09/24/2021 MOTION #73--MOTION TO DISMISS AGGRAVATED MURDER COUNTS AND/OR DEATH SPECIFICATIONS FILED
Attorney: NASH, JR, RICHARD M AND Attorney: PARKER, JOHN PATRICK
This is for GW4 ^^
on GW3
09/21/2021 JOURNAL ENTRY -- On this 5th day of April, 2021, this cause came on for a pre-trial hearing and a hearing on pretrial motions.
The Defendant, George Washington Wagner, III, was present in court and was represented by his attorneys, Mark C. Collins and Thomas F. Hayes, each of whom has been appointed by the Court to represent the Defendant. Also, present were Attorneys Kaitlyn C. Stephens and Emily Enstett, each of whom are part of the defense team, but neither of whom are attorneys appointed by the Court to represent the Defendant in the present action.
The Defendant appeared for the pre-trial hearing in civilian clothing and without restraints visible outside of his clothing.
The State of Ohio was represented at the pre-trial hearing by the Prosecuting Attorney, Rob Junk, and by Special Prosecuting Attorneys Angela R. Canepa and David A. Wilson.
Also present for the pre-trial hearing was Special Agent Ryan Scheiderer, of the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation ("Ohio BCI&I").
The Court finds that on December 23, 2020, Defendant, by and through his counsel, filed the following motions:
Motion 42 - DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING A PRETRIAL DAUBERT HEARING TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BALLISTICS EVIDENCE AND OPINIONS
Motion 43 - DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING A PRETRIAL DAUBERT HEARING TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SHOEPRINT EVIDENCE AND OPINIONS
Motion 44 - MOTION TO REVOKE ANDREW WILSON'S APPOINTMENT AS SPECIAL PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
Motion 45 - DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING A PRETRIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ANY NON-TESTIFYING CO-DEFENDANT STATEMENTS THE STATE INTENDS TO PRESENT IN ITS CASE IN CHIEF
Motion 46 - DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING THE PROSECUTION TO PROVIDE A TRANSCRIPT OF AUDIO RECORDINGS IT INTENDS TO INTRODUCE AT TRIAL
Motion 47 - DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING THE STATE OF OHIO TO PROVIDE THE DEFENDANT WITH ALL FORENSIC EXPERT REPORTS AND UNDERLYING DATA
The Court further finds that on February 22, 2021, the State of Ohio filed a NOTICE OF INTENT TO USE OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 404(B).
The Court further finds that on February 25, 2021, the Defendant filed the following motion:
Motion 48 - DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PROSECUTION TO PROVIDE TRANSCRIPTS OF AUDIO RECORDINGS IT INTENDS TO INTRODUCE AT TRIAL.
It appears to the Court finds that MOTION 48, is similar to MOTION 46, filed with the Court on December 23, 2020.
The Court further finds that on March 10, 2021, the Defendant filed the following motion:
Motion 49 (as re-designated). DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE
The Court further finds that on April 5, 2021, the State of Ohio filed its responses to Defendant's motions numbers 42 through 45.
At the hearing on this 5th day of April, 2021, the Defendant, through his attorney, orally withdrew the Defendant's Motion 44. The Defendant's attorney further informed the Court with respect to Defendant's Motion 46 and Motion 48 that the State of Ohio has now furnished the Defendant with transcripts of audio recordings as requested in such motions.
After hearing arguments of counsel, the Court granted Defendant's Motion 42 and Defendant's Motion 43 and ordered that a Daubert hearing would be held concerning the admissibility of ballistics evidence and opinions and concerning the admissibility of shoeprint evidence and opinions. Counsel for the Defendant indicated to the Court that he would contact counsel for the co-defendants in order to see whether, if Daubert hearings are to be held in such other cases, the Daubert hearings in all cases could be scheduled on the same day in order to avoid the necessity of having to make the experts involved available on several different days.
Concerning Defendant's Motion 45, counsel for the Defendant indicated to the Court that he believes that argument and consideration of such motion would be premature as of the time of the hearing of April 5, 2021, and that the defense would like to reserve argument and consideration of Defendant's Motion 45 until the defendant's attorneys have familiarized themselves with all of the statements of non-testifying co-defendants. Counsel for the Defendant indicated that the Defendant will supplement Motion 45 by making objections to specific portions of the statements of non-testifying co-defendants, if defense counsel believes that portions thereof should be inadmissible at trial.
The Special Prosecuting Attorney clarified that the transcripts of statements provided by the State of Ohio to the Defendant do not constitute all oral statements of the Defendant and co-Defendants, but are transcripts of some of the intercepted communications, portions of which were difficult to hear and that the transcripts are provided in order to make such statements easier to decipher.
Concerning the Defendant's Motion 49, counsel for the Defendant and counsel for the State of Ohio made oral arguments regarding the issue of the timeliness of the State of Ohio's "Notice of Intent To Use Other Acts Evidence Pursuant to 404(B)" which was served and filed on February 22, 2021. Counsel for the Defendant indicated that the Defendant intends to file specific objections at a later time to any "other crimes, wrongs, or acts" alleged in the State of Ohio's notice that the Defendant believes to be inadmissible at trial.
Having considered the arguments of counsel, the Court finds that the State of Ohio's "Notice of Intent To Use Other Acts Evidence Pursuant to 404(B)" that was served and filed on February 22, 2021 constitutes reasonable notice as far as the timeliness of the notice is concerned. The Court therefore overrules and denies the Defendant's Motion 49 as it concerns the issue of timeliness of the notice. This ruling does not constitute a determination that evidence as to such alleged other acts are admissible in this case under Evid.R. 404(B), however, but only that such evidence is not rendered inadmissible based upon asserted untimeliness of the notice.
Upon the court's inquiry, the Defendant indicated to the Court that he is satisfied with the frequency with which he is seeing his attorneys; that at this time he is satisfied with the services being provided by his attorneys in representing him in this action so far, and that he has no complaints at this time concerning the process or the proceedings.
The Court inquired of the Defendant whether the Defendant had any questions or anything else that he wanted to say concerning the proceedings, and the Defendant indicated that he did not have any questions or anything else that he wanted to say.
There being no further matters before the Court, said Court was adjourned.
COPIES FILED MAILED TO COUNSEL AND DEFENDANT
link:
https://www.pikecountycpcourt.org/e...DfTKBnguHMQjddoVLf8rFKk7XSPqGJKxQZHN2gIpGtAUA
