Friday, March 12, 2010
Free Ryan Widmer Creator Mike Mayleben    joomGO! Web Media Services - Cincinnati, OH
Home Latest News Bathtub juror issue still in air
Bathtub juror issue still in air
Written by Janice Morse • jmorse@enquirer.com   
Tuesday, 23 June 2009 14:25
Cincinnati.com/Enquirer - Prosecutors have asked for -- and been granted -- the right to reply to defense lawyers' latest claims about juror misconduct in the Ryan Widmer case.

Judge Neal Bronson filed an order today giving Warren County prosecutors a July 6 deadline for responding to defense documents filed Monday.

It's unclear whether he will allow defense lawyers to re-respond to that filing.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Should a judge grant Ryan Widmer a new trial?

Yes
(6207) 74.36%
No
(1816) 21.76%
Don't know
(324) 3.88%
Total Votes: 5298

So far, lawyers have made seven separate filings in Widmer's bid for a new trial since the jury convicted him of murder on April 2 in the Aug. 11 bathtub-drowning of his wife, Sarah, 24.

Defense lawyers had asked the judge to accept Monday's documents as the final filing in Widmer's bid for a new trial -- a request the judge denied.

His lawyers claim Widmer, 28, was unfairly convicted after jurors conducted home experiments to see how long it takes skin to air-dry after bathing.

Jurors routinely are warned against doing any outside investigation during a trial.

Two jurors say the experiments influenced them to vote Widmer was guilty.

But prosecutors argue that the jurors were making "observations" about daily activities, which shouldn't be classified as experiments. They also say discussion of air-drying times played little role in the jury's 23-hour deliberation process. Seven jurors filed affidavits to that effect, including one juror who previously filed an affidavit for the defense.

Four of the 12 jurors have filed no affidavits, so their positions on the debate remain undisclosed.


Mike Mayleben
Written on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 14:25 by Mike Mayleben

Viewed 1373 times so far.
Like this? Tweet it to your followers!

Rate this article

(0 votes)

Latest articles from Mike Mayleben

  • Turkey Bowl 2009 posted on Monday, 12 October 2009 08:09

      Individual Pricing Adult:    $30.00 Student:    $25.00 Under 10:    $15.00 Non - Bowler    $20.00  …

  • How to Donate posted on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 08:37

  • Corruption? Good Ole Boy Network? posted on Friday, 18 September 2009 13:26

    Sure smells like Hometown Fix'ins going on in Hamilton Township led by Rachel Hutzel and…

  • Prosecution Witness's Coached? posted on Friday, 18 September 2009 13:24

    This is a GREAT question to raise as there was testimony from the Prosecution side…

Latest 'tweets' from Ryan Widmer


Comments (9)add
and ON and ON amd ON~!
written by SeedSower-Enterprises , June 26, 2009
Wow...One would think Judge would go ahead and issue a retrial BASED upon two jurors. It is NOT and everyday practice to time oneself to 'airdry'. Good gravy and STILL no mention of " NOT overly WET meant. I have only ONCE timed myself to 'airdry' and that was since the verdict of the trial and that is WHEN I discovered that times would very GREATLY dependant upon atmosphere. Not also to mention that when Ryan found Sarah, {God rest her precious soul) he had drained the tub, attempted CPR, his phone would not work,,,,,THEN he called 911! Where do they get THREE minutes anyway and grasping at straws...........However, I do know that prayers will not CEASE...That GOD will PREVAIL... and Ryan WILL come thru this season for a STRONG purpose! AMEN...In Jesus precious name.....
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
I know it's frustrating...
written by felixcat , June 24, 2009
...and I know that every day this goes on, Ryan is stuck in prison. But things could be much worse. The price of bringing a motion like this...which is a very rare motion asking a judge to grant a very extreme remedy. Judges do not overturn jury verdicts lightly...especially the trial judges that oversaw the juries.

Got to be patient. I'm sure Ryan was advised that filing the JC affidavit, the investigator's affidavit, and the email thread might open up another can of worms that might invite another round of briefing, and they wouldn't have filed it without Ryan's OK. If he can be patient and trust his attorney and the judge, then so can we.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
"Circus"
written by felixcat , June 24, 2009
It doesn't have to be that way. If the defense doesn't reply to the prosecution's response, or if it doesn't ambush the prosecution with more brand new evidence, there will be no grounds for the prosecution to respond again.

I know the old saying "justice delayed is justice denied," but it's important in an adversarial justice system that the sides fully brief all the material issues before the judge makes his decision. That means it's important that both sides have the opportunity to address one anothers' arguments. The reply memo was the first time JC has been identified as a juror whose vote was swayed by the experiments. The prosecution deserves a chance to rebut it.

In a way, the defense has brought this upon itself. If they would have left out the JC affidavit, I think they had enough to win, and everything else they filed was within the scope of the briefing to date. MAYBE, the judge would have closed the briefing. By actually asking the judge to close the briefing, the defense implicitly acknowledged that there might be reason for the prosecution to respond. Otherwise, it's pretty much assumed that there will only be three briefs...the movant normally doesn't ask the judge to close the briefing...it just happens.

It was necessary for Judge Bronson to rule on whether to strike the JC, SS, and AR affidavits before he could proceed with the motion for a new trial. When he decided not to strike them on May 20, it was only fair that the prosecution be given a chance to present its own affidavits and corresponding argument, which happened in due time on June 10.

The only real delay was the time it took for the judge to rule on the motion to strike the affidavits. And if you read his ruling, it was well thought out and deserving of the amount of time devoted to it.

Did Prof. Godsey actually criticize the judge for letting the prosecution respond? If so, I'm a little surprised. He knows how this works...and he should know that Judge Bronson is his best friend right now.

If you want to win this motion, you don't want a hearing...believe me. The briefs and affidavits as they stand right now establish everything Ryan needs to get a new trial. The prosecution jurors admit to doing things that Judge Bronson said on May 20 are independent inquiries outside the evidence. Check. SS said that this affected her vote. Checkmate. If they have a hearing where SS takes the stand...all that can happen is she might waver.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by admin , June 24, 2009
And after the prosecution responds, the defense is entitled to a response.

And the prosecution will ask for the chance to reply.

And after the prosecution responds, the defense is entitled to a response.


See the pattern here? Judge Bronson should saved all the time and just had a hearing like he was suppose to do when this all first started.

Instead, it's turned into a circus. Listen to the interview on Wiilie's show yesterday, Mark Godsey spells it out so everyone can understand it.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Admin...
written by felixcat , June 24, 2009
But it's also not common practice to drag in new evidence in support of your motion in the reply memorandum. The side that submits a motion is supposed to bring forward everything they have to support it.

The investigator's affidavit and the email thread are within the scope of what the prosecution brought up regarding harassment. I can see an argument that there's nothing new there, and the prosecution shouldn't get to respond again. At the same time, though, the prosecution should get a chance to impeach the investigator's affidavit (if they can).

More importantly...the JC affidavit is outside the scope of the prosecution's memo. It's completely new evidence regarding how the air-drying tests affected him personally. The prosecution should be allowed a chance to compare that affidavit with his first one, and to impeach it with other evidence if they have any.

Judge Bronson isn't turning it into a circus. He's giving both sides a fair chance to address all the evidence before him. I'm a member of this site, and I would have done the same thing if I was him.

The issues should get narrower and narrower as we go on...and it shouldn't go on much longer. If the prosecution has nothing earth-shattering to add on July 6, the defense might want to consider leaving it alone. If they do add something important, I'd just address it briefly and add nothing else.

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
Ugh!
written by Lorilomaxx , June 24, 2009
Marbelt you said exactly what I was thinking. When I saw this article posted on the front page I wanted to SREAM!!!!!!! Luckily I calmed myself down and reminded myself that I cannot be benefical to Ryan and his family in any way unless I stay positive and remain calm. We knew this wasn't going to be an easy battle but the truth will prevail and we will see to it that Ryan is cleared and home as soon as possible. smilies/kiss.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by admin , June 24, 2009
The issue people are starting to have is that this is not common practice that Bronson is allowing. Instead of handling it in the court room, he's allowing this to turn into a 3 ring circus.

The side that submits first, also is suppose to get the last word - other wise you go around in circles.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Don't sweat it...
written by felixcat , June 24, 2009
The prosecutor at the very least deserves a chance to respond to JC's new affidavit, if not to all the affidavits and the email thread that were filed. It's brand new evidence...you can't just ambush the other side with new evidence and not let them respond.

The good news is that Judge Bronson took it upon himself to rule immediately on the new deadline instead of waiting to decide whether they'd get another response and give them 10 days from that date. He's keeping this moving along. It's a long and frustrating process...but if you think that's bad, you should see civil litigation.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Marbelt , June 24, 2009
This is really annoying. How much more can the prosecution have to say? smilies/angry.gif

But I'm going to keep a positive spirit and positive thoughts. It's just the waiting that is nerve-wracking. smilies/cry.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
You must be logged in to a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy