts to pack up all her belongings and get ready to go (I’ve seen some other judges who would’ve called that out and been very annoyed over that, he didn’t comment on it; probably the best for both of them).

Insert something, something about catching more flies with honey....just my opinion. I really am not supporting what he’s decided and how, but I find it really difficult that acting this way would’ve helped ease the already escalated tensions in the room. And this was only from the one hearing….

Canepa sounds like a pissed off normal prosecutor to me. For good reason. Go Canepa.

 

[Cool Cats]

No offense taken, but as I don’t want anyone to think I’m just making up spurious claims, here’s some notes / timestamps from recent hearings. (Video clips referenced from local FOX19 news livestream:

)

around 38 minutes the Judge is speaking - he puts up his hands seemingly in an effort to tell Canepa to wait until he is finished speaking. She ends up interrupting him

41:55 - Canepa interrupts multiple times while the Judge is speaking. Accuses him of trying to "sabotage" the case. Here even her co-counsel can be heard asking her to "let me talk". Canepa repeatedly shakes her head in (understandably in what I’d say is digust and shock) at the Judge

43:09 - Judge is explaining, again, the reason for him dismissing the death penalty. Canepa continues to visibly shake her head in disbelief (I just don’t see how that was going to help any already irate Judge )

44:00 - Judge reminds the State how they have represented to both the defense and to him - over 4 months - that this was "not a death penalty case" and yet he says Canepa is very angry over him removing it without their motion. He explains his confusion since the representations they've been making to the court were that it was going to be removed anyways.

47:15 Canepa asks the Judge if "you think this is funny?!" (IMOO he made no indication that anything he said or what was being said was "funny"…)

48:03 - Canepa laughing audibly in disbelief (likely annoying this Judge who was already cranky even more)

48:55 - several minutes before the hearing is even concluded, and while the Judge is talking, Canepa starts to pack up all her belongings and get ready to go (I’ve seen some other judges who would’ve called that out and been very annoyed over that, he didn’t comment on it; probably the best for both of them).

Insert something, something about catching more flies with honey....just my opinion. I really am not supporting what he’s decided and how, but I find it really difficult that acting this way would’ve helped ease the already escalated tensions in the room. And this was only from the one hearing….

Been watching this case since 2018 and I give credit to Canepa for actually acting as restrained as she did.

2 Cents