GUILTY OH Pike Co., 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue, 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #61

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cool Cats

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
9,069
Reaction score
64,210
Could it be a motion concerning the location and/or manner in which he's being housed?

If it is just about the manner of how he is housed in the jail it will be the jurisdiction of the Sheriff and his staff. Sheriffs' are in charge of County jails. Like when George's attorney (weirdly) asked judge Deering if George could be moved to solitary, Deering told him it is up to the jail, not the Court.

If the jail wants to move Jake to another facility then a Motion is filed and the Judge will have to sign off on it just like when they wanted to transport Angie. And just like Angie he would not have to go to Court.

So if Jake goes back to Court again I'm pretty sure it will only be to honor his plea agreement and testify. There shouldn't be any need for Motions to be filed for the Prosecution to continue working with him.

My Understanding of it
 

Cool Cats

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
9,069
Reaction score
64,210
Have the details come out yet as to how she actually made it out alive and back home? I heard her speak on a podcast, and my heart just broke for her.

That Podcast, if it had a verified source we could discuss it, like her saying she was hiding in 3 States. She did make it to the Scioto police station so she would definitely no doubt have gotten help from the police. She told the police she was homeless so I know she never went back after that to the house of horrors.

Sady it reminds me of Tabitha hiding out on the property until dark then grabbing a bike and riding to a gas station for help.

I just can't digest 2 grown men both living with their mom and both having their mom be their children's mother, instead of having families of their own. They would rather have a life with Ma Barker than a nice normal healthy independant relationship with a lady. Angie is a modern day Ma Barker!

I just can't believe the things we are hearing about the Wagners, worse than
I thought. Literally a house of horrors.

2 Cents
 
Last edited:

Niner

Long time Websleuther
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
71,742
Reaction score
224,132
GoBuckeyes said:
Could it be a motion concerning the location and/or manner in which he's being housed?

Just an FYI - this motion hearing was set up way before his guilty hearing on 4/22. It was at the 4/12/21 motions hearing that they set this motion hearing for 5/12.
Here's my notes from the 4/12/21 motion hearing:

4/12/21 Update: Canepa & Junk are talking about allowing people to watch court proceedings, discussing whether to open the gallery above. Now they're all going into the back, to judge's chambers. Hearing for 3 motions filed Feb. & March 4. Jake appears without restraint in street clothes. Attorney absent, Jake says ok with substitute attorney. Special Agent Jenkins instead of Scheiderer. May 12, 2021 is all day motion hearing, but other motions resulted in request for sooner hearing - today. Motion 54 - Other Acts; 55 - transcripts, etc. Defense withdrawing #55 (Motion to Compel the production of transcripts of audio recordings) & #56 (Motion to Compel discovery & status of State's compliance with discovery duties). Address only 54. #54: Motion to Compel the production of "other Acts" evidence. Defense says State provided evidence to their external hard drive for items in 55 & 56. Asking court today to instead of issuing a ruling today refinement something about jurisprudence. Something about asking they include explanation of why they want to use all other acts listed & if it's relevant. Says they need to satisfy some restrictions in 404B, etc. prejudicial impact. Canepa says it was a notice of what they intend to use. If Wagner objects to any of the other acts, he should say so. Judge says burden remains on State to show it fits the exception & comply with Supreme Court's guidance. Does defense intend to file written objection or make oral objection. Do they want to schedule a hearing or use May 12 hearing to address objections to other acts. Defense says they object to all other acts. Some are irrelevant, etc. Says prejudicial impact is far above probative value. State says they need more specific info about objection to each specific act. Judge says state is required to show they are admissible. Not requiring defense to specify objections. Withdrawing Motion 47 (ballistics evidence). After consultation gave further thought about the motion decided to withdraw Motion 47 & 48 (Motion in Limine-Shoeprint evidence). State - He indicated "their experts". Appointments of experts - State wants more info about defense experts. Have not received anything. Next motion hearing on 5/12/21.
 

GoBuckeyes

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2016
Messages
3,081
Reaction score
16,062
Just an FYI - this motion hearing was set up way before his guilty hearing on 4/22. It was at the 4/12/21 motions hearing that they set this motion hearing for 5/12.
Here's my notes from the 4/12/21 motion hearing:

4/12/21 Update: Canepa & Junk are talking about allowing people to watch court proceedings, discussing whether to open the gallery above. Now they're all going into the back, to judge's chambers. Hearing for 3 motions filed Feb. & March 4. Jake appears without restraint in street clothes. Attorney absent, Jake says ok with substitute attorney. Special Agent Jenkins instead of Scheiderer. May 12, 2021 is all day motion hearing, but other motions resulted in request for sooner hearing - today. Motion 54 - Other Acts; 55 - transcripts, etc. Defense withdrawing #55 (Motion to Compel the production of transcripts of audio recordings) & #56 (Motion to Compel discovery & status of State's compliance with discovery duties). Address only 54. #54: Motion to Compel the production of "other Acts" evidence. Defense says State provided evidence to their external hard drive for items in 55 & 56. Asking court today to instead of issuing a ruling today refinement something about jurisprudence. Something about asking they include explanation of why they want to use all other acts listed & if it's relevant. Says they need to satisfy some restrictions in 404B, etc. prejudicial impact. Canepa says it was a notice of what they intend to use. If Wagner objects to any of the other acts, he should say so. Judge says burden remains on State to show it fits the exception & comply with Supreme Court's guidance. Does defense intend to file written objection or make oral objection. Do they want to schedule a hearing or use May 12 hearing to address objections to other acts. Defense says they object to all other acts. Some are irrelevant, etc. Says prejudicial impact is far above probative value. State says they need more specific info about objection to each specific act. Judge says state is required to show they are admissible. Not requiring defense to specify objections. Withdrawing Motion 47 (ballistics evidence). After consultation gave further thought about the motion decided to withdraw Motion 47 & 48 (Motion in Limine-Shoeprint evidence). State - He indicated "their experts". Appointments of experts - State wants more info about defense experts. Have not received anything. Next motion hearing on 5/12/21.

Thank you, @Niner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top