Ryan Widmer looks at his family after he was found guilty of murdering his wife Sarah Widmer in 2008. This photo was taken Tuesday, February 15, 2011. / The Enquirer/Cara Owsley
The Enquirer
The state’s top court won’t give Ryan Widmer a new trial.
In a 4-3 vote, the Ohio Supreme Court declined today to accept his case for review.
Widmer is serving 15 years to life for killing his wife, Sarah, in their Hamilton Township home in 2008.
Widmer’s attorney, Michele Berry, had argued that a Middletown-based appeals court “misinterpreted” existing case law surrounding DNA testing in Ohio when it agreed with Judge Neal Bronson’s refusal to order genetic testing on blood from Widmer’s wife, Sarah.
Widmer and his supporters say his young wife showed possible signs of a genetic heart-rhythm disorder that could have caused her to drown. But she was never tested for that condition, “Long QT Syndrome,” or a similar problem.
The 32-year-old Colerain Township native who last lived in Mason has maintained his innocence.
Widmer’s lawyers have said they plan to appeal to federal courts if the Ohio Supreme Court turned them down.
Douglas Boucher, 39, of Mason died after a 2009 tasing incident with Mason Police. Boucher’s family has filed a a lawsuit in federal court against the city and two officers involved. Provided photo
The city of Mason and two police officers have asked the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a federal judge’s ruling denying them immunity in a civil lawsuit filed by the family of an unarmed, mentally ill Mason man who died after a confrontation with police.
Gary F. Becker, a Cincinnati attorney representing Mason and both officers, filed an appeal Thursday arguing the court should overturn Judge S. Arthur Spiegel’s March 22 decision to deny qualified and sovereign immunity to the city and officers.
Qualified immunity shields public officials from legal liability unless they knowingly violated a person’s clearly established legal or constitutional rights. Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that makes it difficult for private citizens to sue the government.
The case centers on Douglas Boucher, who died on Dec. 13, 2009 after two Mason police officers Tased him seven times, kicked and repeatedly struck him with a baton — all mostly after he had fallen face-first onto cement and stopped moving.
The suit alleges Mason Police Officers Daniel Fry and Sean McCormick unreasonably seized and used excessive force on Boucher, 39, and that the city of Mason failed to adequately train and supervise officers’ use of Tasers or conduct a meaningful investigation of the incident.
Neither officer was disciplined, and the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation cleared both of wrongdoing.
The suit demands a jury trial and seeks compensatory damages and legal costs. It also asks for punitive damages against the officers, not the city.
“Qualified immunity is specifically designed to protect the officers not only from liability, but from the prospect of having to go through the rigors of a trial,” said Becker. “The city has elected to avail themselves of that right to appeal that decision now.”
A federal appeals court has ordered a new trial for a Mason homebuilder convicted in connection with a $3.5 million fraud scheme involving multimillion-dollar homes.
Bernard J. Kurlemann, 59, was convicted in November 2010 of making false statements to a lending institution and bankruptcy fraud and ordered to serve two concurrent 24-month sentences and pay back $1.1 million in restitution.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati Tuesday reversed Kurlemann’s conviction of making false statements while upholding his bankruptcy fraud convictions.
He was released from federal prison on March 1 after serving his full sentence.
Prosecutors say Kurlemann participated in a mortgage fraud concocted by Eric Duke, a self-employed tax preparer and interior designer. The conspiracy involved the sale of homes by using straw buyers and phony financial documents.
Duke, 36, of Newport, was sentenced April 1, 2011 to 60 months in prison and ordered to pay about $2.1 million in restitution and forfeiture. Five others were also sentenced in connection with the scheme.
The three-judge panel found that prosecutors included an erroneous legal theory when giving instructions to the jury on how they should deliberate the false statements charge.
After one failed attempt to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, Ryan Widmer’s appellate lawyer is urging the court to consider whether DNA testing could prove “whether a crime occurred at all” in the 2008 bathtub drowning of his wife.
Last week, in a split decision, the Supreme Court refused to consider a first appeal based largely on assertions that authorities had illegally seized the bathtub as evidence. Three of the court’s seven justices said they would have accepted the appeal.
On Wednesday, attorney Michele Berry filed a second appeal with the Supreme Court, this time focusing on issues that arose after a Warren County jury convicted Widmer in his third trial in 2011. Berry called the case worthy of Supreme Court attention because it is “of great public interest and involves substantial constitutional questions.”
Specifically, Berry argues that a Middletown-based appeals court “misinterpreted” existing case law surrounding DNA testing in Ohio when it agreed with Judge Neal Bronson’s refusal to order genetic testing on blood from Widmer’s wife, Sarah.
Widmer and his supporters say his young wife showed possible signs of a genetic heart-rhythm disorder that could have caused her to drown. But she was never tested for that condition, “Long QT Syndrome,” or a similar problem.
The Ohio Supreme Court has turned down a request to review Ryan Widmer’s conviction in the 2008 bathtub drowning of his wife, Sarah, 24.
Widmer, 32, a Colerain Township native who last lived in Mason, is serving 15 years to life in prison.
While prosecutors assert that ample evidence points to a forced drowning, Widmer protests his innocence.
He and his supporters say his young wife showed possible signs of a genetic heart-rhythm disorder that could have caused her to drown. But she was never tested for that condition.
Widmer’s lawyers petitioned the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of the conviction after their appeal to the Ohio 12th District Court of Appeals failed in January.
Ryan Widmer has been shot down again. The Ohio 12th District Court of Appeals, in a ruling released this morning after a five-month wait, rejected a second appeal of his murder conviction in the 2008 bathtub drowning of his wife.
But that doesn’t mean the fight is over for the Warren County man who stood trial three times before being convicted in 2011; he’s serving 15 years to life in prison. His lawyer has already asked the Ohio Supreme Court to consider his case and also could appeal to the federal courts.
The Middletown-based appeals court filed its decision in Warren County Common Pleas Court here, where Widmer’s trials were held.
This second appeal centered on whether a detective’s alleged pattern of lying tainted the entire case and also raised concerns that genetic testing, which wasn’t done, may have revealed that Widmer’s wife, Sarah, 24, suffered from a health condition that contributed to her death.
Lawyers in the case had argued their points to the court in August. Widmer’s appellate lawyer, Michele Berry, focused on allegations that authorities improperly withheld information that cast doubt on the credibility of the lead investigator on the case, Jeff Braley. He resigned from the Hamilton Township Police Department in 2011 after an independent investigator said the township had reason to question his honesty.
An assistant prosecutor, Michael Greer, had argued that it was irrelevant whether Braley had made false claims about his credentials, including representations that he had served in the U.S. Special Forces. Braley has denied the accusations.
Even if Braley did make false claims, “it would not have changed the outcome of the trial,” Greer said, adding that other evidence, including a 911 call from Widmer and testimony of medical experts was still sufficient to support Widmer’s conviction, no matter what Braley said or did.
Ryan Widmer looks at his family after he was found guilty Tuesday of murdering his wife Sarah Widmer in 2008. This photo was taken Tuesday, February 15, 2011. / The Enquirer/Cara Owsley
Janice Morse reports:
The lawyer for Ryan Widmer, a Warren County man convicted in the bathtub drowning of his newlywed wife, is asking the Ohio Supreme Court to hear his appeal.
Attorney Michele Berry filed a 17-page document Wednesday, arguing that the state’s highest court should accept the case. She argues that the Widmer case meets the court’s requirements that it involves issues of “public or general interest” and “a substantial Constitutional question.”
Berry argues that authorities illegally seized the bathtub from Widmer’s Hamilton Township home after his wife, Sarah, 24, drowned in 2008. The tub was not specifically listed on a search warrant. But the Ohio 12th District Court of Appeals in Middletown said the tub could be considered “an instrumentality of the crime,” and therefore was subject to being seized.
Berry says the appellate court’s decision is out of line with existing case law.
“With this decision, the 12th District now stands alone among courts in its holding that a search warrant or other court authorization is not needed to seize part of a home/real property,” Berry wrote.
Berry also lists several other legal issues she thinks the Ohio Supreme Court should address in Widmer’s case.
Widmer, 31, is serving 15 years to life in prison. A jury convicted him of murder last year in his third trial. Two previous trials ended in mistrials.
Thousands of ballots routinely disqualified in past Ohio elections will be counted in next month’s presidential race under a decision Thursday by a Cincinnati-based federal appeals court.
The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a key ruling dealing with a problematic aspect of Ohio’s electoral rules that kept a Hamilton County judicial race undecided for 18 months, declared that Ohio must count provisional votes cast in the right polling place but wrong precinct because of poll worker error.
That decision upholds an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley. It means that thousands of ballots that otherwise could have been tossed out instead may help decide whether President Barack Obama or Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney wins the state’s 18 electoral votes.
One uncertainty is whether Ohio will appeal Thursday’s decision, as Secretary of State Jon Husted did in another case earlier this week involving Ohioans’ right to cast early in-person absentee ballots on the final three days before the Nov. 6 election.
In Thursday’s case, Husted was not involved in the state’s appeal to the 6th Circuit on the wrong precinct issue. Late Thursday, it remained unclear whether Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine would appeal the 6th Circuit’s ruling before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Although both timetables are uncertain, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on whether to hear Husted’s appeal of the final three days’ ruling and Ohio’s choice on whether to appeal Thursday’s decision could come as early as today.
After four years of unusual twists, another one has cropped up in the Ryan Widmer murder case.
In upholding Widmer’s murder conviction after three trials in the 2008 bathtub-drowning of his wife, Sarah, Monday’s decision by the Ohio 12th District Court of Appeals included a constitutional-issue ruling that could be the only one of its kind in the nation, Widmer’s lawyer said.
And that constitutional issue appears destined to be resolved in higher courts, at the state or federal levels, legal scholars say.
Ian Friedman of Cleveland, who formerly headed the state Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and now is adjunct professor at the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, said: “The question of whether the taking of the bathtub violated Mr. Widmer’s Fourth Amendment rights will not be ultimately settled at the Twelfth Appellate District.”
The Fourth Amendment safeguards American citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents such as police. How that constitutional guarantee applies to the Widmer case is open to interpretation, Friedman said.
Widmer’s appellate attorney, Michele Berry, had argued that police had no legal right to remove the bathtub from the Widmers’ Hamilton Township home because the tub was not specifically mentioned in a search warrant that a judge granted in 2008.
A three-judge panel of the appeals court, which had been considering the case since April, ruled that it was legal for police to seize the bathtub, since it was “an instrument of the crime.”
The appeals court also said that, after investigators noticed marks on the tub, that gave them “probable cause” to remove the bathtub because “it was possible that further inspection of the item would explain how events unfolded on the night of Sarah’s death and provide insight as to how the smear marks were made on the tub.”
But, Berry said: “There’s no court anywhere – Ohio, federal or state – that said an actual part of a house can be considered ‘an instrument of the crime’ and can be seized without court authority. The 12th District is standing alone on that.” In Ohio, a bathtub is considered a part of the house because it is a “fixture.”
Ryan Widmer discusses his three murder trials at the Warren Correctional Institution, where he is serving 15 to years to life after being convicted of killing his wife Sarah in 2008. The Enquirer/Cara Owsley
Janice Morse reports:
In the decision denying Ryan Widmer’s appeal of his murder conviction, the appeals judges ruled that seizing the bathtub was legal. They called the bathtub “an instrument of the crime,” and said it therefore was subject to being seized.
Widmer’s attorney had argued that authorities improperly seized the tub because it was not specifically mentioned in a search warrant.
The judges rejected that argument and said that because officers had observed marks on the tub “officers had probable cause to associate the bathtub with Sarah (Widmer)’s death.”
Further, the judges said “removal of the tub was warranted as it was possible that further inspection of the item would explain how events unfolded on the night of Sarah’s death and provide insight as to how the smear marks were made on the tub.”
Loading ...
