After denying Ryan Widmer’s defense lawyers’ request to delay Wednesday’s hearing, Judge Neal Bronson listened to the defense’s request for a fourth trial due to juror misconduct and to the prosecution’s argument to let the third trial’s verdict stand.
In his third murder trial, Widmer was convicted by a jury in February of murder and sentenced to 15 years to life in the drowning death of his wife Sarah in 2008.
Cincinnati.com reporter Janice Morse was at yesterday’s hearing and wrote about it in her story titled “Widmer defense argues for 4th trial.”
On Feb. 2, 13 days before Widmer was convicted, Bronson questioned a juror about a statement that three people reported to the defense team: The juror had allegedly told her best friend that jurors had already decided Widmer was guilty and he would “burn in hell.”
The juror denied making the statement then and again in an affidavit filed Wednesday.
But defense lawyer Jay Clark cited case law suggesting that questioning of more jurors was warranted, to ensure that they hadn’t been contaminated by the allegedly biased juror.
Clark said he had made a request in February in chambers for the judge to take more action other than just questioning the juror. But the judge apologized Wednesday, saying he didn’t remember that request and that there is no record of it being made.
Regardless, Clark argued, either the judge made a mistake by failing to question more jurors – or the defense team made a mistake by not making a motion for a mistrial. If either of those errors occurred, Widmer was denied the right to a fair trial, Clark said.
The defense did have a middle-aged Franklin woman, who is the sister of the “best friend” of the controversial juror, testify on Wednesday. Below is a portion of Cincinnati.com’s account:
The Franklin woman anonymously called Clark’s office during the trial to report that her sister told her that the juror had made the “burn in hell” remark. But she waffled on the witness stand, and caused the courtroom to gasp when she revealed she was at her sister’s home, watching TV and smoking pot, when the two began discussing the Widmer case – and the role of her sister’s best friend in it.
She said she couldn’t verify that she accurately heard the “burn in hell” comment. “I can’t with 100 percent certainty…with my hand before God, no,” she said, saying she was “upset and high” at the time.
Frustrated, Clark asked: “Why did you call my office then?”
The witness replied, “I kept thinking about it, and I couldn’t with certainty with my hand before God say that.”
Assistant Prosecutor John Arnold accused Clark of “trying to argue with her and badger her.”
Arnold railed against “multiple levels of hearsay” the defense was presenting, and said none of the allegations “rise to a level of juror misconduct.”
Clark said the defense team hasn’t claimed juror misconduct. In filings, the defense team has claimed that Bronson was misled into keeping a biased juror on the panel and that the jury misunderstood or misapplied the law and jury instructions.
For more on the story, visit Cincinnati.com.
(PHOTO: Defense attorneys Lindsey Gutierrez, left, and Jay Clark and Warren County assistant prosecutor John Arnold talk with Judge Neal Bronson during a hearing March 23)
Posted in: Crime, News, Widmer Trial |
