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

[Cool Cats]

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

Yes, found in tub used for storage and I believe it was found in Jake's truck.

George Wagner request for bail denied after hearing reveals new details

WAVERLY, Ohio (WKRC) - One of the four Wagner family members charged in the execution-style murders of eight members of the Rhoden and Gilley families asked the court to set bail for him. However, Judge Randy Deering denied the request from George Wagner IV after hearing two hours of testimony...

local12.com

Time Stamp:
1:17

Canepa:
And then did you ultimately execute a search warrant up on State Route 41?

Scheiderer:
Yes.

Canepa:
And during that search warrant first of all can you describe to us what you were searching there?

Scheiderer:
Which scene do you mean?

Canepa:
At State Route 41, sorry.

Scheiderer:
There were 2 pick up trucks and 3 trailers that were parked at that location that belonged to the Wagner family.

Canepa:
Ok. And, and during the search of those various vehicles did you find a receipt?

Scheiderer:
Yes we did.

Canepa:
And can you tell us where the receipt was found?

Scheiderer:
In Jake Wagner's (distracting cough, then Scheiderer says one word I think is truck or could be tub.

Canepa:
Ok. And specifically in a tub marked important things or something.

Scheiderer:
Correct.

Canepa:
Ok. same place where you found the original custody documents? Correct?

Scheiderer:
Yes

 

[Covert Operative]

I thought I could clear it up but someone coughs when Canepa asks Scheiderer where the receipt was found and he says just one word that I think could be truck possibly tub The person coughing makes it impossible for the exact word. Scheiderer definitely did not say it was found in Jake's storage locker.

Here is the transcript and time stamp if anyone wants to listen. For me I believe no storage units were searched and that the tub was in Jake's truck. My opinion from how it sounds to me. I just think it was a storage place of business where they kept their vehicles.

George Wagner request for bail denied after hearing reveals new details

WAVERLY, Ohio (WKRC) - One of the four Wagner family members charged in the execution-style murders of eight members of the Rhoden and Gilley families asked the court to set bail for him. However, Judge Randy Deering denied the request from George Wagner IV after hearing two hours of testimony...

local12.com

Time Stamp:
1:17

Canepa:
And then did you ultimately execute a search warrant up on State Route 41?

Scheiderer:
Yes.

Canepa:
And during that search warrant first of all can you describe to us what you were searching there?

Scheiderer:
Which scene do you mean?

Canepa:
At State Route 41, sorry.

Scheiderer:
There were 2 pick up trucks and 3 trailers that were parked at that location that belonged to the Wagner family.

Canepa:
Ok. And, and during the search of those various vehicles did you find a receipt?

Scheiderer:
Yes we did.

Canepa:
And can you tell us where the receipt was found?

Scheiderer:
In Jake Wagner's (distracting cough, then Scheiderer says one word I think is truck or could be tub as I explained before.)

Canepa:
Ok. And specifically in a tub marked important things or something.

Scheiderer:
Correct.

Canepa:
Ok. same place where you found the original custody documents? Correct?

Scheiderer:
Yes

I think maybe in the rush of getting gone, they forgot to get that storage tub. Most people take their important papers or important things when they move. It was to late by the time they figured out they left it. Not sure why they kept the papers or receipt. I assume they did not count on them being found but someone messed up when they left that tub.
I think BCI agent was saying Jake Wagners "vehicle" when that cough ocurred.

 

[Niner]

Okay - another long update on GW4's docket.


6/28/2022 JOURNAL ENTRY -- This cause came on for oral argument on June 21, 2022, upon the following motions of the Defendant:
DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 80: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS TESTIMONY OF JAKE AND ANGELA WAGNER AND TO DISMISS THE DEATH SPECIFICATIONS."
DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 85: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS."
The Defendant was present in Court and was represented by his attorneys, John Patrick Parker and Richard M. Nash, Jr. The State of Ohio was represented by the Prosecuting Attorney, Robert Junk, and by Special Prosecuting Attorney Angela Canepa and Special Prosecuting Attorney David A. Wilson. Also present was Ryan Scheiderer, Special Agent with the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation.
The Court finds that the Defendant appeared in civilian clothing and without visible restraints.
The Court heard the oral argument of counsel for the Defendant in support of Defendant's Motion No. 80 and the Court has also considered the written argument of counsel for the Defendant in support of such Motion. The Court also heard the oral argument of counsel for the State of Ohio in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 80.
After being fully informed, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 80 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 80 is hereby overruled and denied.
The Court heard the oral argument of counsel for the Defendant in support of Defendant's Motion No. 85 and the Court has also considered the written argument of counsel for the Defendant in support of such Motion. The Court also heard the oral argument of counsel for the State of Ohio in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 85.
After being fully informed, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 85 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 85 is hereby overruled and denied.
Counsel for the State of Ohio indicated to the Court that on or before Friday, June 24, 2022, the State of Ohio would serve and file a written response to Defendant's Motion No. 87, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ADHERE TO THE OHIO STATUTORY SCHEME FOR JURY SERVICE." The Court finds that each party, through counsel, agrees that Defendant's Motion No. 87 will thereafter be decided by the Court, without further hearing or argument.
Each party, through counsel, further agreed that the Court may rule upon Defendant's Motion No. 89, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING AN EXHIBIT LIST PRIOR TO TRIAL" without further hearing or argument, the Defendant having filed with Defendant's Motion No. 89 a memorandum in support of the Motion and the State of Ohio having filed a memorandum contra Defendant's Motion No. 89 on June 21, 2022.
Having considered all arguments of the Defendant in support of Defendant's Motion No. 89, and all arguments of the State of Ohio in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 89, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 89 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 89 is overruled and denied; however, it is ORDERED that counsel for the State of Ohio shall prepare an exhibit list of the evidence that is used at trial, shall update the list as the trial progresses, and shall provide a copy of the list to the Court, to the Defendant, and to the jury, if and as ordered by the Court during the trial or at the conclusion of the trial.
Having considered all arguments of the Defendant in support of Defendant's Motion No. 11, which requests relief similar to that requested in Defendant's Motion No. 89, and having considered all arguments of the State of Ohio in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 11, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 11 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 11 is overruled and denied; however, the State of Ohio shall be expected to preserve, and to have preserved, evidence that is in its possession or under its control and it is further ORDERED that counsel for the State of Ohio shall prepare an exhibit list of the evidence that is used at trial, shall update the list as the trial progresses, and shall provide a copy of the list to the Court, to the Defendant, and to the jury, if and as ordered by the Court during the trial or at the conclusion of the trial.
As to Defendant's Motion No. 92, entitled "MOTION TO DISMISS DEATH SPECIFICATIONS," counsel for the State of Ohio indicated to the Court at the hearing that the State of Ohio requests that the Court consider the State of Ohio's written and oral arguments that were previously made in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 14 when considering its ruling upon Defendant's Motion No. 92, because, the State of Ohio argues, both Motion No. 14 and Motion No. 92 request similar relief - that the "capital components" or "death specifications" in the indictment be dismissed. Counsel for the Defendant made further oral argument at the hearing in support of Defendant's Motion No. 92, however, and indicated to the Court that the arguments advanced on behalf of the Defendant in support of Defendant's Motion No. 92 differ from the arguments made in support of Defendant's Motion No. 14 and should therefore be considered is in addition to the arguments made in support of Defendant's Motion No. 14.
Having considered all of the Defendant's arguments made in support of Defendant's Motion No. 92 and the State of Ohio's arguments in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 92, the Court finds and determines that Defendant's Motion No. 92 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 92 is hereby overruled and denied.
As to Defendant's Motion No. 93, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS TESTIMONY OF JAIL HOUSE INFORMANTS," the Court finds that the State of Ohio filed a Memorandum Contra Defendant's Motion No. 93 on June 21, 2022.
Having considered all of the Defendant's arguments in support of Defendant's Motion No. 93 and all of the State of Ohio's arguments in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 93, the Court finds and determines that Defendant's Motion No. 93 is not well taken, provided that at the time the jail house informants, if any, obtained information that the State of Ohio intends to introduce through them at trial the jail house informants were not inmates cooperating with the State of Ohio who obtained the information through conversations with the Defendant initiated by the inmates relating to the pending charges in this action or as to the Defendant's character, history and background without the presence of defense counsel, as prohibited by the Court's ruling upon Defendant's Motion No. 13, which was unopposed by the State of Ohio. With such caveat, it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 93 is hereby overruled and denied.


link: https://www.pikecountycpcourt.org/e...0bHmtjY0Z2G1WCxsVbrBpBI7CIusq2kLsyp36e3eFKiRw


So - I believe these are all his motions - ?? And the next date would be 7/5/22 for jury selection, no?

 

[Covert Operative]

Okay - another long update on GW4's docket.


6/28/2022 JOURNAL ENTRY -- This cause came on for oral argument on June 21, 2022, upon the following motions of the Defendant:
DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 80: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS TESTIMONY OF JAKE AND ANGELA WAGNER AND TO DISMISS THE DEATH SPECIFICATIONS."
DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 85: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS."
The Defendant was present in Court and was represented by his attorneys, John Patrick Parker and Richard M. Nash, Jr. The State of Ohio was represented by the Prosecuting Attorney, Robert Junk, and by Special Prosecuting Attorney Angela Canepa and Special Prosecuting Attorney David A. Wilson. Also present was Ryan Scheiderer, Special Agent with the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation.
The Court finds that the Defendant appeared in civilian clothing and without visible restraints.
The Court heard the oral argument of counsel for the Defendant in support of Defendant's Motion No. 80 and the Court has also considered the written argument of counsel for the Defendant in support of such Motion. The Court also heard the oral argument of counsel for the State of Ohio in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 80.
After being fully informed, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 80 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 80 is hereby overruled and denied.
The Court heard the oral argument of counsel for the Defendant in support of Defendant's Motion No. 85 and the Court has also considered the written argument of counsel for the Defendant in support of such Motion. The Court also heard the oral argument of counsel for the State of Ohio in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 85.
After being fully informed, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 85 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 85 is hereby overruled and denied.
Counsel for the State of Ohio indicated to the Court that on or before Friday, June 24, 2022, the State of Ohio would serve and file a written response to Defendant's Motion No. 87, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ADHERE TO THE OHIO STATUTORY SCHEME FOR JURY SERVICE." The Court finds that each party, through counsel, agrees that Defendant's Motion No. 87 will thereafter be decided by the Court, without further hearing or argument.
Each party, through counsel, further agreed that the Court may rule upon Defendant's Motion No. 89, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING AN EXHIBIT LIST PRIOR TO TRIAL" without further hearing or argument, the Defendant having filed with Defendant's Motion No. 89 a memorandum in support of the Motion and the State of Ohio having filed a memorandum contra Defendant's Motion No. 89 on June 21, 2022.
Having considered all arguments of the Defendant in support of Defendant's Motion No. 89, and all arguments of the State of Ohio in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 89, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 89 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 89 is overruled and denied; however, it is ORDERED that counsel for the State of Ohio shall prepare an exhibit list of the evidence that is used at trial, shall update the list as the trial progresses, and shall provide a copy of the list to the Court, to the Defendant, and to the jury, if and as ordered by the Court during the trial or at the conclusion of the trial.
Having considered all arguments of the Defendant in support of Defendant's Motion No. 11, which requests relief similar to that requested in Defendant's Motion No. 89, and having considered all arguments of the State of Ohio in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 11, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 11 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 11 is overruled and denied; however, the State of Ohio shall be expected to preserve, and to have preserved, evidence that is in its possession or under its control and it is further ORDERED that counsel for the State of Ohio shall prepare an exhibit list of the evidence that is used at trial, shall update the list as the trial progresses, and shall provide a copy of the list to the Court, to the Defendant, and to the jury, if and as ordered by the Court during the trial or at the conclusion of the trial.
As to Defendant's Motion No. 92, entitled "MOTION TO DISMISS DEATH SPECIFICATIONS," counsel for the State of Ohio indicated to the Court at the hearing that the State of Ohio requests that the Court consider the State of Ohio's written and oral arguments that were previously made in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 14 when considering its ruling upon Defendant's Motion No. 92, because, the State of Ohio argues, both Motion No. 14 and Motion No. 92 request similar relief - that the "capital components" or "death specifications" in the indictment be dismissed. Counsel for the Defendant made further oral argument at the hearing in support of Defendant's Motion No. 92, however, and indicated to the Court that the arguments advanced on behalf of the Defendant in support of Defendant's Motion No. 92 differ from the arguments made in support of Defendant's Motion No. 14 and should therefore be considered is in addition to the arguments made in support of Defendant's Motion No. 14.
Having considered all of the Defendant's arguments made in support of Defendant's Motion No. 92 and the State of Ohio's arguments in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 92, the Court finds and determines that Defendant's Motion No. 92 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 92 is hereby overruled and denied.
As to Defendant's Motion No. 93, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS TESTIMONY OF JAIL HOUSE INFORMANTS," the Court finds that the State of Ohio filed a Memorandum Contra Defendant's Motion No. 93 on June 21, 2022.
Having considered all of the Defendant's arguments in support of Defendant's Motion No. 93 and all of the State of Ohio's arguments in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 93, the Court finds and determines that Defendant's Motion No. 93 is not well taken, provided that at the time the jail house informants, if any, obtained information that the State of Ohio intends to introduce through them at trial the jail house informants were not inmates cooperating with the State of Ohio who obtained the information through conversations with the Defendant initiated by the inmates relating to the pending charges in this action or as to the Defendant's character, history and background without the presence of defense counsel, as prohibited by the Court's ruling upon Defendant's Motion No. 13, which was unopposed by the State of Ohio. With such caveat, it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 93 is hereby overruled and denied.


link: https://www.pikecountycpcourt.org/e...0bHmtjY0Z2G1WCxsVbrBpBI7CIusq2kLsyp36e3eFKiRw


So - I believe these are all his motions - ?? And the next date would be 7/5/22 for jury selection, no?

Yes, I believe the jury questionares begin on July 5th.

 

[Cool Cats]

Okay - another long update on GW4's docket.


6/28/2022 JOURNAL ENTRY -- This cause came on for oral argument on June 21, 2022, upon the following motions of the Defendant:
DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 80: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS TESTIMONY OF JAKE AND ANGELA WAGNER AND TO DISMISS THE DEATH SPECIFICATIONS."
DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 85: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS."
The Defendant was present in Court and was represented by his attorneys, John Patrick Parker and Richard M. Nash, Jr. The State of Ohio was represented by the Prosecuting Attorney, Robert Junk, and by Special Prosecuting Attorney Angela Canepa and Special Prosecuting Attorney David A. Wilson. Also present was Ryan Scheiderer, Special Agent with the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation.
The Court finds that the Defendant appeared in civilian clothing and without visible restraints.
The Court heard the oral argument of counsel for the Defendant in support of Defendant's Motion No. 80 and the Court has also considered the written argument of counsel for the Defendant in support of such Motion. The Court also heard the oral argument of counsel for the State of Ohio in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 80.
After being fully informed, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 80 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 80 is hereby overruled and denied.
The Court heard the oral argument of counsel for the Defendant in support of Defendant's Motion No. 85 and the Court has also considered the written argument of counsel for the Defendant in support of such Motion. The Court also heard the oral argument of counsel for the State of Ohio in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 85.
After being fully informed, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 85 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 85 is hereby overruled and denied.
Counsel for the State of Ohio indicated to the Court that on or before Friday, June 24, 2022, the State of Ohio would serve and file a written response to Defendant's Motion No. 87, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ADHERE TO THE OHIO STATUTORY SCHEME FOR JURY SERVICE." The Court finds that each party, through counsel, agrees that Defendant's Motion No. 87 will thereafter be decided by the Court, without further hearing or argument.
Each party, through counsel, further agreed that the Court may rule upon Defendant's Motion No. 89, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING AN EXHIBIT LIST PRIOR TO TRIAL" without further hearing or argument, the Defendant having filed with Defendant's Motion No. 89 a memorandum in support of the Motion and the State of Ohio having filed a memorandum contra Defendant's Motion No. 89 on June 21, 2022.
Having considered all arguments of the Defendant in support of Defendant's Motion No. 89, and all arguments of the State of Ohio in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 89, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 89 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 89 is overruled and denied; however, it is ORDERED that counsel for the State of Ohio shall prepare an exhibit list of the evidence that is used at trial, shall update the list as the trial progresses, and shall provide a copy of the list to the Court, to the Defendant, and to the jury, if and as ordered by the Court during the trial or at the conclusion of the trial.
Having considered all arguments of the Defendant in support of Defendant's Motion No. 11, which requests relief similar to that requested in Defendant's Motion No. 89, and having considered all arguments of the State of Ohio in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 11, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 11 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 11 is overruled and denied; however, the State of Ohio shall be expected to preserve, and to have preserved, evidence that is in its possession or under its control and it is further ORDERED that counsel for the State of Ohio shall prepare an exhibit list of the evidence that is used at trial, shall update the list as the trial progresses, and shall provide a copy of the list to the Court, to the Defendant, and to the jury, if and as ordered by the Court during the trial or at the conclusion of the trial.
As to Defendant's Motion No. 92, entitled "MOTION TO DISMISS DEATH SPECIFICATIONS," counsel for the State of Ohio indicated to the Court at the hearing that the State of Ohio requests that the Court consider the State of Ohio's written and oral arguments that were previously made in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 14 when considering its ruling upon Defendant's Motion No. 92, because, the State of Ohio argues, both Motion No. 14 and Motion No. 92 request similar relief - that the "capital components" or "death specifications" in the indictment be dismissed. Counsel for the Defendant made further oral argument at the hearing in support of Defendant's Motion No. 92, however, and indicated to the Court that the arguments advanced on behalf of the Defendant in support of Defendant's Motion No. 92 differ from the arguments made in support of Defendant's Motion No. 14 and should therefore be considered is in addition to the arguments made in support of Defendant's Motion No. 14.
Having considered all of the Defendant's arguments made in support of Defendant's Motion No. 92 and the State of Ohio's arguments in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 92, the Court finds and determines that Defendant's Motion No. 92 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 92 is hereby overruled and denied.
As to Defendant's Motion No. 93, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS TESTIMONY OF JAIL HOUSE INFORMANTS," the Court finds that the State of Ohio filed a Memorandum Contra Defendant's Motion No. 93 on June 21, 2022.
Having considered all of the Defendant's arguments in support of Defendant's Motion No. 93 and all of the State of Ohio's arguments in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 93, the Court finds and determines that Defendant's Motion No. 93 is not well taken, provided that at the time the jail house informants, if any, obtained information that the State of Ohio intends to introduce through them at trial the jail house informants were not inmates cooperating with the State of Ohio who obtained the information through conversations with the Defendant initiated by the inmates relating to the pending charges in this action or as to the Defendant's character, history and background without the presence of defense counsel, as prohibited by the Court's ruling upon Defendant's Motion No. 13, which was unopposed by the State of Ohio. With such caveat, it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 93 is hereby overruled and denied.


link: https://www.pikecountycpcourt.org/e...0bHmtjY0Z2G1WCxsVbrBpBI7CIusq2kLsyp36e3eFKiRw


So - I believe these are all his motions - ?? And the next date would be 7/5/22 for jury selection, no?

Wow. 33 motions denied.

GRANTED MOTIONS:

19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 49

RULE LATER MOTION:

87

RESERVES RULING ON MOTIONS:

11 and 89 together.

DENIED MOTIONS:

8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 80, 85, 89, 92, 93

GRANTED ONLY IN PART:

30, 32, 42, 43

 

[Puzzles8]

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.

the only plausible defense I could think up now is 'the dog did it'........

JMO

 

[CocoChanel]

OFF TOPIC - ADMIN NOTE…..
…….but want to be sure you all know:
Mike Morford, podcaster extraordinaire, and fellow WS member, has invited us all to take part in his new podcast CITIZEN DETECTIVE tonight starting in less than an hour!!
Here are the DETAILS:
CITIZEN DETECTIVE Youtube page:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSgvqIuf4-sEF2aDdNGip2w

The WS thread for the case they are discussing tonight:
Rachael Runyon in Sunset, Utah

Please tune in to check it out!*
Starts at 9 pm Eastern.

(Please do not comment on this thread about this post….go here instead…..
NEW PODCAST PARTNERSHIP w/ MIKE MORFORD
THANKS!
coco

 

[Puzzles8]

Wow. 33 motions denied.

GRANTED MOTIONS:

19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 49

RULE LATER MOTION:

87

RESERVES RULING ON MOTIONS:

11 and 89 together.

DENIED MOTIONS:

8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 80, 85, 89, 92, 93

GRANTED ONLY IN PART:

30, 32, 42, 43

Very informative analysis!
Thank you

JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

Very informative analysis!
Thank you

JMO

Your welcome. All these Motions get so overwhelming that I wanted to put a little bit of perspective on it.

These are just a few examples of how I keep seeing the word overboard....

I find this interesting because I think in general the defense is panicking and going overboard with all these Motions.

The Court finds that the language of Defendant's Motion No. 8, as framed, is overbroad and is not well taken.

The Court finds that the language of Defendant's Motion No. 9, as framed, is overbroad and is not well taken.

...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. Motion #10.

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.

 

[Covert Operative]

Okay - another long update on GW4's docket.


6/28/2022 JOURNAL ENTRY -- This cause came on for oral argument on June 21, 2022, upon the following motions of the Defendant:
DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 80: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS TESTIMONY OF JAKE AND ANGELA WAGNER AND TO DISMISS THE DEATH SPECIFICATIONS."
DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 85: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS."
The Defendant was present in Court and was represented by his attorneys, John Patrick Parker and Richard M. Nash, Jr. The State of Ohio was represented by the Prosecuting Attorney, Robert Junk, and by Special Prosecuting Attorney Angela Canepa and Special Prosecuting Attorney David A. Wilson. Also present was Ryan Scheiderer, Special Agent with the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation.
The Court finds that the Defendant appeared in civilian clothing and without visible restraints.
The Court heard the oral argument of counsel for the Defendant in support of Defendant's Motion No. 80 and the Court has also considered the written argument of counsel for the Defendant in support of such Motion. The Court also heard the oral argument of counsel for the State of Ohio in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 80.
After being fully informed, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 80 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 80 is hereby overruled and denied.
The Court heard the oral argument of counsel for the Defendant in support of Defendant's Motion No. 85 and the Court has also considered the written argument of counsel for the Defendant in support of such Motion. The Court also heard the oral argument of counsel for the State of Ohio in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 85.
After being fully informed, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 85 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 85 is hereby overruled and denied.
Counsel for the State of Ohio indicated to the Court that on or before Friday, June 24, 2022, the State of Ohio would serve and file a written response to Defendant's Motion No. 87, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ADHERE TO THE OHIO STATUTORY SCHEME FOR JURY SERVICE." The Court finds that each party, through counsel, agrees that Defendant's Motion No. 87 will thereafter be decided by the Court, without further hearing or argument.
Each party, through counsel, further agreed that the Court may rule upon Defendant's Motion No. 89, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING AN EXHIBIT LIST PRIOR TO TRIAL" without further hearing or argument, the Defendant having filed with Defendant's Motion No. 89 a memorandum in support of the Motion and the State of Ohio having filed a memorandum contra Defendant's Motion No. 89 on June 21, 2022.
Having considered all arguments of the Defendant in support of Defendant's Motion No. 89, and all arguments of the State of Ohio in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 89, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 89 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 89 is overruled and denied; however, it is ORDERED that counsel for the State of Ohio shall prepare an exhibit list of the evidence that is used at trial, shall update the list as the trial progresses, and shall provide a copy of the list to the Court, to the Defendant, and to the jury, if and as ordered by the Court during the trial or at the conclusion of the trial.
Having considered all arguments of the Defendant in support of Defendant's Motion No. 11, which requests relief similar to that requested in Defendant's Motion No. 89, and having considered all arguments of the State of Ohio in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 11, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 11 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 11 is overruled and denied; however, the State of Ohio shall be expected to preserve, and to have preserved, evidence that is in its possession or under its control and it is further ORDERED that counsel for the State of Ohio shall prepare an exhibit list of the evidence that is used at trial, shall update the list as the trial progresses, and shall provide a copy of the list to the Court, to the Defendant, and to the jury, if and as ordered by the Court during the trial or at the conclusion of the trial.
As to Defendant's Motion No. 92, entitled "MOTION TO DISMISS DEATH SPECIFICATIONS," counsel for the State of Ohio indicated to the Court at the hearing that the State of Ohio requests that the Court consider the State of Ohio's written and oral arguments that were previously made in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 14 when considering its ruling upon Defendant's Motion No. 92, because, the State of Ohio argues, both Motion No. 14 and Motion No. 92 request similar relief - that the "capital components" or "death specifications" in the indictment be dismissed. Counsel for the Defendant made further oral argument at the hearing in support of Defendant's Motion No. 92, however, and indicated to the Court that the arguments advanced on behalf of the Defendant in support of Defendant's Motion No. 92 differ from the arguments made in support of Defendant's Motion No. 14 and should therefore be considered is in addition to the arguments made in support of Defendant's Motion No. 14.
Having considered all of the Defendant's arguments made in support of Defendant's Motion No. 92 and the State of Ohio's arguments in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 92, the Court finds and determines that Defendant's Motion No. 92 is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 92 is hereby overruled and denied.
As to Defendant's Motion No. 93, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS TESTIMONY OF JAIL HOUSE INFORMANTS," the Court finds that the State of Ohio filed a Memorandum Contra Defendant's Motion No. 93 on June 21, 2022.
Having considered all of the Defendant's arguments in support of Defendant's Motion No. 93 and all of the State of Ohio's arguments in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 93, the Court finds and determines that Defendant's Motion No. 93 is not well taken, provided that at the time the jail house informants, if any, obtained information that the State of Ohio intends to introduce through them at trial the jail house informants were not inmates cooperating with the State of Ohio who obtained the information through conversations with the Defendant initiated by the inmates relating to the pending charges in this action or as to the Defendant's character, history and background without the presence of defense counsel, as prohibited by the Court's ruling upon Defendant's Motion No. 13, which was unopposed by the State of Ohio. With such caveat, it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 93 is hereby overruled and denied.


link: https://www.pikecountycpcourt.org/e...0bHmtjY0Z2G1WCxsVbrBpBI7CIusq2kLsyp36e3eFKiRw


So - I believe these are all his motions - ?? And the next date would be 7/5/22 for jury selection, no?

There are some more motions the judge has to rule on that defense filed after his last hearing.
The one that sticks out to me is that says he has anxiety over his stun vest an does not want to wear it. His lawyers said it makes him appear wooden in court. Pretty sure that might have been a waste of their time. I think that was motion 97?

 

[Niner]

There are some more motions the judge has to rule on that defense filed after his last hearing.
The one that sticks out to me is that says he has anxiety over his stun vest an does not want to wear it. His lawyers said it makes him appear wooden in court. Pretty sure that might have been a waste of their time. I think that was motion 97?

Actually I believe there are 2 more - #96 & 97 - from my notes:

6/21/22: Motion #96: Motion in Limine on the admissibility of statements in violation of the hearsay rule filed by defense attorney John Parker.
Motion #97: Defendant's motion to permit accused to appear without restraints at all proceedings filed by defense attorney John Parker.

I don't see them as being decided yet - unless I'm not seeing them.

 

[IType]

There are some more motions the judge has to rule on that defense filed after his last hearing.
The one that sticks out to me is that says he has anxiety over his stun vest an does not want to wear it. His lawyers said it makes him appear wooden in court. Pretty sure that might have been a waste of their time. I think that was motion 97?

Awwww, poor baby. He has anxiety over the vest. How about the anxiety he has caused the surviving loved ones of the deceased??

 

[IType]

Wow. 33 motions denied.

GRANTED MOTIONS:

19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 49

RULE LATER MOTION:

87

RESERVES RULING ON MOTIONS:

11 and 89 together.

DENIED MOTIONS:

8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 80, 85, 89, 92, 93

GRANTED ONLY IN PART:

30, 32, 42, 43

For the first time since the day the W4 were arrested, I finally feel like the wheels of justice are turning. About dang time.... Good to see that final preparations are being made for trial. Hopefully there won't be any delays and the start date will stand as scheduled. IMO

 

[Cool Cats]

Actually I believe there are 2 more - #96 & 97 - from my notes:

6/21/22: Motion #96: Motion in Limine on the admissibility of statements in violation of the hearsay rule filed by defense attorney John Parker.
Motion #97: Defendant's motion to permit accused to appear without restraints at all proceedings filed by defense attorney John Parker.

I don't see them as being decided yet - unless I'm not seeing them.

There are some more motions the judge has to rule on that defense filed after his last hearing.
The one that sticks out to me is that says he has anxiety over his stun vest an does not want to wear it. His lawyers said it makes him appear wooden in court. Pretty sure that might have been a waste of their time. I think that was motion 97?

Motion #97: Defendant's motion to permit accused to appear without restraints at all proceedings filed by defense attorney John Parker.

If there is a Motion that he doesn't want to wear a stun vest then this is it but makes no sense. He was granted his Motion to not be showing any restraints in front of the court and he got that Motion granted.

Probably plenty of defendants don't wear stun vests at trial but most defendants are not being charged for 8 aggravated murders with 14 other charges and the death penalty on the table.

If he wants to be free of his stun vest through a Motion he will lose this Motion. As far as I'm concerned this type of Motion will be denied.

He looks fine in court. He has been wearing it just fine for more than 3 1/2 years without issue. Like I said before, overbroad.

 

[Lilttledoggie]

Awwww, poor baby. He has anxiety over the vest. How about the anxiety he has caused the surviving loved ones of the deceased??

I know what I’m about to say is way out there, but could it be at some point during the proceeding he may decide to try and commit suicide by cop in the court room and don’t want the vest? Personally I can see that possibility although probably wouldn’t work for him. But it sure is an odd request

 

[Cool Cats]

I know what I’m about to say is way out there, but could it be at some point during the proceeding he may decide to try and commit suicide by cop in the court room and don’t want the vest? Personally I can see that possibility although probably wouldn’t work for him. But it sure is an odd request

Without a weapon and with this much security, he would be tackled in a second in court and handcuffed.

Wagner IV's attorneys request murder charges dropped

WAVERLY- George Wagner IV, one of four family members charged in the 2016 Rhoden Massacre, appeared before the Pike County Court of Common Pleas on Monday.

www.newswatchman.com

 

[RAISINISBACK]

Yes, found in tub used for storage and I believe it was found in Jake's truck.

George Wagner request for bail denied after hearing reveals new details

WAVERLY, Ohio (WKRC) - One of the four Wagner family members charged in the execution-style murders of eight members of the Rhoden and Gilley families asked the court to set bail for him. However, Judge Randy Deering denied the request from George Wagner IV after hearing two hours of testimony...

local12.com

Time Stamp:
1:17

Canepa:
And then did you ultimately execute a search warrant up on State Route 41?

Scheiderer:
Yes.

Canepa:
And during that search warrant first of all can you describe to us what you were searching there?

Scheiderer:
Which scene do you mean?

Canepa:
At State Route 41, sorry.

Scheiderer:
There were 2 pick up trucks and 3 trailers that were parked at that location that belonged to the Wagner family.

Canepa:
Ok. And, and during the search of those various vehicles did you find a receipt?

Scheiderer:
Yes we did.

Canepa:
And can you tell us where the receipt was found?

Scheiderer:
In Jake Wagner's (distracting cough, then Scheiderer says one word I think is truck or could be tub.

Canepa:
Ok. And specifically in a tub marked important things or something.

Scheiderer:
Correct.

Canepa:
Ok. same place where you found the original custody documents? Correct?

Scheiderer:
Yes

Thank you CC. You always have the facts. Have I told you lately how much I love you?

 

[Dudly]

I know what I’m about to say is way out there, but could it be at some point during the proceeding he may decide to try and commit suicide by cop in the court room and don’t want the vest? Personally I can see that possibility although probably wouldn’t work for him. But it sure is an odd request

The last few times he was in court they basically had a SWAT Team with him. I am sure he realizes he won’t escape but he may have something in mind like you suggest. He may see that as the easy way out of spending most of his life in prison…

 

[Antimony]

If he didn't have the courage to shoot helpless, unarmed people in their sleep, He won't have the courage to try anything in court.

 

[Cool Cats]

• Thank you CC. You always have the facts. Have I told you lately how much I love you?

  
  
• ...HA!