An appeals court’s decision means a new trial for Ryan Widmer, legal experts say, unless prosecutors somehow persuade the Ohio Supreme Court to take the case.

On Thursday, the Ohio 12th District Court of Appeals denied prosecutors’ attempt to have the retrial order of a Warren County judge overturned in the controversial, closely watched case.

Newlywed Widmer, 28, was convicted in April of murder in the bathtub drowning of his wife, Sarah, 24, in Warren’s Hamilton Township. She died Aug. 11, 2008.

But in July, Judge Neal Bronson set aside Widmer’s conviction, citing jury misconduct.

Prosecutors declined immediate comment about the appeals court’s decision. They were unsure whether they would attempt an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.

One of Widmer’s lawyers, Pierre Bergeron, noted the appeals court didn’t reveal its rationale for the decision, so he cannot say what factors resonated with the court.
“We made all of our points about why the appeal should not go forward…and we’re happy that the court of appeals agreed with our position,” he said.

In light of the decision, Widmer’s lawyers are seeking a reduction in their client’s $1 million bond as he awaits his retrial, which has not been set. A bond hearing is set for today.

Meanwhile, prosecutors’ chances of success at the state Supreme Court are probably worse than they were at the appeals court level, says attorney Mike Allen, a former Hamilton County prosecutor and trial judge.

“It was an uphill battle, I think, for the prosecutor’s office from the beginning with the court of appeals….but I think she had to try,” he said, referring to Warren County Prosecutor Rachel Hutzel. “I think it would be an even more uphill battle with the Ohio Supreme Court.”

Absent some “glaring constitutional error,” higher-level courts tend to defer to the judgments of lower-court judges, Allen said.

He thinks the appeals court made the right call because there was clear evidence that jurors violated Widmer’s right to confronting witnesses.

Several jurors, in effect, became witnesses when they conducted home experiments on how long it takes a person to air-dry after bathing, then discussed their findings during deliberations. At least one juror said the discussion helped sway her vote to convict Widmer.

“When those jurors conducted those experiments that clearly, clearly Judge Bronson told them not to do, they denied Mr. Widmer his right of confrontation…I think he deserves a new trial. I think Judge Bronson is right, the appeals court is right – and a new trial is appropriate and in order, no matter how much it costs.”