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

[INfisherman]

I think even if Billy does not take a plea deal, he may end up with a sentence similar to Jake's or never get LWOP, but get a set sentence.

Watch for the baloney slicer making an appearance on Heinz’s bench.

MOO

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Older article on Ron O'brien aka "Hang Em' High"... former Franklin County Prosecutor. He is a very educated attorney and has tons of experience with murder cases and knows his way around a courtroom.

Who is Ron O’Brien, the newest prosecutor on Billy Wagner’s case?

WAVERLY, Ohio — While sparks flew in a hearing on Wednesday in Pike County in the Rhoden Massacre trials with bombshell developments, one development that flew under the mainstream radar due to the…

sciotovalleyguardian.com

 

[Niner]

The only docket update.

Billy's Appeal #2024CR000931

Docket Information:
02/06/2025 MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD FILED
Attorney: CANEPA, ANGELA R
COPIES FILED EMAILED TO COUNSEL, 4 MAILED TO COURT OF APPEALS

02/06/2025 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT STATE OF OHIO IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR RECONDSIDERATION FILED
Attorney: CANEPA, ANGELA R
COPIES FILED EMAILED TO COUNSEL, 4 MAILED TO COURT OF APPEALS

link: https://cpcourt.pikecounty.oh.gov/eservices/searchresults.page?x=fVF6ocjcEXrkD9JJ2DvUSw

 

[Cool Cats]

The only docket update.

Billy's Appeal #2024CR000931

Docket Information:
02/06/2025 MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD FILED
Attorney: CANEPA, ANGELA R
COPIES FILED EMAILED TO COUNSEL, 4 MAILED TO COURT OF APPEALS

02/06/2025 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT STATE OF OHIO IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR RECONDSIDERATION FILED
Attorney: CANEPA, ANGELA R
COPIES FILED EMAILED TO COUNSEL, 4 MAILED TO COURT OF APPEALS

link: https://cpcourt.pikecounty.oh.gov/eservices/searchresults.page?x=fVF6ocjcEXrkD9JJ2DvUSw

Appeal for what?

 

[Niner]

Appeal for what?

here's a link to it - Motion of the State to Stay

https://cpcourt.pikecounty.oh.gov/eservices/searchresults.page?x=AujRB354ImRDfnAczrS9PPa-ADO4cUZieUyc2DNuIbOCSC2QYPOflaz7rhxfilQs8ObekY1h*K3sZfWU2naQhg

 

[Covert Operative]

Appeal for what?

There is an appeal on the DP and there is an appeal on Venue still outstanding.

The first motion to stay proceedings was denied by the court of appeals. She has now filed a reconsideration motion to stay any proceedings, like pretrials until the DP is decided is how I understand it. I do not really see a need to stay the pretrials, but she has some reason for wanting that done.

 

[MTW2011]

There is an appeal on the DP and there is an appeal on Venue still outstanding.

The first motion to stay proceedings was denied by the court of appeals. She has now filed a reconsideration motion to stay any proceedings, like pretrials until the DP is decided is how I understand it. I do not really see a need to stay the pretrials, but she has some reason for wanting that done.

if the DP was going to come off the table before his trial anyway, why is the State pushing this issue so hard?

I’m guessing their argument (without having read the MtS) focuses on some parts of trying to enforce the testimony/provisions via plea agreement of his co defendants, but seeing as that issue went awry for the State when Judge proceeded so quickly to sentencing for them…im trying to understand the push for this.

As others have said here, I hope the State isn’t hanging their hat so much on the testimony of his codefendants, I hope they’re prepared for one or both of them to plead the 5th on the stand (sort of the ‘worst case scenario’) but JMOO.

 

[Cool Cats]

if the DP was going to come off the table before his trial anyway, why is the State pushing this issue so hard?

I’m guessing their argument (without having read the MtS) focuses on some parts of trying to enforce the testimony/provisions via plea agreement of his co defendants, but seeing as that issue went awry for the State when Judge proceeded so quickly to sentencing for them…im trying to understand the push for this.

As others have said here, I hope the State isn’t hanging their hat so much on the testimony of his codefendants, I hope they’re prepared for one or both of them to plead the 5th on the stand (sort of the ‘worst case scenario’) but JMOO.

Canepa said she needed the DP to force the Wagners to testify against each other.
However, this IS still a death penalty case, for now. The jurors are "death qualified". The plea deal hinges on Jake & Angela (Angela also took a plea) testifying truthfully.




@cathyrusson
REMINDER: Jake Wagner has pleaded guilty to the murders of the 8 family members and will be testifying in this trial. He pleaded guilty in exchange for the death penalty being taken off the table for him, his mother Angela, father Billy and brother #George Wagner IV

However, this IS still a death penalty case, for now. The jurors are “death qualified”. The plea deal hinges on Jake & Angela (Angela also took a plea) testifying truthfully. x.com

@cathyrusson
REMINDER: Jake Wagner has pleaded guilty to the murders of the 8 family members and will be testifying in this trial. He pleaded guilty in exchange for the death penalty being taken off the table for him, his mother Angela, father Billy and brother #GeorgeWagnerIV

— Cathy Russon (@cathyrusson) September 12, 2022

pike-county-murders/not-a-crime-of-passion-prosecutors-lay-out-case-in-long-awaited-2016-pike-county-massacre-opening-statements/

2 cents

 

[Covert Operative]

if the DP was going to come off the table before his trial anyway, why is the State pushing this issue so hard?

I’m guessing their argument (without having read the MtS) focuses on some parts of trying to enforce the testimony/provisions via plea agreement of his co defendants, but seeing as that issue went awry for the State when Judge proceeded so quickly to sentencing for them…im trying to understand the push for this.

As others have said here, I hope the State isn’t hanging their hat so much on the testimony of his codefendants, I hope they’re prepared for one or both of them to plead the 5th on the stand (sort of the ‘worst.ase scenario’) but JMOO.

It wasn't going to come off before the trial anyway unless there was an agreement made. If the agreement came off and Jake did not testify, it would have gone back for Billy and Jake and Billy would not agree to that. Now, it could not go back on Jake since he was sentenced and given a chance at parole, but it could have still gone back on Billy if they had an agreement. I either missed something or am not following why you keep saying that it was going to come off anyway.

I think Billy's trial even more than George's is depending on Jake's testimony. I still think she will win the case, but her case has been hurt by the judge sentencing Jake. The Judge made the worst case scenario. They don't have to plead the 5th on the stand, they don't even need to testify to keep their own deal/sentence any longer since they have already been sentenced. If Billy's DP goes back on, I don't think Jake or anyone at this stage believes the Judge would give Billy, the DP. Jake may not see/feel the need to testify for that reason. He may feel that he should since he testified against his brother though.

The prosecutor may feel if the DP is back on Billy that it would make Jake more inclined to testify in Billy's trial. Also, if the DP is on Billy, then Billy could not have a bench trial with just Judge Hein. I believe in Ohio he would have to have a 3-judge bench trial or jury trial in a capital case. At this time, he wants a jury trial. He must feel he will be acquitted, mistrial or hung jury, I think he is wrong on that. I can't really think of any other reasons to have the DP put back on other than she believes the judge was legally wrong to remove it. There may be other legal reasons that the DP looming over his head would help the State.

 

[MTW2011]

It wasn't going to come off before the trial anyway unless there was an agreement made. If the agreement came off and Jake did not testify, it would have gone back for Billy and Jake and Billy would not agree to that. Now, it could not go back on Jake since he was sentenced and given a chance at parole, but it could have still gone back on Billy if they had an agreement. I either missed something or am not following why you keep saying that it was going to come off anyway.

In the November 20, 2024 hearing Canepa told the Court “….in this situation we are trying to fashion it so that we dismiss it ahead of time, again for the mutual benefit of the parties…”. She was referring to removing the death penalty.

In the January 3, 2025 hearing. Canepa told the Court “….as long as Jake testifies, right, I mean that’s the condition….just like George’s trial, I agreed to dismiss, his defendant’s agreement says that I will dismiss the death specs if he testifies.” The ‘he’ was referring to Jake and as we know this hearing took place after the DP was removed by the Judge.

Me bringing it up (“keep saying”) was just sharing what the Court said its perspective was about if the death penalty would be in play here. I’m not saying it would have come off “anyway”, just that if I take the Court’s words at face value then I would believe the Court thought an agreement was imminent. But there’s understandably some nuances to Jake testifying and if the State believes he testified truthfully, not that him simply testifying would = death penalty automatically removed from the equation. JMOO.

 

[Betty P]

There is an appeal on the DP and there is an appeal on Venue still outstanding.

The first motion to stay proceedings was denied by the court of appeals. She has now filed a reconsideration motion to stay any proceedings, like pretrials until the DP is decided is how I understand it. I do not really see a need to stay the pretrials, but she has some reason for wanting that done.

Right. AC is still pursuing these appeals, as she should. Removing the DP before the trial undermines the state's case.

 

[Betty P]

In the November 20, 2024 hearing Canepa told the Court “….in this situation we are trying to fashion it so that we dismiss it ahead of time, again for the mutual benefit of the parties…”. She was referring to removing the death penalty.

In the January 3, 2025 hearing. Canepa told the Court “….as long as Jake testifies, right, I mean that’s the condition….just like George’s trial, I agreed to dismiss, his defendant’s agreement says that I will dismiss the death specs if he testifies.” The ‘he’ was referring to Jake and as we know this hearing took place after the DP was removed by the Judge.

Me bringing it up (“keep saying”) was just sharing what the Court said its perspective was about if the death penalty would be in play here. I’m not saying it would have come off “anyway”, just that if I take the Court’s words at face value then I would believe the Court thought an agreement was imminent. But there’s understandably some nuances to Jake testifying and if the State believes he testified truthfully, not that him simply testifying would = death penalty automatically removed from the equation. JMOO.

She's right. She's doing what needs to be done.

 

[Covert Operative]

In the November 20, 2024 hearing Canepa told the Court “….in this situation we are trying to fashion it so that we dismiss it ahead of time, again for the mutual benefit of the parties…”. She was referring to removing the death penalty.

In the January 3, 2025 hearing. Canepa told the Court “….as long as Jake testifies, right, I mean that’s the condition….just like George’s trial, I agreed to dismiss, his defendant’s agreement says that I will dismiss the death specs if he testifies.” The ‘he’ was referring to Jake and as we know this hearing took place after the DP was removed by the Judge.

Me bringing it up (“keep saying”) was just sharing what the Court said its perspective was about if the death penalty would be in play here. I’m not saying it would have come off “anyway”, just that if I take the Court’s words at face value then I would believe the Court thought an agreement was imminent. But there’s understandably some nuances to Jake testifying and if the State believes he testified truthfully, not that him simply testifying would = death penalty automatically removed from the equation. JMOO.

I am trying to understand it the way you do but I am not getting there. I have watched the Jan 3 pretrial more than once.

I could go on, but we seem to be in the same book on different chapters so I will spare you and myself.

 

[Covert Operative]

Right. AC is still pursuing these appeals, as she should. Removing the DP before the trial undermines the state's case.

Yes, it does and sentencing Jake before Billy's trial undermines it more than even removing the DP it almost seems. In essence the Judge removed Billy and Jake's DP. It could have been reinstated on Jake if he had not testified or testified untruthfully. Now if he does decide to testify untruthfully or not at all, it cannot be reinstated for him.

Seems like a lot of help he is dishing out. So far this is the things I see that he has done for the defense/defendants:

-He rewarded Billy by removing the DP without any cooperation in the case from Billy and without Billy and the prosecution coming to an agreement.
-He granted Billy's change of venue without first trying to seat a jury in Pike County.
-He sentenced Jake and Angela ahead of Billy's trial giving Billy another possible reward if Jake does not testify at all or truthfully in the trial.
- He removed Jakes possibility of DP by sentencing him before Billy's trial. This also gave Jake another reward because the DP cannot be reinstated for Jake if he chooses not to testify or testifies untruthfully.
-He gave Jake another reward of a chance at parole. Jake already had been rewarded for his cooperation by having his DP and the DP of his family removed if he testified.

 

[Betty P]

Yes, it does and sentencing Jake before Billy's trial undermines it more than even removing the DP it almost seems. In essence the Judge removed Billy and Jake's DP. It could have been reinstated on Jake if he had not testified or testified untruthfully. Now if he does decide to testify untruthfully or not at all, it cannot be reinstated for him.

Seems like a lot of help he is dishing out. So far this is the things I see that he has done for the defense/defendants:

-He rewarded Billy by removing the DP without any cooperation in the case from Billy and without Billy and the prosecution coming to an agreement.
-He granted Billy's change of venue without first trying to seat a jury in Pike County.
-He sentenced Jake and Angela ahead of Billy's trial giving Billy another possible reward if Jake does not testify at all or truthfully in the trial.
- He removed Jakes possibility of DP by sentencing him before Billy's trial. This also gave Jake another reward because the DP cannot be reinstated for Jake if he chooses not to testify or testifies untruthfully.
-He gave Jake another reward of a chance at parole. Jake already had been rewarded for his cooperation by having his DP and the DP of his family removed if he testified.

All true. He was also dishonest, JMO, in why he did those things. His explanations and rationale don't hold water. Perhaps he's underestimating how much people understand what he's doing.

 

[MTW2011]

All true. He was also dishonest, JMO, in why he did those things. His explanations and rationale don't hold water. Perhaps he's underestimating how much people understand what he's doing.

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.

 

[Betty P]

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.

He refuses to acknowledge that his actions made it impossible to require Angela or Jake to testify against Billy. There was no rational need for him to end their cases early and negate the plea agreement. Doing so didn't save any time or resolve anything. Instead, it is making Billy's trial last longer than it would have if he had just proceeded as Judge Deering would have.

ETA: If anything, Billy's trial process will take much longer, in part due to the appeals the state has to make in an attempt to undo the damage.

JMO, MOO

 

[Tricia]

Do you remember the annoying old days when Websleuths.com had a zillion ads on the site? Take a look at one of the old ads at the bottom of this post.
Those days are GONE and let's keep them gone. Help us keep ads off of Websleuths.
Sign up for a subscription to DNA Solves.com and make a monthly donation.
Not only does this keep those awful ads off of Websleuths, but you are helping the families of the missing get the answers they deserve.
Find out how you can become a subscriber to DNA Solves.com by
CLICKING HERE
If you want to make a single donation, CLICK HERE, scroll down and pick a case you would like to donate to.
Do not comment on this thread. CLICK HERE to ask questions and to learn more.
Thank you very much.

 

[Puzzles8]

Older article on Ron O'brien aka "Hang Em' High"... former Franklin County Prosecutor. He is a very educated attorney and has tons of experience with murder cases and knows his way around a courtroom.

Who is Ron O’Brien, the newest prosecutor on Billy Wagner’s case?

WAVERLY, Ohio — While sparks flew in a hearing on Wednesday in Pike County in the Rhoden Massacre trials with bombshell developments, one development that flew under the mainstream radar due to the…

sciotovalleyguardian.com

I like his resume!

JMO

 

[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