OH - Pike Co - 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue - 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #80

[arielilane]

Chris Graves isn't posting tweets either. Again, waiting for James to post tweets.

 

[RAISINISBACK]

Could be this is a way for the defense attorneys to get Jake's testimony thrown out, so jurors can't consider it.

GW4's defense has filed many motions for mistrial and having evidence thrown out, so this wouldn't be a surprise. Judge Deering has been very careful to avoid giving defense any ammo. IANAL, the judge may have to stop and start from the beginning with Jake's testimony. JMO, he'll do whatever it takes to make sure Jake's testimony stays on track.

Deering violated a restraining order that prevented him from going ahead with jakes testimony today. The higher court could rule a mistrial. Then we are all right back where we started.

So I would say this is Deering's stubborn headedness since the defense is the one who was yelling the loudest about no cameras in the room before and after the trial started.
JMO

 

[RAISINISBACK]

Wondering if Judge Deering has a constitutional right to close down trial to media?

First Amendment. The media has a right, like it or not.

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

The order says "Effective immediately" media can't be denied video and audio until a hearing is held. So in my less than legally trained mind, that means testimony stops immediately or cameras/audio is allowed immediately until a hearing is held. Would that conference (private hearing?) held in the judge's chambers eliminate the need to stop testimony? And then a hearing in the morning?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1584941271713710080

 

[Pru2U]

But that judgment did say testimony shall cease immediately...then after determining if this or this Judge Deering can rule...so I'm guessing he ruled lickedy-split?

I can only assume they resolved or came to some resolution in chambers about what to do for the rest of the day. I don't know, none of us do. We also don't know if or how it might relate to a mistrial. I TRIED to warn y'all about this when I posted that tweet.

We can keep going around & around about something none of us is has any way of resolving tonight...or we can move on & discuss what few tweets we have about testimony that came out today.

As for me, I'm moving on to option b but first will check for any of my assigned tweets (Courtney & Chris Graves) one more time then go walk the dog before the storms start here.

 

[sunshineray]

Oh wow, how'd that post come out like that!? I just copied the link like before when it didn't work lol

 

[RAISINISBACK]

And for crying out loud, everything any of these witnesses say will be in the transcripts. Someone posted that according to the law the public has the right to request transcripts and read them.

The internet will be posting some of the transcripts I will bet you. So there is no reason to cut the witness audio. The public has the means to read all their testimony. Later after trial of course.

After Billy's trial.

JMO

 

[RAISINISBACK]

Defense wins! We're right back where we've been the last 4 years. GW4s case tied up in court until the public stops paying attention, the budget runs out and they quietly drop charges and set him free.

The defense is the ones yelling objection the loudest to keep the cameras out. They have been before the trials in pre hearings, claiming the media was hurting their clients chance of getting an impartial jury, remember?

JMO

 

[Caylee Advocate]

And for crying out loud, everything any of these witnesses say will be in the transcripts. Someone posted that according to the law the public has the right to request transcripts and read them.

The internet will be posting some of the transcripts I will bet you. So there is no reason to cut the witness audio. The public has the means to read all their testimony. Later after trial of course.

I agree. The thing I find ironic is when Judge Deering made the decision to do "opt outs", a lot of people were pizzing, moaning and groaning that it was wrong for him to do it.

But now that the media is once again fighting for the right of the public to view and hear witnesses, some have waffled on that opinion. Bad media. All MOO.

Oh and just for the record, Derek is not the only media person behind this, he just has the cajones to do it.

 

[RAISINISBACK]

Raize,
My exact sentiments. Betty nailed it, but I hope is wrong.

If a mistrial gets called by the higher court, it is all on Deering. He should have stopped Jake's testimony until a hearing was held like the order said. But I have a feeling he is one of those old grey hairs that has been ruling their own little roost for so long they don't think anyone has the right to challege them. And if someone does they just go ahead and do things their way anyway.

JMO

 

[justtrish]

<modsnip - quoted post removed>
I absolutely think everything that has been presented so far was needed. All those guns show they thoroughly investigated every gun. Many of those guns were on the list Jake had on his phone. That list was not updated recently so that list was evidence that the list was there for the last year. Several of the murder weapons were listed on that list and then NOT recovered when they inventoried all those guns found. All those shell casings needed to be ruled out. Imagine if they didn't do that or show that they did that in court and then the defense could say, did you test every one of them. They are not only presenting a case, but being as thorough as possible to prevent the defense from making ridiculous claims to throw the jury off.

<modsnip - reference post removed>

As for the media ruling being while she was out sick. I am sure she was still in contact via phone and or email. The filing came in on Sept. 2nd and the judge noted on the next business day which was Sept 6th that both sides needed to file a response before Thursday the 8th, then a non oral hearing was Friday morning at 830. The trial started the following Monday. I mean since the motion was not filed till Friday the 2nd at 3:50pm, what else could have been done?

9/02/2022

MOTION FOR MEDIA ACCESS FILED Attorney: GREINER, JOHN C

09/06/2022

JOURNAL ENTRY -- The Court is informed that on September 2, 2022, at approximately 3:50 p.m. the Clerk of Courts received, via facsimile transmission, a motion entitled "MOTION FOR MEDIA ACCESS" filed on behalf of The Cincinnati Enquirer, Sinclair Broadcasting, WLW-TV, WCPO, WXIX, The Scioto Valley Guardian, Court TV, and Law and Crime TV ("movants"), asking the Court "for an order permitting the recording of the testimony of Jake and Angela Wagner, for an order permitting the audio recording of any witness who opts out of being video recorded and for the placement of a second camera to record the lawyers interrogating witnesses." The movants further filed a "MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT" of their motion. As counsel is aware, the Court has permitted media access in this case, approving the location of a video camera and microphone in the courtroom atop a book case, approximately 8 feet from the floor, beside the courtroom speaker, where view can be had of the Defendant, defense counsel, the prosecuting attorney, both special prosecuting attorneys, the witness chair, the bench, the judge, the court reporter, and courtroom monitors. The camera is so positioned that it is behind the jurors and the alternate jurors and there is virtually no chance that the jurors will be unintentionally videoed or that the camera will present a distraction to the jurors. The Court has also permitted the positioning of a second microphone for the media near the witness chair. Further, a number of seats are reserved in the courtroom for members of the media. It is hereby ordered that the State of Ohio and the Defendant shall each serve and file a response to the movants' "MOTION FOR MEDIA ACCESS" on or before Thursday, September 8, 2022, at 4:00 o'clock p.m., stating the position of each such party concerning the requests of the movants' "MOTION FOR MEDIA ACCESS" and including an argument in support of each such party's position. Timely filing of the parties' responses with the Clerk of Courts by facsimile transmission (740-947-1729) or by email shall be permitted. Non-oral hearing is scheduled on the "MOTION FOR MEDIA ACCESS" for Friday, September 9, 2022, at 8:30 o'clock a.m. COPIES FILED, MAILED TO COUNSEL AND DEFENDANT, ALSO EMAILED TO COUNSEL

Both the prosecution and defense were opposed to not allowing an opt out option.

 

[Myland]

I agree. The thing I find ironic is when Judge Deering made the decision to do "opt outs", a lot of people were pizzing, moaning and groaning that it was wrong for him to do it.

But now that the media is once again fighting for the right of the public to view and hear witnesses, some have waffled on that opinion. Bad media. All MOO.

Oh and just for the record, Derek is not the only media person behind this, he just has the cajones to do it.

Jmo I agreed I will admit that myself for one in mostly regards to confessed killers should not be given opt out privileges jmo. Stated before and will state it again. Victims yes they should have the right but not confessed felons. Jmo

 

[RAISINISBACK]

GW4 probably won't testify. Murder defendants rarely do.They want to use this tv media access kerfuffle to get Jakes testimony thrown out completely.

What I mean is, if jake, a confessed killer X8 who pled guilty gets to opt out of being seen on camera why can't George who has not confessed or been found guilty have the option of not being on camera?

JMO

 

[justtrish]

I noticed the defense withdrew the motion to allow a witness to testify remotely. So either they aren't calling this witness or they figured out how to get him here in person.

10/07/2022

MOTION NO. 112 DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ALLOW WITNESS TO TESTIFY REMOTELY FILED Attorney: PARKER, JOHN PATRICK Attorney: NASH, JR, RICHARD M

10/25/2022

JOURNAL ENTRY CONCERNING WITHDRAWL OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 112 FILED

 

[RAISINISBACK]

For the third time, that is Derek Myers opinion.

Lol. Okay got it.

 

[RAISINISBACK]

Did you see that on television ?

No. On Pru's post. But she corrected it. I had it wrong. My bad.
JMO

 

[Pru2U]

Jmo I agreed I will admit that myself for one in mostly regards to confessed killers should not be given opt out privileges jmo. Stated before and will state it again. Victims yes they should have the right but not felons. Jmo

Cajones or the backing? Not every reporter has the full backing of their employer, many are self employed contributors. The next step is a hard push for legislation to have the 1997 law amended so there's no disputing it. If the cajones are indeed there, he'll lead that charge. I'd keep an eye out for that.

I 100% back the First Amendment but I also believe this particular trial IS public. That's just my opinion and I'm sure an unpopular one. That's okay, I wanted to see Jake testify just as much as anyone else here and am equally disappointed.

 

[sunshineray]

And for crying out loud, everything any of these witnesses say will be in the transcripts. Someone posted that according to the law the public has the right to request transcripts and read them.

The internet will be posting some of the transcripts I will bet you. So there is no reason to cut the witness audio. The public has the means to read all their testimony. Later after trial of course.

Didn't someone try and get the transcripts for another opted out witness and the were told by the court they were unavailable and then someone else was told a very high price?

 

[RAISINISBACK]

This was the Order…. [per tweet from reporter @

https://twitter.com/x/status/1584941271713710080

]

I think the “Effective immediately the trial court may not restrict
public access to the proceedings, including media access and the ability to photograph or record witnesses, unless a hearing is held on the issue and the court "finds that (1) there exists a reasonable and substantial basis for believing that public access could harm or endanger the fairness of the adjudication, (2) the potential for harm outweighs the benefits of public access, and (3) there are no reasonable alternatives to closure." State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Geauga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Juv. Div., 90 Ohio St.3d 79, 85, 734 N.E.2d 1214, 1220 (2000).” portion is/was causing some confusion, esp as the Judge they’d continue today with the opt-out and hearing tomorrow morning. I don’t know if this means he’s going as far as defying the Order, because he has scheduled that Hearing for tomorrow but still questions abounds.

Effective immediately the trial court may not restrict
public access to the proceedings,

seems pretty clear to me.
jmo

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Deering didn't ignore the order. He ordered a hearing for tomorrow, a.m.

Yep, he sure did. He was ticked off. IIRC, the defense agreed with opt outs???