Posts Tagged ‘jeff braley’

MonMay7

Second Widmer appeal filed

Posted by rrichardson May 7th, 2012, 5:36 pm Post a Comment
Jeff Braley

Ryan Widmer’s new lawyer argues that authorities made five significant mistakes in his case – and four of the claimed errors involve Jeff Braley (pictured), a former Hamilton Township police detective lieutenant who resigned amid controversy over alleged misrepresentations of his credentials. Enquirer file photo

Janice Morse reports:

In a second appeal filed today, Ryan Widmer’s new lawyer argues that authorities made five significant mistakes in his case – and four of the claimed errors involve Jeff Braley, a former Hamilton Township police detective lieutenant who resigned amid controversy over alleged misrepresentations of his credentials.

Attorney Michele Berry filed the second appeal with the Ohio 12th District Court of Appeals, the court that heard arguments last month in Widmer’s first appeal.

It is expected to take the court several more weeks to rule on Berry’s arguments, which focused on alleged illegal seizure of the bathtub where authorities say Sarah Widmer, 24, was drowned in 2008.

Widmer, 31, was convicted after his case went to trial three times. He is serving 15 years to life in prison.

The Enquirer will update this story.

Should Ryan Widmer receive a fourth trial?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Related stories:

no comments yet

Posted in: Crime, News, Widmer Trial |

Tags: Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

MonApr16

Widmer hearing focuses on bathtub

Posted by rrichardson April 16th, 2012, 2:35 pm Post a Comment
Michele Berry

Michele Berry, appeal attorney for Ryan Widmer, shows a photo of the space where Widmer's bathtub was ripped out of from his Hamilton Township home in 2008. Berry says police had no right to remove the tub under the search warrant they obtained. Berry presented evidence to a three judge panel at the Ohio 12th District Court of Appeals in Middletown on Monday April 16, 2012. The Enquirer/Cara Owsley

Janice Morse reports:

In an alleged “bathtub murder” case, why was the bathtub itself not listed on a search warrant?

That is one of the major points that Ryan Widmer’s appellate lawyer, Michele Berry, hammered home today during a hearing before the Ohio 12th District Court of Appeals here, arguing police had no right to take the bathtub, which is considered part of the home. She said that, for example, if a crime were committed in a mobile home, police shouldn’t therefore be allowed to seize the entire mobile home. That, she said, would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Judges panel in Widmer appeal

Judges Robert P. Ringland, left, Robert A. Hendrickson, and H.J. Bressler, listen to Michele Berry, appeal attorney for Ryan Widmer, as she goes over details about the bathtub where Widmer's wife Sarah, drowned in their Hamilton Township home in 2008. / The Enquirer/Cara Owsley

Police never should have removed the tub without a court order — and Widmer’s trial lawyers erred when they failed to file timely objections to admission of the tub, which ended up being a major piece of evidence against Widmer, Berry said.

Assistant Prosecutor Michael Greer argued: “The police officers do not know, cannot list every possible source of fingerprints.” That’s why the search warrant didn’t list the bathtub, he said, although the search warrant did say they were looking for fingerprints.

The presiding judge, Robert Hendrickson, noted: “The search warrant didn’t list one or a couple items. There were multiple items,” yet the bathtub itself was omitted.

Widmer, 31, who is serving 15 years to life in the 2008 bathtub drowning of his wife, protests that he was wrongfully convicted of murder last year. None of his fingerprints were found on the tub, but prosecutors argued that was evidence that the tub had been wiped clean after the drowning of his wife, Sarah, 24. And prosecutors argued that, based on a criminalist’s testimony about unidentified “streaks” and a “forearm mark” — were evidence of a violent struggle. Such evidence lacks a scientific foundation, Berry argued, and that testimony should have been barred from the trial.

About a dozen supporters showed up wearing white to symbolize they believe Widmer is innocent. On the other side of the room sat John Arnold, a Warren County assistant prosecutor who presented evidence against Widmer during all three of his trials.

(more…)

no comments yet

Posted in: Crime, News, Widmer Trial |

Tags: Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Three-judge panel reviewing Widmer conviction

Posted by rrichardson April 16th, 2012, 10:26 am Post a Comment

Janice Morse reports:

Ryan Widmer Ryan Widmer’s fight for a fourth murder trial is shifting to a bigger battleground: the Ohio 12th District Court of Appeals in Middletown, which handles cases from an eight-county region.

Until now, decisions directly affecting Widmer have been made in Warren County. Common Pleas Judge Neal Bronson twice declared mistrials in the highly publicized 2008 bathtub drowning of Widmer’s wife, Sarah, 24, in Hamilton Township.

After Widmer stood trial a third time last year, a jury convicted him of murder; now 31,Widmer is serving a mandatory prison term of 15 years to life.

So far, Bronson has shot down several of Widmer’s lawyers’ attempts to get his conviction thrown out. Prosecutors contend the conviction should stand.

But today, a three-judge panel will hear arguments from both sides and will review the work of Bronson and other authorities. The appellate judges must rule whether any mistakes in the case were serious enough to warrant another retrial for Widmer.

The fight promises to be difficult, legal experts say.

“The 12th District is more of a conservative district … they have a reputation for rarely reversing jury decisions. But this case might be an exception,” said Mark Krumbein, a longtime Cincinnati defense lawyer who has been an ardent follower of the Widmer case since it began.

But another Widmer watcher, Mike Allen, former Hamilton County prosecutor and current defense lawyer, said: “There may have been small errors made but as far as serious, reversible errors, I just don’t see it.”

Christo Lassiter, professor of law at the University of Cincinnati, says today’s hearing “is critically important as it is his first, best opportunity to challenge the procedures leading to his conviction. … It sets the stage for the appellate life of this case.”

This the first of two Widmer appeals pending with the Middletown court. The initial appeal, which will be heard today, will focus on whether authorities made any serious legal errors before or during Widmer’s third trial.

The second appeal, to be heard at a later date, will center on issues that arose after Widmer was convicted. Those include Bronson’s refusal to grant a retrial based on new evidence about the lead detective on the case, Jeff Braley, who resigned last year amid allegations of resume fraud.

The appeals judges who will hear the arguments in the first appeal – Robert Ringland, Robert Hendrickson and retired Judge H.J. Bressler – are likely to take several weeks or even possibly months to render a decision.

Two of the appeals court’s five judges were excluded from the Widmer panel to avoid any potential conflict of interest.

Judge Rachel Hutzel was ineligible to hear the appeal because she served as Warren County prosecutor while most of Widmer’s case was pending. Judge Robin Piper recused himself; before he became a judge, he was Butler County prosecutor, and reporters and others had sought comments from him about the case. His recusal led to Bressler being appointed to fill Piper’s slot on the panel.

In Widmer’s appeal, attorney Michele Berry alleges authorities illegally removed the bathtub from the Widmers’ home. She says its seizure wasn’t permitted under a search warrant.

Prosecutors argued that a lack of fingerprints on the tub indicated that Widmer wiped the tub clean. A criminalist testified that finger-like “streaks” could have been made by a smaller hand, possibly of a female, and that a forearm mark likely came from a male. While prosecutors pointed to that testimony as evidence that Widmer forcibly drowned his wife, Berry says the criminalist’s testimony lacked a scientific basis.

“So the argument is: The bathtub was being used as evidence improperly, an expert was using junk science and then came a conviction for murder – it’s one plus one equals murder,” Krumbein said.

But Allen said Widmer’s strongest attack may target Braley’s role: “I think it’s a pretty compelling argument that that the entire investigation was tainted, and that defense should have been permitted to dig into Braley’s credibility issues in the third trial.”

Lassiter said the prosecution won a hard-fought verdict, and he predicts that the current Warren County prosecutor, David Fornshell, or his representative who handles appeal issues, “will approach the case on appeal with all the smugness of a winning coach holding the ball while time runs out.”

“The public must be forewarned that an appellate court is obligated to sustain the trial result unless reversible error occurred,” Lassiter said. A reversible error is a serious mistake that violated a person’s right to a fair trial or broke other legal rules. “This is especially true when the trial result is the product of a jury verdict. Thus the defense bears the burden to show reversible error. The defense has its work cut out for it.”

Should Ryan Widmer receive a fourth trial?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Related stories:

no comments yet

Posted in: Crime, News, Widmer Trial |

Tags: Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

MonFeb6

Widmer attorney files second appeal for new trial

Posted by rrichardson February 6th, 2012, 12:03 pm Post a Comment
Ryan Widmer interview

Ryan Widmer professes his innocence in an interview with The Enquier's Janice Morse after his conviction last February in the death of his wife, Sarah. Widmer's attorneys filed a second notice of appeal for a new trial last week. File photo

An attorney for Ryan Widmer has filed a second notice of appeal in the continuing legal battle seeking a fourth trial for the convicted murderer.

Attorney Michele Berry filed an appeal on Wednesday asking the 12th District Court of Appeals to overrule Warren County Common Pleas Judge Neal Bronson’s Jan. 18 ruling on her petition for a new trial.

Widmer, 31, who last lived in Mason, is serving 15 years to life in prison after a jury convicted him of murder last February in the 2008 drowning of his wife, Sarah, 24, in their Hamilton Township bathtub. It was his third trial, following two mistrials.

Widmer already has an appeal of his conviction pending before the 12th District Court, but that brief did not contain issues presented in the motion to Bronson, explained Berry.

“You can’t ask the appellate court to review an issue until the trial court has had a chance to review it first. Now, since we lost the petition with Bronson, we have to appeal that denial as well and present all those new claims to the appellate court,” said Berry.

In those motions, Widmer’s lawyers wanted Bronson to order genetic testing that could show whether Sarah Widmer suffered from a genetic disorder than can disrupt heartbeats.  They argued that such an undetected medical problem may have contributed to her drowning.

Widmer’s lawyers claimed the jury should have heard evidence that emerged after Widmer’s conviction showing that the lead investigator on the case, Lt. Jeff Braley, had likely made false representations about his job history and education on employment documents.

Bronson had refused to allow Widmer’s lawyers to grill Braley on those credibility issues largely because Braley had denied making the false claims. Braley resigned from the Hamilton Township police force in June after an independent investigator told trustees there was reason to consider launching a pre-disciplinary hearing over issues with his honesty.

Widmer’s attorneys also asserted that the jury lost its way and that authorities made crucial mistakes, including improperly seizing the bathtub in which Sarah Widmer had drowned.

“I’m going to request that the appellate court consolidate the two appeals so that when we eventually have an oral argument we can address all the claims at the same time,” said Berry.

Widmer has protested his innocence in post-conviction interviews, but did not testify during his trials.  Berry has vowed to fight all the way to federal court if necessary.

“We have strong claims that warrant a new trial, and we will be relentless in our efforts to get that result,” she said.

Warren County Prosecutor David Fornshell said he had no comment on the second appeal.

Janice Morse contributed to this story

Should Ryan Widmer receive a fourth trial?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Related stories:

no comments yet

Posted in: News, Widmer Trial |

Tags: Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

MonJan30

Jury: Hamilton Township police conspired to raid party

Posted by rrichardson January 30th, 2012, 11:38 am Post a Comment
Hamilton Twp. Police Lt. Det. Jeff Braley

Jeff Braley, then the lead detective for Hamilton Township Police, testifies in the second murder trial of Ryan Widmer, of Mason. File photo

Janice Morse reports:

A federal court case ended on two parallel tracks Friday, in favor of a Warren County couple and two young men who sued police and won.

An eight-member jury unanimously agreed that Hamilton Township police conspired to violate the plaintiffs’ rights and raided a party illegally in 2007 – and word of that decision reached lawyers just moments after they had hammered out a settlement of monetary damages, said attorney Konrad Kircher.

He and attorney Michael Arnold represented the plaintiffs who sued the police, Ted and Mary Pritchard and their party guests, Zachary Christman and Kevin Clark.

The jury’s verdict still prevails on the facts of the case, Kircher said, because that was what both sides agreed upon. However, he said, the plaintiffs will receive the settlement amount of $350,000, not the amounts the jury set: $29,114 for each of the Pritchards, $4,325 for Christman and $8,007 for Clark, plus attorneys’ fees.

Kircher said that, as time passed, both sides worried the jury might be hung, without the required unanimous verdict, and neither side wanted to face another trial after nearly five years of court battles.

Even though the jury-set amounts were more modest, Kircher said the fact that the jury decided to impose punitive damages was significant. “You just rarely see that happen,” Kircher said, noting that, in his 20-year law career he has never had a jury grant a punitive award against a government official. “The jury had to find that they acted in bad faith, with ill will, actual malice – and most government officials are able to establish that they were just negligent, that they made a mistake. That wasn’t what we had in this case.”

Wilson Weisenfelder, a lawyer who represented the police, said he was disappointed in the verdict and still maintained his clients did nothing wrong.

At least 40 times, Judge Susan J. Dlott read the word, “yes,” repeating the jury’s findings that the defendants had violated the plaintiffs’ rights. The defendants were Police Chief Frank Richardson, now deceased; two lieutenants, Phil Johnson and Jeff Braley; plus Officer Roger Gilbert and his wife, Gail, a civilian.

Mary Pritchard wept. She later said it was because she felt the verdict vindicated her and her husband and, “it lifts a burden off my shoulders.”

The raid happened Aug. 10, 2007, after Braley, acting on an unverified tip that the Pritchards were throwing an underage drinking bash, lined up state liquor agents and other personnel to raid the party. He drove past the Pritchards’ property a half-dozen times and saw no laws being broken. Then, Braley and Johnson conferred. Next, Johnson asked Gilbert to have his wife call the dispatch center to report she was hearing a loud party at the Pritchards’ even though she was miles away at her home in another county.

After that call, nearly two dozen officers swarmed the property; Christman and Clark were arrested. Christman was then 18 and was charged with underage consumption even though he was drinking under his father’s supervision on private property, which is allowed under Ohio law. Clark, then 21, was arrested for disorderly conduct after he used his cell phone to check a text message after an officer ordered him to stop using his phone to videotape the raid. Their charges were dropped.

Later, two anonymous letters, possibly from other police officers, arrived, alerting the Pritchards to Mrs. Gilbert’s bogus phone call and other details. To the letter-writers, Mrs. Pritchard says: “Thank God…thanks for your honesty.”

Braley was then a detective lieutenant. He resigned last year after controversy over his employment credentials surfaced in an offshoot from the Ryan Widmer murder case. Braley was the lead detective in that case, which ended with Widmer, who last lived in Mason, being convicted of murder in the 2008 bathtub drowning of his newlywed wife, Sarah, 24. Widmer is now serving 15 years to life in prison.

Kircher says he has no idea whether Widmer is guilty or not, but “I would question any investigation Jeff Braley ever did.”

no comments yet

Posted in: News, Widmer Trial |

Tags: Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

FriJan27

No verdict yet in party raid case against Widmer detective

Posted by rrichardson January 27th, 2012, 5:29 pm Post a Comment
Hamilton Twp. Police Lt. Det. Jeff Braley

Former Hamilton Twp. Lt. Det. Jeff Braley testifies in the murder trial of Ryan Widmer, who last lived in Mason. Braley, who resigned from the department, is now embroiled in a non-related civil suit. File photo

Update
The jury has found police in Hamilton Township illegally conspired to raid a party and violated residents’ rights.

MasonBuzz will update this story.

Janice Morse reports:

A federal court jury has told a judge it will continue working into the evening, after 10 hours of deliberations.

The jury, which is considering whether police in Hamilton Township illegally raided a party and violated residents’ rights, began with two hours of deliberations Thursday.

At last check late this afternoon, jurors had deliberated another eight hours without reaching a verdict.

Residents Mary and Ted Pritchard sued Hamilton Township officers, alleging that officers raided an adult birthday party on their property in 2007 under false pretenses, assuming the Pritchards were throwing an underage drinking bash.

After a half-dozen checks on the property revealed no violations, a police lieutenant asked one of his subordinates to have his wife make a phone call from her home in another county and report that she heard loud noise coming from the block where the Pritchards live. After that call, nearly two dozen officers eventually swarmed the property.

The Pritchards later learned about the call from an anonymous letter, possibly from an honest police officer troubled by that call, their lawyer said.

Police deny any wrongdoing; their lawyer says they were just trying to do their jobs and there was no conspiracy to raid the property.

Two of the Pritchards’ partygoers also sued the police, alleging false arrest. Their charges were eventually dismissed but both had to hire lawyers.

Zachary Christman was then 18 and was charged with underage consumption even though he was drinking under his father’s supervision on private property, which is allowed under Ohio law.

Kevin Clark, then 21, was arrested for disorderly conduct after he used his cell phone to check a text message after an officer ordered him to stop using his phone to videotape the raid.

The plaintiffs have not specified an amount of monetary damages they are seeking.

The defendants in the case include the estate of the now-deceased Hamilton Township police chief, Frank Richardson, as well as a current officer, Lt. Phil Johnson and former officers Roger Gilbert and Jeff Braley.

Braley was then a detective lieutenant but resigned last year after controversy over his employment credentials surfaced in an offshoot from the Ryan Widmer murder case. Braley was the lead detective in that case, which ended with Widmer being convicted of murder in the 2008 bathtub drowning of his newlywed wife, Sarah, 24.

Widmer, who last lived in Mason, is now serving 15 years to life in prison.

Several of Widmer’s suppporters came to court to listen to Braley’s testimony and observe the trial, which began Monday.

no comments yet

Posted in: News, Widmer Trial |

Tags: Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

ThuJan26

Civil suit against Widmer detective goes to the jury

Posted by rrichardson January 26th, 2012, 2:28 pm Post a Comment
Hamilton Twp. Police Lt. Det. Jeff Braley

Former Hamilton Twp. Lt. Det. Jeff Braley testifies in the murder trial of Ryan Widmer, who last lived in Mason and was convicted in his third trial. Braley, who resigned from the department, is now embroiled in a non-related civil suit. File photo

Janice Morse reports:

A federal court jury is about to begin deliberating in the case of Warren County residents who accuse police of unlawfully raiding an adult birthday party, falsely arresting two partygoers and maliciously prosecuting them.

As of 1:30 p.m., Judge Susan J. Dlott was still providing jurors with detailed instructions as to how to decide the case under both state and federal laws. The trial began Monday in U.S. District Court, Cincinnati, over a party that happened four and a half years ago.

In their civil lawsuit, Hamilton Township residents Ted and Mary Pritchard and two young men who attended their 2007 party — Kevin Clark and Zach Christman — allege police conspired to raid the Pritchards’ party under false pretenses, then tried to cover-up their alleged wrongdoing. Judge Dlott has already ruled that Christman’s right against false arrest was violated under federal law, but the jury must decide whether his right against false arrest was violated under state law.

Wilson Weisenfelder, a lawyer defending Hamilton Township police, asked the jury to grant little or no monetary damages for Christman. Weisenfelder also argued that there was no evidence of a conspiracy or cover-up. He again repeated what he had told the jury in opening statements — that the case was about police trying to do their jobs.

Konrad Kircher, who represents the Pritchards, Clark and Christman, said that, for jurors to believe that, they would have to “ignore a mountain of contrary evidence.”

He said the Pritchards have a constitutional right to be free from unlawful intrusion of police on their premises — and that police concocted a scenario to try to justify going onto the Pritchards’ property. That included a bogus telephone report of loud noise coming from the property, which is located on an acre of land largely isolated from other homes, Kircher said.

A Hamilton Township officer’s wife, Gail Gilbert, who was then living in Butler County, miles away from the party location, called a dispatcher in Warren County and reported: “I hear a lot of yelling and screaming from the 10,000 block of Schlotmann (Road)…I’d rather remain anonymous…it sounds like a big-ol’ party or somethin’ goin’ on.”

Kircher told the jury that Mrs. Gilbert made the call after her husband’s supervisor, Lt. Phil Johnson, asked Officer Roger Gilbert to request the call be made. Kircher played a recording of call for the jury to hear and said, “I want you to ask yourselves: Is this a reluctant wallflower who doesn’t want to cooperate?” Kircher suggested Mrs. Gilbert was an enthusiastic participant in the alleged conspiracy, which could have helped advance her husband’s career if everything had gone as planned.

(more…)

no comments yet

Posted in: News, Widmer Trial |

Tags: Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

TueJan24

Widmer detective denies conspiracy in birthday raid

Posted by rrichardson January 24th, 2012, 8:42 am Post a Comment
Jeff Braley

Jeff Braley, then the lead detective for Hamilton Township Police, testifies in the second murder trial of Ryan Widmer, of Mason. File photo

Janice Morse reports:

The former detective from the Ryan Widmer murder case testified for about a half hour Monday in an unrelated federal court civil-rights trial, denying allegations that he and other officers “conspired” to raid an adult birthday party under false pretenses.

“I didn’t put together anything, sir…I did not plan anything,” Jeff Braley, a former police lieutenant, said in response to a question from Konrad Kircher, a lawyer representing Ted and Mary Pritchard of Hamilton Township and two other people.

Kircher questioned Braley about events surrounding the 2007 incident on the Pritchards’ property.

Kircher did not ask Braley about his employment credentials as part of his testimony today, although Kircher was allowed to explore that topic in a pretrial deposition.

Braley has denied making false statements found in his employment records. He resigned last year after an investigation into those documents.

In the Pritchard case, the family and their partygoers allege that nearly two dozen officers stormed the property in 2007 based on unsupported suspicions of underage drinking, court records say. The party was being thrown for Ted Pritchard’s 52nd birthday and for the Pritchards’ son’s 21st birthday, Kircher said.

The Pritchard family later learned that the raid happened partly because a Hamilton Township officer’s wife called the Hamilton Township police department from her Butler County home, pretending to be calling from Warren County and reporting she heard loud noise coming from the Prtichards’ party, court records say.

Prospective jurors in the Pritchard case denied recognizing Braley from the highly publicized Widmer case, which ended with Widmer, now 31, who last lived in Mason, being convicted in the 2008 bathtub drowning of his wife. His case went to trial three times before he was convicted a year ago. Only two of the prospective jurors in the Pritchard case said they followed any phase of the Widmer case closely.

no comments yet

Posted in: Crime, News, Widmer Trial |

Tags: Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

MonJan23

Widmer detective faces questions again

Posted by rrichardson January 23rd, 2012, 12:49 pm Post a Comment

Jeff Braley

Janice Morse reports:

Did authorities — including the lead detective on the Ryan Widmer murder case — illegally raid an adult birthday party and falsely arrest partygoers?

That’s among the main questions that a jury will be asked to decide in a federal civil-rights lawsuit trial that begins today in U.S. District Court, Cincinnati.

Jury selection began this morning in the case involving a family in Warren County’s Hamilton Township.

As part of the trial, former Widmer murder case detective Jeff Braley once again will face being grilled about his alleged resume fraud, court records indicate.

Braley and other officers are accused of conspiring to raid an adult birthday party under false pretenses, then falsely arresting partygoers, whose charges were later dropped. The Pritchard family and their partygoers allege that nearly two dozen officers and state liquor agents stormed the property in 2007 based on unsupported suspicions of underage drinking, court records say. The party was being thrown for Ted Pritchard’s 51st birthday, court records say.

The Pritchard family later learned that the raid happened partly because a Hamilton Township officer’s wife called the Hamilton Township police department from her Butler County home, pretending to be calling from Warren County and reporting she heard loud noise coming from the Prtichards’ party, court records say.

Prospective jurors in the Pritchard case denied recognizing Braley from the highly publicized Widmer case, which ended with Widmer, now 31, who last lived in Mason, being convicted in the 2008 bathtub drowning of his wife. His case went to trial three times, but only two of the prospective jurors in the Pritchard case said they followed any phase of the case closely.

Braley resigned last year after an investigation into false statements on some of his employment documents, though he denied ever making the misrepresentations. Lawyers for Widmer, who is serving 15 years to life in prison for murder, say that Braley’s credibility issues raise questions about the integrity of the Widmer investigation.

A Warren County judge rejected that argument earlier this month. Widmer’s lawyers say they will appeal.

no comments yet

Posted in: Crime, News, Widmer Trial |

Tags: Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

MonDec12

Widmer lawyers: Bathtub seized improperly

Posted by rrichardson December 12th, 2011, 5:45 pm Post a Comment

Janice Morse reports:

Was Ryan Widmer’s murder conviction “a manifest miscarriage of justice?”

In an appeal filed Monday lawyers for Widmer allege that a jury lost its way and that authorities made crucial mistakes, including improperly seizing the bathtub in which his wife, Sarah, 24, had drowned in 2008.

Widmer, 30, of Mason, is serving 15 years to life in prison after a jury convicted him of murder in February.

Since then, Widmer has given two public interviews protesting his innocence and saying he wanted to testify but he did not take the witness stand during any of his three trials based on his lawyers’ advice.

Today was the deadline for attorney Michele Berry to file the appeal on Widmer’s behalf in the Ohio 12th District Court of Appeals in Middletown.

That court previously refused to extend a deadline while Judge Neal Bronson considers motions for a fourth trial in Warren County Common Pleas Court.

In those motions, Widmer’s lawyers want Bronson to order genetic testing that could show whether Sarah Widmer suffered from a disorder that can disrupt heartbeats. Berry argues Widmer’s previous lawyers made a mistake by failing to seek that testing.

They also argue Bronson should grant a new trial because evidence emerged after Widmer’s conviction showing that the lead investigators on the case, Lt. Jeff Braley, had likely made false representations about his job history and education on employment documents.

Bronson had refused to allow Widmer’s lawyers to grill Braley on those credibility issues largely because Braley had denied making the false claims. Braley resigned from the Hamilton Township police force in June after an indpendent investigator told trustees there was reason to consider launching a pre-disciplinary hearing over issues with his honesty.

Widmer’s lawyers say that the genetic testing and Braley evidence likely would have altered the entire course of Widmer’s trial, had they been included.

Related stories:

no comments yet

Posted in: Crime, News, Widmer Trial |

Tags: Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Connect with MasonBuzz

Subscribe

Get community news delivered straight to your inbox.

Featured Businesses

Reach the Audience That Matters Most to You!

We can deliver the highly targeted audience your business needs to attract new customers. Start building your ad now!

Send us Photos

  • Attach a JPEG (.jpg) photo to your story. Maximum file size is 4 MB.
  • Add a caption, include names & communities of people pictured. (Caption limit: 500 characters, including spaces)

Recent Photos

Mormon seminary graduation JDRF Walk to Cure Diabetes tennis Cammy & Marie Gones Madison Terry Claudia Sanders Rosie Menyhert Sam Siler Steven Soffel
View more photos >