OH - Pike Co, 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue, 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #69

[Cool Cats]

CO, I hope so I would love for the jury to see his rage.

Speaking of Billy,

Imagine George when Jake and his own mother are up on the stand.

"Yes George went with them that night."

"Yes George knew all the plans ahead of time."

My guess is he will stare at his family on the stand but also try not to show anger but will still look angry. Plus he may shake his head "no" alot and do that eye rolling thing he does.

Or heck, they will need to super glue him to his chair and cuff him because he loses it.

Will be a weird site to see these Wagner crime family members that physically close to each other. Just steps away from each other. The tension will be astronomical.

 

[Johnny B Bad]

Yes, weird to use "nobody" instead of "anyone." Could be a reason or could just be the way the person who wrote it up talks.
Also makes it sound possible that he did shoot but missed. But yes it leaves open the possibility he killed someone without shooting.
They are afraid if they get Jake to admit George shot someone then Jake gets off his proffer and the DP stays on.

Defense is afraid of doing such a good job they get Jake off his proffer. Too bad, judge is letting Jake testify.

I hope that Angela and Jake is in jail clothes when they take the witness stand, that whole Wagner bunch are overbearing crooks! JMO
I was really hoping that FW would have more charges filed against her before she dies of old age, they have used the law for their dirty work a many of years, JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

Why do you think another judge would be required to hear this motion?

JMO

Don't know why another judge needs to hear it but they think the prosecution is keeping EW's address from them which not only means they can't interview her, but can't interview neighbors and associates. But then they say they don't even know if she WILL talk to them!

Motion #90 mod approved:

Motion for in camera hearing for review of prosecuting attorneys certification of non-disclosure

 

[Niner]

I went to the court site to see if GW4 had another motions hearing coming up before jury selection started on 7/5/22 - and these came up. i don't believe anyone has posted these - recap of Motions. Sorry - but it is pretty long post!



06/22/2022 JOURNAL ENTRY -- The following are decisions of the Court regarding motions previously argued by counsel and upon which decisions have not been previously entered upon the record:

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 8, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR NOTICE OF STATE'S EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO OHIO R. CRIM. P. 12(E)(2)."
Although the State of Ohio opposes the Defendant's Motion No. 8, the State's Response indicates that the State of Ohio intends to comply with Ohio R. Crim P. 12(E)(2) and Crim. R. 16, as well as the case law interpreting this rule.
The Court finds that the language of Defendant's Motion No. 8, as framed, is overbroad and is not well taken. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 8 is hereby overruled and denied; however, the State of Ohio is required to comply with Ohio R. Crim. P. 12(E)(2) and Crim. R. 16 and controlling case law interpreting such provisions.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 9, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF EXCULPATORY AND IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE."
Although the State of Ohio opposes the Defendant's Motion No. 9, the State's Response to Defendant's Motion No. 9 indicates that the State intends to comply with the requirements of Rule 16 of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, applicable provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and Brady v. Maryland (1963), 373 U.S. 83.
The Court finds that the language of Defendant's Motion No. 9, as framed, is overbroad and is not well taken. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 9 is hereby overruled and denied; however, the State of Ohio is required to comply with the applicable provisions of Ohio Crim.R. 16, the Code of Professional Responsibility and with the requirements of Brady v. Maryland, and its progeny.


AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 10, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE OF AGGRAVATING FACTORS AND INFORMATION RELATING TO MITIGATING FACTORS."
The State of Ohio opposes Defendant's Motion No. 10, but argues in its Response that it will comply with Crim.R. 16.
The State of Ohio is required to comply with Crim.R. 16; however, the language of the Defendant's motion, as framed, may be overbroad in that it may require the State to furnish information before the State can or should be required to furnish it.
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 10 is hereby overruled and denied; however, the State is required to comply with Crim.R. 16.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 11, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PROPERLY PRESERVE AND CATALOG ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE."
The State of Ohio opposes Defendant's Moton No. 11. At oral argument the Prosecuting Attorney indicated that the State of Ohio intended to file a memorandum contra to Defendant's Motion No. 11 and that the State also intended to provide an exhibit list at an appropriate time. As of June 20, 2022, the State has not filed a memorandum contra and has not filed an exhibit list.
Further, the State of Ohio has indicated that it opposes Defendant's Motion No. 89, entitled "Defendant's Motion For An Order Requiring An Exhibit List Prior To Trial," and the Court ordered that the State of Ohio to file a response to Defendant's Motion No. 89 on or before May 31, 2022. As of June 20, 2022, the State of Ohio has not filed a response to Defendant's Motion No. 11.
The Court therefore reserves ruling upon Defendant's Motion No. 11 and intends to rule upon Defendant's Motion No. 11 and Defendant's Motion No. 89 together.

DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 12, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS TO TURN OVER AND ADVISE THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF ALL INFORMATION ACQUIRED DURING THE COURSE OF INVESTIGATION."
The State of Ohio opposes Defendant's Motion No. 12, but argues that the State will comply with Crim.R. 16 and that an order of the Court is not necessary.
The Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 12 is not well taken. There is no requirement to turn over all investigatory work and therefore Defendant's Motion No. 12 as drafted is overbroad.
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 12 is hereby overruled and denied; however, the State of Ohio is required to comply with Crim.R. 16 and Brady v. Maryland and its progeny.

DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 13, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RESTRAIN CERTAIN PARTIES FROM DISCUSSING THE CASE WITH ACCUSED.
It is the Court's understanding that the State of Ohio does not oppose an order precluding the Prosecuting Attorney and employees and agents of the Prosecuting Attorney's Office, all law enforcements officers, agents of law enforcement agencies, and corrections officers, from initiating conversations with the Defendant concerning this action.
The Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 13 is overbroad as drafted, however, and the same is not well taken.
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 13 is hereby overruled and denied; however, it is ORDERED that all agents of the State of Ohio, including, but not limited to, prosecutors, employees and agents of prosecutors' offices, law enforcement officers, social workers, psychiatric personnel, police and sheriff's department agents, officers and employees, all county jail personnel, corrections officers, and any inmates cooperating with the state of Ohio in the investigation and prosecution of this action shall not initiate any conversations with the Defendant relating in any way to the pending charges or as to the Defendant's character, history and background, without the presence of defense counsel.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 14, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS CAPITAL COMPONENTS OF THIS CASE DUE TO CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW VIOLATIONS."
The State of Ohio opposes Defendant's Moton No. 14.
The Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 14 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 14 is hereby overruled and denied.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 15, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE RELATING TO OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS OR ACTS."
The State of Ohio opposes Defendant's Motion 15.
The Court finds that as of the time of filing of Defendant's Motion No. 15, such motion was pre-mature in that the State of Ohio had not yet complied with Evid.R. 404(B) in providing reasonable advance notice of the alleged prior "bad acts."
The Court finds that this Court previously granted Defendant's Motion No. 65 and Defendant's Motion No. 77 to the extent only that such motions requested an order of the Court compelling the State of Ohio to provide notice of the general nature of any such other acts evidence that the State of Ohio intended to introduce at trial. This Court also previously found that the State of Ohio had satisfied the pre-trial notice requirement through its "Notice of Intent To Use Other Acts Evidence Pursuant to 404(B)" that was furnished to the Defendant and was filed on or about February 22, 2021. The Court then heard Defendant's Motion No. 82, entitled "Defendant's Objection and Motion In Limine To Prohibit The Introduction Of Other Acts Evidence At Trial" filed by the Defendant on January 19, 2022. Following such hearing, the Court issued an order overruling and denying Defendant's Motion No. 82.
The Court now finds that Defendant's Motion 15 and Defendant's Motion No. 82 request identical relief.
The Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 15 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 15 be, and hereby is, overruled and denied.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 19, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM PAYMENT OF FEES RELATED TO THE ISSUANCE OF DEFENSE SUBPOENAS."
The State of Ohio does not oppose Defendant's Motion No. 19.
The Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 19 is well taken. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 19 is hereby granted, that the Defendant shall not be responsible for bearing the cost of witness fees, mileage fees, or other incidental costs related to the issuance of subpoenas for witnesses pursuant to Crim.R. 17(B), and that the costs incurred by the process and the fees of the witnesses so subpoenaed shall be taxed as costs.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 21, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A STENOGRAPHIC RECORD OF ALL COURT PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE."
Defendant's Motion No. 21 is not opposed by the State of Ohio.
The Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 21 is well taken and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 21 is hereby granted and that all court proceedings conducted in connection with this case shall be recorded by stenographic means.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 22, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RECORD ALL SIDEBAR PROCEEDINGS."
The State of Ohio does not oppose Defendant's Motion No. 21.
The Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 22 is well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 22 is hereby granted and that all sidebar proceedings conducted in connection with this case shall be recorded by stenographic means.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 23, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DAILY TRANSCRIPTS."
The Court finds that there is no authority requiring the provision of daily transcripts. Further, the Court finds that the burden upon the stenographer and the Court of providing such transcripts would be great and that there is no showing of a need for daily transcripts.
The Court concludes that Defendant's Motion No. 23 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 23 is hereby overruled and denied.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 24, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO HAVE REASONS FOR DEFENSE OBJECTIONS AND REASONS FOR OVERRULING DEFENSE OBJECTIONS PLACED ON THE RECORD."
The State of Ohio opposes Defendant's Motion No. 24.
The Court finds that there is no authority requiring the reasons for overruling objections to be placed on the record, and Crim.R. 51 eliminates the need to do so.
The Court concludes that Defendant's Motion No. 24 is not well taken, and the same is hereby overruled and denied. On an item-by-item basis, the Court may permit requests to place on the record the reasons for overruling objections and the Court will determine at that time whether the reasons for rulings issued upon objections shall be placed on the record.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 25, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PROHIBIT ANY REFERENCES TO THE FIRST PHASE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS AS THE 'GUILT PHASE.'"
The Court finds Defendant's Motion No. 25, to be well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 25 is hereby granted. It is ORDERED that the parties and the Court shall refer to the first phase of these proceedings as the "trial phase."

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 26, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A COURTROOM DECORUM ORDER TO ENSURE A FAIR TRIAL."
The State of Ohio does not object to Defendant's Motion No. 26 and, through counsel at the hearing, agreed to the inclusion in a courtroom decorum order the language set forth in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Defendant's Memorandum In Support of Motion No. 26.
The Court finds Defendant's Motion No. 26 to be well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 26 is hereby granted.
It is therefore ORDERED that, unless and until the courtroom decorum order is supplemented or modified by this Court, it is ORDERED that all parties and counsel, all participants at trial, and all persons in the courtroom, at the courthouse, on the grounds of the courthouse, and in any buildings being used as a courtroom and on the grounds thereof shall comply with the following rules:

1. Persons in the courtroom must remain silent during all proceedings. There should be no talking, shaking of heads in approval or disapproval of any statements, actions, rulings, testimony, or proceedings; or any other signals of approval or disapproval of the proceedings. Such displays threaten to influence the jurors and imperil Defendant's rights.
2. No signs, banners, buttons, clothing with messages or other distracting, disruptive, or potentially improperly prejudicial material should be allowed in the courtroom, the courthouse, or any other place where such displays could have a prejudicial impact on the jurors.
3. The atmosphere of the courtroom should be free from emotional outbursts or other expressions that could be caused by the nature of the evidence and arguments in this case. Any persons unable to control their emotions (especially, for example, during the presentation and discussion of graphic evidence) should not be permitted to stay in the courtroom.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 27, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL PROCESS SERVER."
Defendant's Motion No. 27 is not opposed by the State of Ohio.
The Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 27 is well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 27 is hereby granted.
It is therefore ORDERED that Kathy Koch and Linda Richter are hereby appointed as special process servers to serve subpoenas on behalf of the Defendant.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 28, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUBMIT A DETAILED JURY QUESTIONNAIRE."
Defendant's Motion No. 28 is not opposed by the State of Ohio, however, counsel for the State of Ohio desires to have input as to the contents of the questionnaire.
The Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 28 is well taken to the following extent, and the same is hereby granted, as follows: Counsel for the Defendant and counsel for the State of Ohio shall diligently work together in an effort to prepare a jury questionnaire dealing with relevant and material matters that is acceptable to each party and approvable by the Court. Counsel shall bring to the Court's attention immediately any points of disagreement as to the contents of the proposed questionnaire and shall submit a copy of the proposed questionnaire approved by counsel to the Court for approval before it is used.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 29, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SPECIAL PROCEDURES TO INSULATE THE VENIRE AND THE EMPANELLED JURY."
The Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 29 is well taken and the same is hereby granted. It is ordered that the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the prospective and empanelled jurors shall not be published; that court personnel involved in the gathering of the jury venire have been and are instructed not to mention the Defendant's name or nature of this case to any prospective jurors, and that the summons served upon each juror shall have no reference to this particular case.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 30, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR INDIVIDUAL SEQUESTERED VOIR DIRE ON DEATH PENALTY, PUBLICITY, AND OTHER ISSUES."
The Court finds that the Defendant's Motion No. 30 is well taken in part and is not well taken in another part.
The Court finds that only the death-qualifying and pretrial publicity portions of the jury selection should be conducted individually and that the general voir dire should be conducted collectively, in the usual manner.
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 30 is hereby granted in such part that requests that the death-qualifying and pretrial publicity portions of the jury selection portions of the jury selection be conducted individually, but Defendant's Motion No. 30 is overruled and denied to the extent that it requests that prospective jurors be questioned individually as to other issues.
It is ORDERED that individual voir dire be conducted only as to death-qualifying and pretrial publicity issues and that general voir dire as to other issues be conducted collectively.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 31, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ALTERNATING INDIVIDUAL VOIR DIRE."
The State of Ohio opposes Defendant's Motion No. 31.
The Court finds that the Defendant has failed to present grounds for Defendant's Motion No. 31 and has failed to cite any constitutional or statutory authority for its motion.
The State of Ohio has the burden of proof, and consistent with this burden, the State proceeds before the Defendant in giving opening statement, presenting its evidence, and presenting closing argument. The Court determines that, in the absence of compelling reasons otherwise, this case should proceed in the traditional manner, with the State of Ohio proceeding first in all voir dire.
The Court concludes that the Defendant's Motion No. 31 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 31 is hereby overruled and denied.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 32, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR COMPREHENSIVE VOIR DIRE."
The State opposes Defendant's Motion No. 32 as framed.
The Court finds that the Defendant's Motion No. 32 is well taken to the extent that it requests that each party be afforded a reasonable opportunity to careful and searching voir dire, but that Defendant's Motion No. 32 is not well taken to the extent that the Defendant may be requesting an opportunity to reexamine issues already inquired on by the court or that are irrelevant or outside the scope of proper inquiry.
The Court will retain control of voir dire and will determine the reasonableness of voir dire, both in terms of length and scope of questioning.
It is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 32 is hereby granted to the extent that it requests that each party have a reasonable opportunity to conduct a careful and searching voir dire, but Defendant's Motion is hereby overruled and denied to the extent that it requests that the Defendant be permitted to reexamine prospective jurors concerning matters already inquired on by the court or that are irrelevant or outside the scope of proper inquiry.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 33, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO HAVE THE COURT FOLLOW THE O.R.C. §2945.25(C) STANDARD FOR 'DEATH-QUALIFICATION' OF VIREPERSONS."
The State of Ohio opposes Defendant's Motion No. 33.
It is the Court's intention to comply with all requirements of the Ohio Revised Code in this action.
The Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 33, as framed, is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 33 is overruled and denied.

¬AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 34, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE VENIREPERSONS WHO CANNOT FAIRLY CONSIDER MITIGATING EVIDENCE AND/OR WHO WOULD AUTOMATICALLY VOTE FOR DEATH UPON A FINDING OF GUILT IN THE CULPABILITY PHASE."
The State of Ohio opposes Defendant's Motion No. 34.
The trial judge is given discretion to determine whether a particular challenge to a juror is proper. The judge must and shall regulate the voir dire proceedings and issue rulings upon such challenges as each is presented. It is not practicable for the Court to grant a motion as Defendant's Motion No. 34 in advance of voir dire.
The Court concludes that Defendant's Motion No. 34 is not well taken, and Defendant's Motion No. 34 is hereby overruled and denied.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 35, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PROHIBIT THE STATE'S USE OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO EXCLUDE VENIREPERSONS WITH CONCERNS ABOUT IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY."
The State of Ohio opposes Defendant's Motion No. 35.
The Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 35 is without merit. Each side in a criminal action has wide discretion in the use of peremptory challenges, provided such challenges are not used as a pretext to exclude persons based upon race or gender.
The Court concludes that Defendant's Motion No. 35 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 35 is hereby overruled and denied.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 36, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT THE PREJUDICIAL DISPLAY OF TANGIBLE THINGS AND/OR PHOTOGRAPHS DURING TRIAL."
The State of Ohio opposes Defendant's Motion No. 36.
The Court will regulate the proceedings, and it is the Court's intention, certainly, to apply and enforce the Ohio Rules of Evidence to help ensure that the Defendant has a fair trial. The Court intends the trial to be fair to both the Defendant and the State of Ohio.
The Defendant may object to anything that the Defendant perceives to be unfair at trial, including, without limitation, evidentiary matters, and the Court will issue rulings accordingly.
In the opinion of the Court, it would be impractical and imprudent for the Court to issue a pretrial order as that sought by Defendant's Motion No. 36.
The Court concludes that Defendant's Motion No. 36 is not well taken, and the same is overruled and denied.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 37, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE DECEASED."
The State of Ohio opposes the Defendant's Motion No. 37 in that, at least in its title, the motion, request exclusion of all photographs of the deceased. Counsel for the State of Ohio indicated that the State of Ohio did not oppose the Court's conducting a pretrial hearing upon a timely pretrial motion to exclude certain specific photographs; however, no such motion has been filed.
Within the Ohio Rules of Evidence, the State of Ohio has the right to present relevant evidence at trial, some of which may include photographs of the deceased. The Court will apply the Ohio Rules of Evidence in order to determine admissibility if objections are made to any evidence, including any photographs.
The Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 37 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 37 is overruled and denied.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 38, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT VICTIM-IMPACT EVIDENCE DURING THE TRIAL AND, IF NECESSARY, THE MITIGATION PHASE."
The State of Ohio opposes Defendant's Motion No. 38.
As argued in the State of Ohio's Memorandum Contra, under certain circumstances, victim's impact evidence is admissible in both the trial and sentencing phases of the trial.
The Defendant may object at trial to the admissibility of such evidence and a ruling will be made upon each such.
The Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 38 requesting a pretrial in limine motion is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 38 is hereby overruled and denied.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 39, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DETERMINE AND LIMIT PLAINTIFF'S SENTENCING PHASE EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY."
The State of Ohio opposes Defendant's Motion No. 39 in part.
The Court finds that the Defendant's Motion No. 39 is well taken to the extent that it requests that the Court determine what evidence offered by the State at the trial phase may be readmitted at the mitigation phase and that such determination be made outside the presence of the jury. To that extent Defendant's Motion No. 39 is granted.
The Court finds Defendant's Motion No. 39 is not well taken to the extent that the motion constitutes a request that the Court issue a pretrial order limiting the evidence that may be readmitted at the sentencing phase to "the minimal evidence proving the aggravating circumstance specification that moved this case into the mitigation phase." See State v. Gumm (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 413. To the extent that Defendant's Motion No. 39 requests that the Court limit the admissible evidence that may be readmitted at the sentencing phase to such "minimal evidence," Defendant's Motion No. 39 is overruled and denied.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 40, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT THE STATE FROM EMPLOYING PREJUDICIAL ARGUMENTS AND THEMES."
The State of Ohio opposes Defendant's Motion No. 40.
The Court finds that the Defendant's Motion No. 40 is premature at this time and speculative in nature. As argued by the State of Ohio, it is impossible for the Court to enter an order regarding prejudicial arguments and themes employed at trial without having the benefit of examining the statements and applying the prescribed standards for determining whether the statements are prejudicial.
The Defendant may object at trial to arguments that he asserts are prejudicial.
The Court concludes that the Defendant's Motion No. 40 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 40 is hereby overruled and denied.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 41, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR INSTRUCTION THAT THE DEFENDANT BEARS NO BURDEN OF PROOF AT THE MITIGATION PHASE,"
The State of Ohio opposes Defendant's Motion No. 41.
The Court finds that the instruction requested by the Defendant in Defendant's Motion No. 41 is contrary to law. The Court concludes that the Defendant's Motion No. 41 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 41 is hereby overruled and denied.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 42, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO LIMIT SCOPE OF ANY REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE STATE IN THE MITIGATION PHASE."
The State of Ohio opposes Defendant's Motion No. 42, and indicates in its Memorandum Contra that the State of Ohio will adhere to the holding in State v. DePew (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 275, a case also cited by the Defendant is support of his Motion No. 42.
As argued by the Defendant the Court has the duty to control the proceedings and the presentation of evidence in accordance with state and federal constitutions, state statutes, and case law.
In the Court's opinion, Defendant's Motion No. 42 raises issues appropriate for trial, but that it would be premature and imprudent for the Court to attempt to draft a pretrial in limine order limiting the scope of rebuttal evidence without the benefit of any evidence before the Court.
The Court concludes that the Defendant's Motion No. 42 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 42 is hereby overruled and denied.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 43, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PROHIBIT THE PROSECUTOR FROM ARGUING AND THE COURT FROM GIVING INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING STATUTORY MITIGATING FACTORS NOT RAISED BY THE DEFENSE."
The State opposes the Defendant's Motion No. 43, but argues that it will follow the law and refrain from commenting on mitigating factors not presented by the Defendant.
The Court finds that the Defendant's Motion No. 43 is well taken in the part that requests an order prohibiting the prosecutor from arguing the non-existence of any statutory mitigating factor that the Defendant does not raise at the mitigation phase, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 42 is granted only in such part.
The Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 43 is not well taken in the part that argues that the Court refrain from giving the jury instructions that refer to any mitigating factor that the Defendant does not raise at the mitigation phase, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 43 is overruled and denied in such part. There is no error in the Court's reading of all the statutory mitigating factors, despite the defendant's failure to raise all of them. State v. DePew, (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 275.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 44, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF MITIGATING EVIDENCE THAT POST-DATES DEFENDANT'S ARREST."
The State of Ohio opposes Defendant's Motion No. 44.
The Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 44 is not well taken and is hereby overruled and denied.
The Court finds that it is premature and imprudent for the Court to issue a pretrial in limine order admitting "all evidence in mitigation regardless of whether it post-dates his arrest" as requested in Defendant's Motion No. 44.
While, pursuant to §2929.04(C) and case law, the Defendant has wide latitude in the submission of mitigating evidence, the Court has authority to exclude, as irrelevant, evidence not bearing on the Defendant's character, prior record, or the circumstances of the offense. State v. Esparza (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 8, 11, quoting Lockett v. Ohio (1978), 438 U.S. 586. 604 fn. 12.
The decision whether to admit or exclude such evidence is best made at trial.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 45, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AVOID COERCIVE PRACTICES DURING MITIGATION PHASE DELIBERATIONS."
The State of Ohio opposes Defendant's Motion No. 45.
The decision regarding how to instruct a deadlocked jury is based on by the particular circumstances of the case. In the opinion of the Court it would be inappropriate to issue a pretrial order determining how to instruct a deadlocked jury.
The Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 45 is not well taken and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 45 is hereby overruled and denied.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO 46, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT THE STATE FROM COMMENTING ON DEFENDANT'S UNSWORN STATEMENT."
The State of Ohio opposes Defendant's Motion No. 46.
The prosecutor has the right to comment on an unsworn statement of the Defendant, albeit such right of the prosecutor is a limited right. State v. DePew (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 275; State v. Scott (2004), 101 Ohio St.3d 31, 43.
The unsworn statement of the Defendant is not an allocution under Crim. R. 31(A)(1). State v. Campbell (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 320.
The Court concludes that Defendant's Motion No. 46 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 46 is hereby overruled and denied.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 47, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PROHIBIT REFERENCES TO THE JURY THAT A DEATH PENALTY VERDICT IS ONLY A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TRIAL JUDGE."
The State of Ohio opposes Defendant's Motion No. 47.
Under the law of Ohio, it is an accurate statement of the law to instruct the jury that their finding of death is a recommendation.
The Court intends to follow the law of Ohio, including OJI in instructing the jury in this case.
The Court concludes that Defendant's Motion No. 47 is not well taken, and Defendant's Motion No. 47 is hereby overruled and denied.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 48, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ALLOW THE DEFENSE TO ARGUE LAST AT THE MITIGATION PHASE."
The State of Ohio opposes Defendant's Motion No. 48.
The burden of proof at the mitigation phase of the trial rests solely upon the State and not the Defendant, thereby affording the State the right to open and close arguments to the jury. State v. Rogers (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 174.
The Court concludes that Defendant's Motion No. 48 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 48 is overruled and denied.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 49, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR WRITTEN JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THEM BEFORE THE JURY IS INSTRUCTED."
The State of Ohio does not oppose Defendant's Motion No. 49.
The Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 49 is well taken, and the same is hereby granted.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 50, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO INSTRUCT THE JURORS THAT THEY MAY CONSIDER RESIDUAL DOUBT AS A MITIGATING FACTOR."
The State of Ohio opposes Defendant's Motion No. 50.
Residual doubt is not proper mitigation under Ohio's death penalty scheme. State v. McGuire (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 390, at 403-04.
Neither the United States Constitution nor the Constitution of Ohio require that residual doubt be considered as a mitigating factor. State v. Green (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 352, 360.
The Court concludes that Defendant's Motion No. 50 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 50 is overruled and denied.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 51, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO CONSIDER MERCY IN ITS MITIGATION PHASE DELIBERATIONS, AND TO PROHIBIT THE PROSECUTOR FROM ARGUING THAT THE JURY SHOULD NOT CONSIDER MERCY."
The State of Ohio opposes Defendant's Motion No. 51.
The Ohio Supreme Court has consistently held that the Defendant is not entitled to an instruction on mercy Stater v. Goff (1988), 82 Ohio St.3d 123, 131; State v. Allen (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 626,638; State v. Dunlap (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 308, 315; and State v. Lorraine (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 414, 417.
The Court concludes that the Defendant's Motion No. 51 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 51 is hereby overruled and denied.

AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 52, ENTITLED "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE SPECIFIC MITIGATING FACTORS RAISED BY THE DEFENSE."
The State of Ohio opposes Defendant's Motion No. 52.
The language of O.R.C. §2929.04(B)(1) - (7) sets forth the mitigating factors, the last of which, number "(7)," is a "catch-all" phrase. ["Any other factors that are relevant to the issue of whether the offender should be sentenced to death."]
If the Defendant wishes to present issues other than those listed as (1) through (6) of §2929.04(B) as a mitigating factor, he must do so under (7), the "catch-all" phrase, and not with specific jury instruction. See State v. Scott (1986), 26 Ohio St.3d 92. The Defendant's introduction of such evidence does not mean that such evidence is in fact mitigating or that it deserves any weight.
The Court concludes that Defendant's Motion No. 52 is not well taken to the extent that it requests that the Court instruct the jury that matters other than those specifically listed in §2929.04(B)(1) through (6) are mitigating factors. Under §2929.04(B)(7) R.C., the Defendant may present evidence to the jury as to other matters that the Defendant considers to be mitigating and the jury will decide whether such other matters are mitigating factors and how much weight, if any, should be assessed to them.
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 52 is hereby overruled and denied.

06/23/2022 RETURN FROM FOREIGN SHERIFF (SCIOTO) OF PERSONAL SERVICE MADE ON DARREN LEBRUN ON 6-14-2022 FILED

06/24/2022 DEFENDANT'S NTOICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY FILED
Attorney: PARKER, JOHN PATRICK


link: https://www.pikecountycpcourt.org/e...A0t5nIB1Sigt1r6LTzX5lu5vlMVZNAI3WoygGaRzzIFFw

 

[Puzzles8]

Thanks Niner!

Definitely not a good day for G4.

JMO

 

[altojack]

Thanks @Niner. Quite a read there. Can't say much as still laughing at the nerve of these guys with some of their Motions.

I wanna go last Judge!

 

[Dudly]

Thanks @Niner. Quite a read there. Can't say much as still laughing at the nerve of these guys with some of their Motions.

I wanna go last Judge!

They are throwing everything they can hoping something sticks. That is their job. They don’t have much to work with trying to make the Ws look good. They have to try to divert attention.

 

[Puzzles8]

They are throwing everything they can hoping something sticks. That is their job. They don’t have much to work with trying to make the Ws look good. They have to try to divert attention.

My grandma used to refer to this as "trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear".

G4's defense is quickly running out of mud to throw at the wall. They are also running out of diversions.

As hard as G4's defense team has tried to delay trial, the trial is quickly approaching.

IMO, the state probably still has some type of plea agreement on the table. Will G4 we wise enough to take it? I doubt so.

Let the trials finally begin!!!

 

[Cool Cats]

My grandma used to refer to this as "trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear".

G4's defense is quickly running out of mud to throw at the wall. They are also running out of diversions.

As hard as G4's defense team has tried to delay trial, the trial is quickly approaching.

IMO, the state probably still has some type of plea agreement on the table. Will G4 we wise enough to take it? I doubt so.

Let the trials finally begin!!!

For the sake of the families I wanted and was even expecting George and Billy to take pleas once Jake/Angela took theirs. It is not my wish for it to take this long and the families having to sit through one or 2 trials and see and hear such horrendous things.

But since there is obviously going to be a trial I think it can actually in it's own way bring about some type of closure. Meaning that answers can come out in court that will help people process some of these details we have been speculating about for years. Although, I understand that there will never be real closure per say, but some justice to see 4 Wagners locked up in maximum security which in my opinion is where they are all headed.

AND THE REAL TRUTH TO COME OUT IN COURT.

We need to know why they killed Kenny, who shot Chris Sr. and Gary and Kenny, how did they get into Dana's and Franke's, and what all did George do that night and which ones were in which trailers etc....

The defense is complaining about not finding EW even though they admit she may not talk to them, but you know what? I just think they are scared S@#$%& about what she has to say.

I hope a jury gets seated in Pike County but even if a change of venue happens it won't save George's A@#$%.

My 2 cent rant

 

[Puzzles8]

For the sake of the families I wanted and was even expecting George and Billy to take pleas once Jake/Angela took theirs. It is not my wish for it to take this long and the families having to sit through one or 2 trials and see and hear such horrendous things.

But since there is obviously going to be a trial I think it can actually in it's own way bring about some type of closure. Meaning that answers can come out in court that will help people process some of these details we have been speculating about for years. Although, I understand that there will never be real closure per say, but some justice to see 4 Wagners locked up in maximum security which in my opinion is where they are all headed.

AND THE REAL TRUTH TO COME OUT IN COURT.

We need to know why they killed Kenny, who shot Chris Sr. and Gary and Kenny, how did they get into Dana's and Franke's, and what all did George do that night and which ones were in which trailers etc....

The defense is complaining about not finding EW even though they admit she may not talk to them, but you know what? I just think they are scared S@#$%& about what she has to say.

BBM
For the sake of the families I wanted and was even expecting George and Billy to take pleas once Jake/Angela took theirs. It is not my wish for it to take this long and the families having to sit through one or 2 trials and see and hear such horrendous things.

Not even a long shot, IMO I never expected G4 and Billy to take a plea, especially if to was to spare the broken hearts of the Rhoden/Manley/Gilley families. The W4 brutally killed eight innocent members of the Rhoden Family. Why would they spare the feelings of their family now? They only care about themselves.

I agree the truth will come out at court. It will be painful, no doubt. But at least there will be resolution as to the truth of what happened that awful night.

JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

BBM
For the sake of the families I wanted and was even expecting George and Billy to take pleas once Jake/Angela took theirs. It is not my wish for it to take this long and the families having to sit through one or 2 trials and see and hear such horrendous things.

Not even a long shot, IMO I never expected G4 and Billy to take a plea, especially if to was to spare the broken hearts of the Rhoden/Manley/Gilley families. The W4 brutally killed eight innocent members of the Rhoden Family. Why would they spare the feelings of their family now? They only care about themselves.

I agree the truth will come out at court. It will be painful, no doubt. But at least there will be resolution as to the truth of what happened that awful night.

JMO

If George took a plea it is possible he could get life with parole or maybe the 30 years.

To be found guilty of murder at trial will give him LWOP. My opinion this is what will happen.

But of course your right, he and Billy would never plea to spare the families this drawn out drama and that's not what I meant. I thought they would see the chances of them winning at trial is zilch so they would try to plea for a better, if possible, deal.

They want out and are willing to gamble on getting acquitted of murder and many of the other charges. It is all about them and only them but they will lose. They won't win their trials. They will be found guilty of murder and all or most of the other 14 charges.

So I get what your saying, this is "par for the course" for The Wagner Crime Family. They want what they want and nothing else matters. Only what they want matters and even if their attorneys are telling them to take a plea they think they know better than their attorneys. The Wagner's will never change, they think they are smarter than everyone else, entitled.

I believe the only reason Jake took a plea is so he wouldn't get what was coming to him...the DP. Angie, didn't want LWOP. They only did what they gambled was best for them. The victims mean zero to them. The family's feelings mean zero to them.

Jake and Angela knew the evidence against them was too great for them to win at trial.

2 cents

 

[RAISINISBACK]

Ohio massacre: 'I was not leaving those babies in there'

Bobby Jo Manley can’t get horrific images of family massacre out of her mind.

www.usatoday.com

I would go with BJM's explanation written by Chris Graves.

Leonard was under alot of pressure getting questioned by reporters so I think that this is simply the way he quickly described it. They kept asking him things that he said he couldn't tell them.

Very interesting after all these years to hear him talk about it. Wow.

Wonder if anything interesting comes out in court tomorrow? We recently learned a new fact about getting into Chris Sr's.

At trial I think it will come out how (Jake) they, got into the other 3 homes.

I think it's possible Jake went into Dana's and Frankie's by himself, or at least was the one who got inside first then let the others in.

This is the missing Lenny interview you and I were looking for a few months back. You said you found references to it by other posters but could not find the actual video. I think it was the first interview that Lenny gave and I remembered him standing by a police car drinking a bottle of water when he gave it. He gave it 04/25/2016 so it was a couple days after the murders.

Very strange it was embedded in Mason's footage. As you may know there are many PRA and PCRA bull riders around here and many of the same bulls are used in the rodeo circuit (for instance Cord McCoy's Bull of the Year Ridin' Solo, putting a plug in for Cordo here). Riders often review footage taken during the rodeo to determine if a bull will come exploding out of the chute like dynamite or turn in circles like a top. Some like Bodacious, Dillinger and Yellow Jacket do both so riders do extensive research by watching videos of the bulls in action, especially those that have seriously injured or killed riders. I don't attend rodeos anymore but I have a great nephew who is a bull rider, so I stay engaged in the circuit. (RIP Mason Lowe, one of the greats.)

This was how my friend saw the Lenny interview embedded it Mason's footage. It really makes me wonder how many other videos from the early days of this case have been scrubbed from the internet in the same fashion.

Thank goodness for Betty P who saved many of them to the media timeline so new people to the forum could do research about this case.


JMO

 

[RAISINISBACK]

Maybe they willl get into specifics about the things they claim happened in Scioto and Adams county. I think there are 7 or 8. I thought I had posted motion 85 here before but not positive. Will look to see and if not will ry to get it posted before the hearing.

Lenny certainly thought there were a lot of cover ups.

JMO

 

[RAISINISBACK]

If George took a plea it is possible he could get life with parole or maybe the 30 years.

To be found guilty of murder at trial will give him LWOP. My opinion this is what will happen.

But of course your right, he and Billy would never plea to spare the families this drawn out drama and that's not what I meant. I thought they would see the chances of them winning at trial is zilch so they would try to plea for a better, if possible, deal.

They want out and are willing to gamble on getting acquitted of murder and many of the other charges. It is all about them and only them but they will lose. They won't win their trials. They will be found guilty of murder and all or most of the other 14 charges.

So I get what your saying, this is "par for the course" for The Wagner Crime Family. They want what they want and nothing else matters. Only what they want matters and even if their attorneys are telling them to take a plea they think they know better than their attorneys. The Wagner's will never change, they think they are smarter than everyone else, entitled.

I believe the only reason Jake took a plea is so he wouldn't get what was coming to him...the DP. Angie, didn't want LWOP. They only did what they gambled was best for them. The victims mean zero to them. The family's feelings mean zero to them.

Jake and Angela knew the evidence against them was too great for them to win at trial.

2 cents

I may be the lone voice here but I think based on what I have read and heard in court that George will get LWP or the 30 years Angie got. I absolutely think a jury will convict him but I also think based on what Jake and Angie said, that George did not kill anyone, the jury will give him a lighter sentence.

JMO

 

[Puzzles8]

I may be the lone voice here but I think based on what I have read and heard in court that George will get LWP or the 30 years Angie got. I absolutely think a jury will convict him but I also think based on what Jake and Angie said, that George did not kill anyone, the jury will give him a lighter sentence.

JMO

I agree, a jury will convict G4.

I also think the testimony of EW will speak volumes. Whether that will help G4 or not, I don't know. This is an significant unknown.

I don't think G4 will get the same reduced sentence as Angie, even if he didn't kill nobody. IMO, at a minimum, he was there at the murder scenes and actively abetting Jake and Billy in the commission and coverup of the murders. That is willful participation. IMO, very different from Angie's participation.

JMO

ETA - 30 years vs LWOP has different implications for Angie and G4. In Angie's case, 30 years is probably the rest of her healthy life (49yo plus 30 = 79 yo). George is about 30, so 30 years puts him out at about 60 yo. IMO, a very different sentence.

JMO

 

[RAISINISBACK]

I think he called it a storage unit but it may have been the storage container/tub that he meant. I did a google earth searh of that property and did not see anything that really looked like storage units but its hard to tell completely. I cannot say what that property looked like in 2016 or how old or recent the google earth picture is.
The address listed for the jurors to visit is: 28171 State Route 41, Village of Peebles, Adams County. I think it may have been called Unlimited Motors at least at one point.

I believe you ae right and it was a large gray plastic tub used for storage. I think I remember reading that somewhere but can't recall where right now. If I remember where I read it I will post the info.

JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

I may be the lone voice here but I think based on what I have read and heard in court that George will get LWP or the 30 years Angie got. I absolutely think a jury will convict him but I also think based on what Jake and Angie said, that George did not kill anyone, the jury will give him a lighter sentence.

JMO

LWOP is what the judge will give him I believe, if he is convicted of murder. For him not to be convicted of murder the jury would have to believe that not only did he not shoot anyone, but it didn't matter that he went along with his family to all the murder scenes, and that he just sat outside doing nothing.

It doesn't matter if he didn't shoot anyone, he went along and that shows direct participation plus his shoe print places him in a home. Just going along shows he was a lookout and participant.

Just going along means he was being supportive of killing 8 people and also 3 guns were taken not 2.

A jury will see through his bull. I believe he will be convicted of murder and get sentenced by the judge to LWOP.

If he had not gone along to the murder scenes and the jury believed that, and he wasn't convicted of murder, only then would there be the possibility of the 30 years. Opinion.

Glad your back to have differing discussions with. Take care of yourself.

 

[Antimony]

A question for Angie and Jake: Was George at the scene of the murders? Did George travel with Jake and Billy that night? Did George have a weapon? Did George fire the weapon at all, whether he shot at, hit or missed the target?

 

[Covert Operative]

I agree, a jury will convict G4.

I also think the testimony of EW will speak volumes. Whether that will help G4 or not, I don't know. This is an significant unknown.

I don't think G4 will get the same reduced sentence as Angie, even if he didn't kill nobody. IMO, at a minimum, he was there at the murder scenes and actively abetting Jake and Billy in the commission and coverup of the murders. That is willful participation. IMO, very different from Angie's participation.

JMO

ETA - 30 years vs LWOP has different implications for Angie and G4. In Angie's case, 30 years is probably the rest of her healthy life (49yo plus 30 = 79 yo). George is about 30, so 30 years puts him out at about 60 yo. IMO, a very different sentence.

JMO

The only defense I could see G4 trying to use at this point is that he was scared and pressured by his family and felt he had to go along with the crime or suffer consequences. That is the only defense that I can think they can try to muster up at this point. Do not think it will help him much, if any, but I guess they have to try some defense. I will be interested to see what they actually try to claim.

 

[Covert Operative]

A question for Angie and Jake: Was George at the scene of the murders? Did George travel with Jake and Billy that night? Did George have a weapon? Did George fire the weapon at all, whether he shot at, hit or missed the target?

It seems he did travel with them that night in a modified truck and was at the scenes. I believe he did have a weapon. I think the intent was to fire his weapon but something may have happened and he did not or he did but missed and if he missed his defense will probably say he missed on purpose. I can only think a defense they may use, is that he was scared and pressured to go along with his family in this crime. Not saying it will help him but I cannot think of another right now they can try to present to a jury.