This is very interesting, never heard of it thanks.
From what I glean from the Motions it seems a bit of these things could be going on - intentional
distraction or
obfuscation.
From Motions posted:
Defendant also claims that the "provocative acts" that the State engaged in during the time the Defendant's conversations were being intercepted was tantamount to an interrogation of the Defendant and his brother, for which he had a right to counsel, and for which the State should have provided him with his Miranda rights.
The State strongly disagrees. A defendant's right to counsel, right to remain silent, right to have Miranda rights provided to them, arise in an "in-custody" interrogation setting...........There is nothing about driving a truck with his brother, per the Defendant's own description, outside of Ohio "90% of the time", that resembles being in custody, and the " provocative acts" as noted, are required by the statutes that guide Interception Warrants, and certainly do not equate to "interrogations".
There was no coercion exerted over the Defendant and/or his brother, Jake Wagner, while they were being monitored in the truck.
Defense trying to say only one shoe print was found because the expert didn't just rely on size.
Defendant's reference to the field on forensic footwear as " pseudo-science" is baseless.
Defendant states, Bodziak looked at more than just the "size" of the outsoles. Rather, Bodziak compared the design, dimension and texture pattern of each shoe to determine whether they originated from the same mold. The differential between a half size in the Athletics Work shoe depended on the texture pattern of small portions of the size 11W and 10.5 W shoes, which was ascertained by Bodziak by looking at the hand-struck still led texture on each shoe. (Bodziack report p. 3).
Other Acts
Mr. Wagner argues that most of the claimed "other acts" were committed by someone other than him, as such are not relevant to him.
Mr. Wagner argues all of the thirty-four prior acts must be excluded as being irrelevant. The acts lack any tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
Using the excuse that Hanna's body wasn't hidden.
Edward Jacob Wagner's threats to Hanna Rhoden, including, but not limited to, threatening to kill her and put her body where it would never be found.
This act of Jake Wagner is not relevant in George's trial, assuming it is relevant it's value is out weighed by it's prejudicial effect.
The evidence is also irrelevant because the prosecution does not claim Hanna Rhoden's body was concealed.
Using the excuse that according to Jake and Angela, Hanna spied on Tabitha.
Defendant and co-Defendants spying on Tabitha through surreptitious means, including including but not limited to surreptitiously accessing Tabitha's and her mother's social media accounts, and having others "spy" on her and report back to them.
This act is not relevant to George, assuming it is relevant it's value is outweighed by the prejudicial effect. This prior act may show identity, but with the plea and testimony of Jake and Angela, "identity" is not an issue at trial.
According to the proffers Hannah committed this act.
