(02-16-2011 10:44 AM)Marcus Wrote:  I think he did it and there was a reason why he didn't go on the witness stand. He told too many people different stories about what happened. He likely would have crucified himself had he been on the stand.

That said, the witness from Iowa was an absolute joke. I mean why even bring someone like that into the trial? Its obvious she had no credibility whatsoever and was only doing it for her own 15 minutes of fame. I mean look at that idiots prior record. I'm shocked the judge allowed someone like that to be a factor in this trial.

As for reasonable doubt, I'm not sure if there was or wasn't. All we know is what we hear from the media, not what the jurors see or hear. There is a big difference in what they are hearing and what the media edits off to report to the public.

I think the witness from Iowa was an attempt to get Widmar on the stand. Thinking that if someone was saying he confessed he had to take the stand to defend himself. He was found guilty the first trial on primarily the same evidence as the third. I think the prosecutors were risking that the same evidence would do the same thing however they wanted Widmar on the stand which he did not do.

He may have been pounded by the prosecution but in the end the only way to save himself may have been to take the stand. He is really the only one who knows what happened that night. He needs to defend himslef. If he can't come off as credible doing that then he probably did do it.

Juror: Widmer should have testified

By Denise G. Callahan, Staff Writer Updated 1118 AM Wednesday, February 16, 2011

LEBANON — The jury in the Ryan Widmer trial based its decision to convict the Warren County man based on the dry bathroom scene found and his fateful 911 call, a juror said.

The juror, who asked not to be identified, said she also based her decision on the fact that Widmer didn’t testify. The jury was cautioned numerous times by the judge that Widmer had a Constitutional right not to testify.

It was a tough choice for the jury, according to the woman.

“It was the hardest decision any of us ever had to make...,” she said. “We tried every way to find excuses for Ryan and there was none.”

The juror said they went witness by witness, all 44 who testified, and dissected everything before they took one vote — guilty of murder.

“I couldn’t say there was any particular credible witness,” she said. “The fact that we couldn’t hear Ryan’s side of the story was bad.”

Jennifer Crew’s testimony that Widmer confessed to the crime didn’t carry any weight with the jury, according to the unidentified juror.

Widmer, 30, was on trial for the third time for the murder of his wife Sarah Widmer on Aug. 11, 2008. The first jury took 22 hours and found him guilty of murder, but not guilty of aggravated murder. That verdict was thrown out after three jurors admitted they experimented at home during deliberations to see how long it took to dry after bathing.

Judge Neal Bronson ordered a new trial and that jury, after 30 hours of deliberations, was deadlocked. The third jury considered the case for 12 hours.

The juror said they considered several different scenarios on how Widmer drowned his wife in the bathtub and concluded that since the drowning scene was virtually dry, Sarah Widmer’s whole body was never immersed in the tub.

When the jury of six men and six women filed into the courtroom at 4:20 p.m. on Tuesday, none of them looked at the defense table, their eyes were fixed on Bronson.

“I think we were all stunned,” she said. “It was a sickening moment.”

Widmer was sobbing and bent over with his head in his hands on the defense table when the verdict was read. Bronson sentenced Widmer to the mandatory 15 years to life in prison and ordered him to pay the cost of prosecution. He will be eligible for parole in 2026.

The Widmer family spent $500,000 defending their son in the first two trials. The two trials have cost taxpayers in Warren County $51,924. The first cost $22,214 and the second $29,710, according to the prosecutor’s office. These costs do not include payroll for staffers who have worked on the case for two years.

Defense attorney Lindsey Gutierrez said there will likely be an appeal.

The lead detective on the case, Lt. Jeff Braley from Hamilton Twp,. said he is glad the case is over.

“I’m thankful now that the Steward family can get some closure and healing,” he said. “That’s been the goal all along. Hopefully now, that’s what’s going to happen.”

Newly appointed county Prosecutor David Fornshell said he believes he is bound by the gag order the judge imposed on everyone connected to the case. He said he can’t comment on what the future holds if an appeal is successful.

Contact this reporter at (513) 696-4525 or dcallahan@coxohio.com.

http://www.journal-news.com/news/crime/j...83032.html

(02-16-2011 11:32 AM)ruffles Wrote:  

(02-16-2011 10:44 AM)Marcus Wrote:  I think he did it and there was a reason why he didn't go on the witness stand. He told too many people different stories about what happened. He likely would have crucified himself had he been on the stand.

That said, the witness from Iowa was an absolute joke. I mean why even bring someone like that into the trial? Its obvious she had no credibility whatsoever and was only doing it for her own 15 minutes of fame. I mean look at that idiots prior record. I'm shocked the judge allowed someone like that to be a factor in this trial.

As for reasonable doubt, I'm not sure if there was or wasn't. All we know is what we hear from the media, not what the jurors see or hear. There is a big difference in what they are hearing and what the media edits off to report to the public.

I think the witness from Iowa was an attempt to get Widmar on the stadn. Thinking that if someone was saying he confessed he had to take the stand to defend himself. He was found guilyt the first trial on primarily the same evidence as the third. I think the prosecutors were risking that the same evidence would do the same thing however they wanted Widmar on the stadn which he did not do.

He may have been pounded by the prosecution but in the end the only way to save himslef may have been to take the stand. He is really the only one who knows what happened that night. He needs to defend himslef. He he can't come off as credible doing that then he probably did do it.

I thought that she was the main reason the prosecution got a third trial? Once they played that mystery witness card to get the third trial they pretty much had their hands tied regarding whether or not they put her on the stand.

(02-16-2011 11:32 AM)ruffles Wrote:  

(02-16-2011 10:44 AM)Marcus Wrote:  I think he did it and there was a reason why he didn't go on the witness stand. He told too many people different stories about what happened. He likely would have crucified himself had he been on the stand.

That said, the witness from Iowa was an absolute joke. I mean why even bring someone like that into the trial? Its obvious she had no credibility whatsoever and was only doing it for her own 15 minutes of fame. I mean look at that idiots prior record. I'm shocked the judge allowed someone like that to be a factor in this trial.

As for reasonable doubt, I'm not sure if there was or wasn't. All we know is what we hear from the media, not what the jurors see or hear. There is a big difference in what they are hearing and what the media edits off to report to the public.

He may have been pounded by the prosecution but in the end the only way to save himslef may have been to take the stand. He is really the only one who knows what happened that night. He needs to defend himslef. He he can't come off as credible doing that then he probably did do it.

I agree completely.

My first thought, people don't drown in a bathtub without assistance. None of the other facts in the case make him look innocent.

Hard to say if there was reasonable doubt without being in the court room. I believe he did it personally as it just seems like everything points in that direction. And I know if I was not guilty of killing my wife, I would take the stand and no amount of pressure from prosecutors could screw me up because I AM INNOCENT! Too many different stories it seems from Mr. Widmer so I believe him not taking the stand was mainly because he was guilty and he would have been torn apart with all the different stories that he has told.

He was found guilty the first time and the only reason it got thrown out was the testing theories at home. Though I do think they should have changed the venue. I'm sure this is not over yet, though I wish it would just go away. Too many hours on the news spent covering this story that could have been put to better use.

Widmer defense team alleges juror misconduct

LEBANON, OH (FOX19) - Ryan Widmer's defense team is alleging that jurors in his third trial talked about the case with family and friends.

Widmer, 30, was found guilty Tuesday in the murder of his wife, Sarah.

Judge Neal Bronson lifted a gag order on Wednesday, meaning attorneys are now allowed to talk about the case.

One of Widmer's attorneys, Charlie Rittgers, issued the following statement:

"In the middle of the prosecution's case, the defense team was alerted by a number of people that at least two of the jurors had told friends or family members that they were certain Ryan was going to be found guilty. We are currently trying to substantiate the allegations. Ryan is innocent and I firmly believe that had the jury followed Judge Bronson's instructions on the law that the verdict would have been not guilty."

A conviction in Widmer's first trial was overturned because jurors conducted experiments on how long it would take a body to dry.

His second trial ended in a hung jury.

The Warren County Prosecutor's Office says they have no comment.

http://www.fox19.com/Global/story.asp?S=...ormat=HTML

I kept pretty close tabs on this trial. It seemed to me that there was reasonable doubt on certain items, BUT not on some critical items.

After listening to the 911 call and getting a sense of the timing of the arrival of the EMT crew, I cannot understand why EVERYONE on scene says there was absolutely no water on the floor etc.

Also Ryan says she's still in the tub and it's "draining now". the 911 operator asks if he has tried to perform CPR. He says " yeah, a little bit, as much as I know how". Fair enough, but ummm...doing cPr while she's still in the tub? Especially one that small? Not possible, not reasonable. Also how could she be face down? Unlikely given any scenario in that small tub.

And I know people freak out and do weird stuff in an emergency situation, but i just cant see not pulling her out of the tub. That would seem to be instinct to me.

Anyway you can argue about J Crew being non credible. I agree. you can argue that the injuries to her neck were caused by CPR. I dont buy it, but I'll allow reasonable doubt there,

But to me there is no reasonable explanation for the lack of water on the bathroom floor. And none for not pulling her out of the tub. I would have convicted based on that.

Btw so would what, 34 of the 36 jurors who have now heard the case?

i think he's 100% guilty. he took her life, and during the last 2 years, has ruined the lives of his family both emotionally and financially.

(02-16-2011 11:24 PM)Tymanh99 Wrote:  i think he's 100% guilty. he took her life, and during the last 2 years, has ruined the lives of his family both emotionally and financially.

X2

The 911 call is the most telling story of this case. The first time I listened to it, I thought. Case closed...he's guilty. I think with every jury - this has been the evidence that has damned him. However, I agree that you really don't know what you'd do in that situation. He might have been in shock. For example,the few times I've been delivered terrible news or been in shock so to speak, my blood pressure rises and my head literally spins. So I dont think anyone who hasn't been in that situation could speak to how they would react. In the very least, it's not enough to convict on 'Well I would have...' I couldn't tell you my first name or even speak correctly in these moments. The reasonable doubt comes from the fact is that there is no credible motive. This couple was newly married and sending loving texts to each other hours before her death. Plus, Sarah did sleep all the time. Everyone who knew her knew that. That is a clue that something bigger was wrong with her than anyone knew.

These two facts creates enough reasonable doubt that makes me question how they can convict him based on evidence. I just think that jurors fail to understand that the it's up to the state to prove guilt and not the defense to prove innocence. I don't believe the state proved it with evidence. In the closing arguments of the second trial, they said 'use your imagination...' basically asking them to speculate on what MIGHT have happened.

For all these reasons, guilty or not, I don't believe the system worked this time.

Dizzy, well spoken!

Dizzy, indeed well spoken. A couple of the jurors said that none of the 44 witnesses had any impact on the case.
That is just amazing. They said it was about 2 things, 911 call and Widmer didn't take the stand. Wow.

The whole 'Widmer didn't take the stand' thing baffles me. The defense almost ALWAYS wants to keep a murder suspect off the stand. If you listen to Ryan's babbling after the verdict was read, you can absolutely see why they wouldn't want him on the stand. Prosecution would have torn him apart.

Side note: One juror from this 3rd trial, on the night the verdict was read, allegedly posted this as her FB status and it cause an uproar:

"Taking a nice relaxing bath in a tub so big, I could drown"

I wonder if this is the same juror who has the prosecution seeking a mistrial.

4 pages, only posting 1 page

Experts: Ryan Widmer jurors' comments raise legal questions

Important legal concepts seem to have been lost on some Warren County jurors who convicted Ryan Widmer of murder, experts say, based on interviews reported in local news media since Tuesday’s verdict.

But Widmer’s lawyers have no recourse unless they can legally substantiate that jurors disobeyed orders, experts say.

Even so, the topic is worthy of public debate, “because we’re seeing an increasing trend of jurors disregarding judges’ simple instructions,” says attorney Mike Allen, a former Hamilton County prosecutor and municipal court judge.

Judge Neal Bronson clearly explained to the jury during Widmer’s 17-day trial:

• The defendant doesn’t have to prove he’s innocent; he’s presumed innocent and the prosecution must prove his guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

• The defendant’s decision not to testify cannot be considered for any purpose.

• “Murder” is an intentional killing while “involuntary manslaughter” would be an assault that unintentionally caused a death.

Yet one juror, quoted by WKRC-TV, Channel 12, said, “It’s just the evidence, to us, did not prove innocence.”

Another juror, quoted in the Western Star, a Warren County newspaper, said: “The fact that we couldn’t hear Ryan’s side of the story was bad,” indicating he should have testified.

The Enquirer quoted a juror who said, “We think something happened and he just snapped,” a scenario that defense lawyer Mark Krumbein says appears to fit the legal definition of involuntary manslaughter, not murder.

Widmer’s jurors were given involuntary manslaughter as a choice, at the prosecutors’ request. That charge is less serious than murder and would have carried a maximum five-year prison term rather than 15-to-life.

After two mistrials, Widmer, 30, was convicted of murder Tuesday in the 2008 drowning of his wife, Sarah, 24.

Some jurors say they thought he drowned her in the toilet of their Hamilton Township home, even though prosecutors alleged Widmer’s wife was drowned in the bathtub.

“In order to commit a murder, you must have a clear intent to kill,” Krumbein said. “There has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you wanted to kill that person. So, almost by definition, if someone ‘snapped,’ they’re not thinking about it, they’re not planning it, they just snapped and do it in an instant – and that would be a manslaughter.”
(Page 2 of 4)

The jurors’ remarks either suggest they either misunderstood what the judge said or “they may have disobeyed a direct order and violated their oath as jurors,” Krumbein said.

Thaddeus Hoffmeister of Wyoming, a law professor who studies juries, said if the juror’s quote about proving innocence is accurate, “It’s a violation of the defendant’s rights. They’re not supposed to consider whether he takes the stand. That shouldn’t come into consideration at all.”

Hoffmeister was in court during jury selection and heard Bronson tell prospective jurors that the burden of proof belongs to prosecutors – and the defense lawyers could sit and play Sudoku if they wanted to, instead of presenting any evidence at all.

That example made Hoffmeister chuckle, and he thought it pretty effectively illustrated the concept of burden of proof. “But jurors, they don’t get this idea that the defense doesn’t have to prove anything – no burden, no duty to prove anything,” Hoffmeister said.

Jurors’ quotes reported in media interviews wouldn’t be considered as evidence of anything in court, Hoffmeister said.

Widmer’s lawyers would have to obtain sworn affidavits attesting to the misunderstandings of the jurors’ duties, “and then it would be an uphill road,” he said.
“To get it overturned twice because of juror misconduct? I don’t know of a case where that’s happened,” Hoffmeister said.

Widmer was convicted at his first trial in 2009, but the conviction was thrown out because of juror misconduct. A jury deliberated 30 hours last year and was unable to reach the required unanimous decision. This year’s jury convicted him after 12 hours of deliberations.

Allen agreed the jurors’ reported remarks would be insufficient to warrant any meaningful change in the Widmer case. “All of those little things, cobbled together, would not merit the granting of a new trial or reversal on appeal,” he said.

The juror comment that irritates him most is the one about wanting to hear Widmer testify.
“It offends me greatly as a lawyer when I hear a juror say, ‘We wanted to hear from the defendant,’” Allen said. “I want to say, ‘Clean out your ears and listen to the very simple instruction that the judge gives you’ – and that instruction is not to hold it against the defendant if he does not testify.”
(Page 3 of 4)

Allen said he hears such comments in virtually every high-profile case, and it’s frustrating. “I want to say, ‘Were they even listening? Did they pay attention in high school civics?’”

But Christo Lassiter, a University of Cincinnati law professor, said the instruction to disregard whether the defendant testifies defies human nature. “It’s impossible for people to just discount the fact that Ryan Widmer did not testify,” he said.

Defense lawyer Lindsey Gutierrez didn’t want to comment on why Widmer hasn’t testified in any of his three trials. But she did refute some reports in the media.

“The theories that we had him videotaped or that he confessed to us are both incorrect,” she said, declining to elaborate.

She also didn’t want to say anything more about the concerns of possible juror misconduct that remain under investigation. Reports of jurors expressing opinions about Widmer to outsiders surfaced at mid-trial and defense lawyers shared those reports with the judge.

Bronson responded by giving more detailed warnings to the jurors, that they were forbidden from communicating about the case with anyone until the trial ended.

Gutierrez said she read the post-verdict juror interviews, which left her doubting that the jurors embraced definitions the judge gave. “If they were quoted correctly, yes, I’m concerned,” she said. “I don’t know if they didn’t understand or chose to ignore what they were told.”

She thinks it’s hard for people to see the difference between “innocent” – which means a person truly did not commit an act – and “not guilty” – a legal term meaning that proof of guilt was insufficient.

Gutierrez said she feels the defense team’s efforts were futile because, “unless we proved him innocent, they would have found him guilty no matter what.”

“But think about that concept: How do you prove somebody innocent?” she said.
Gutierrez also said she thinks jurors and people in general have trouble figuring out what guilty beyond a reasonable doubt means.

Judges and lawyers provide a lengthy discussion of that term in court, but, one general description they use is: “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof of such character that an ordinary person would be willing to rely and act upon it in the most important of his own affairs.”
(Page 4 of 4)

Allen said the notions of presumed innocent, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, presumption of innocence and a person’s constitutional right to remain silent are among “the most basic legal concepts that we have in American jurisprudence.”

Yet the instructions judges give on those concepts are either being misunderstood or ignored more often in recent years – a trend that he finds disturbing “as an attorney and a citizen.”

“That guy in the black robe up there is the boss of the trial and jurors need to listen to what he says,” Allen said. “This is not a sandlot football game where you make up the rules as you go along. Our method of determining guilt or innocence is sacred and the rules should be followed.”

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110...|FRONTPAGE

I tell you what, none of us know if he did it or didn't do it. But the saying is we'd rather have 100 guilty people go free before one innocent person is sent to prison. I think it's very possible an innocent Ryan widmer was sent to prison. Its a nightmare for any of us to imagine that happening to us or a loved one.

The quotes about widmer not testifying is definitely proof this jury didn't understand their job. That they claim no witnesses had much impact is equally boggling. How do you completely disregard a renowned and certified medical examiner saying wider didn't drown her.

Worse how do you come up with your own theories in the jury room? Drowning her in the toilet? Not one piece of evidence presented to that effect. Perhaps too much csi watching on tv. But then again that shows the case was not thoroughly investigated. The crime scene was not properly investigated. The autopsy was not conducted in a manner up to current best practices. Uptegrove comes off as a barnstorming dr. Death, performing autopsies like a mcdonalds drive-thru.

The Iowa drug addict and her incredulous testimony and the circus of hiding her by the state is also simply absurd.

You have a police lieutenant who certainly appears to have credibility problems that were not permitted to be heard in this trial. Just curious as to if not braley, then who would have doctored or falsified his application?

The mother who couldn't even describe the hateful words that the widmers used to each other. Clearly she wants someone to pay for her daughters death. Thats understandable. But how do you believe her claims when she can't even back them up and everyone else saying they aaw no issues and texts between them showing no problems.

There are murder cases all the time that aren't prosecuted because there isnt enough evidence. Warren county should have held off and waited for a new real break, if there would have been one.

I'm embarrassed for this jury and my county, Warren county. If they can shoddily investigate a case and zealously prosecute it again widmer they can do it against any of us residents. It's embarrassing that Rachel hutzel used this case as a stepping stone to a better job fulfilling her personal aspirations first and foremost.

I hope widmer is guilty. Justice lost regardless because the rule of law was cast aside. Just another chink at all of our personal liberty.

Dizzy, I hear you, but just because you have reasonable doubt about her sleepiness, doesnt mean you acquit. If there is other evidence that is damning for which there is no reasonable doubt, then you convict.

Think about it like this. You suspect your boyfriend is cheating on you because you find strange Women's numbers on his cell phone. He explains they are work colleagues. OK reasonable doubt that he isn't screwing them. Then later you find a used condom in your bed and hear a raunchy message left for your boyfriend on his voicemail, from a strange female. Just because you had reasonable doubt about the original suspicious behavior, doesn't mean you overlook the evidence for which there is no "reasonable" doubt. Remember it's not " beyond the shadow of a doubt", it's "beyond a REASONABLE doubt". that's the law.

For me the 911 call showing the timing, and the lack of any water or dampness whatsoever on scene, make it impossible to conclude anything else.

However, even though I think the jury got it right, and justice has been served, some of their comments do make it clear they didn't really heed some of the judge's instructions.

Jim - With respect - Your analogy doesn't exactly work (although I do enjoy your analogies) because accusing my boyfriend of cheating beyond a reasonable doubt does not put him behind bars for 25 years.

Reasonable doubt does not just come from Sarah's sleepiness. It comes from the fact there was no motive, no physical evidence, the prosecution can't EVEN come up with a theory of what happened that matches the evidence which is why they ask the jury to speculate in the closing arguments. There's no smoking gun there. Not even the 911 call. Three medically trained specialist including the Hamilton county coroner testified that this was an unexplainable death and not a homicide.

And as for the floor being dry and her being dry, some Widmer supporters will show you evidence where the floor being wet was documented. Carpet samples all showed wetness. Documentation is that her was wet (Not damp) and first responder noted that her body was not 'overly moist'. That's a big difference from dry in my opinion.

I'm not smoking the Widmer pipe, but I think there's a lot of reasonable doubt there. The truth is we'll never know and maybe justice is served to a guilty man. I just hope none of you end up in his situation if you're innocent and living in a county that is too big for it's britches.

(02-22-2011 03:32 PM)dizzygirl Wrote:  Jim - With respect - Your analogy doesn't exactly work (although I do enjoy your analogies) because accusing my boyfriend of cheating beyond a reasonable doubt does not put him behind bars for 25 years.

Reasonable doubt does not just come from Sarah's sleepiness. It comes from the fact there was no motive, no physical evidence, the prosecution can't EVEN come up with a theory of what happened that matches the evidence which is why they ask the jury to speculate in the closing arguments. There's no smoking gun there. Not even the 911 call. Three medically trained specialist including the Hamilton county coroner testified that this was an unexplainable death and not a homicide.

And as for the floor being dry and her being dry, some Widmer supporters will show you evidence where the floor being wet was documented. Carpet samples all showed wetness. Documentation is that her was wet (Not damp) and first responder noted that her body was not 'overly moist'. That's a big difference from dry in my opinion.

I'm not smoking the Widmer pipe, but I think there's a lot of reasonable doubt there. The truth is we'll never know and maybe justice is served to a guilty man. I just hope none of you end up in his situation if you're innocent and living in a county that is too big for it's britches.

I guess we'll agree to disagree. I would disagree with most of your second paragraph. And if there was evidence of wet or damp carpet, or any water whatsoever, it was not entered into evidence during this trial, not by anyone's testimony either.

Anyway, I agree it would be a tragedy to be falsely convicted. I don't think that's the case here, but if so that would indeed be terrible.

Widmer defense files motion for new trial

LEBANON, OH (FOX19) - Ryan Widmer's defense team has filed a motion for a retrial.

Widmer, 30, was found guilty of murder on Feb. 16 in the drowning death of his wife, Sarah.

A motion filed by defense attorneys Jay Clark and Lindsey Gutierrez alleges they received phone calls from family members of one of the jurors, "D.E." during the second day trial. The family members said D.E. had visited her best friend, "S.L." a few days before the trial began, telling her, "Don't worry about the Widmer case, we have all talked about it and we know he is guilty. He (Ryan Widmer) is going to rot in hell."

The defense team brought this statement to the court's attention, and D.E. was brought into the judge's chambers. She said her only recent conversation with S.L. had been about S.L. health, and that S.L. had asked about the trial, but D.E. said she wasn't allowed to say anything.

She was dismissed from chambers and an instruction was given to the rest of the jurors regarding anyone approaching them about the case or speaking to anyone about the case.

The court determined D.E. would remain on the jury because she was honest about her conversations and had not said that Widmer was guilty.

The same week, defense attorneys sent a private investigator to talk to S.L., who told them she and D.E. were like sisters, and that D.E. was the executor of her estate. S.L. denied that D.E. had made the statement, but did tell her the jurors were able to go out for lunch and they would probably be sequestered during deliberations, which had not been discussed with jurors in open court.

The motion alleges that D.E. lied about the nature of the relationship with her best friend, "it is difficult to believe she was honest and sincere about the statement."

The motion states Widmer should get a new trial because D.E. was not removed from the jury.

"Based upon Juror D.E.'s statements to her best friend S.L. during the first week of the trial, it is impossible to believe D.E. remained impartial during the course of the trial," the motion reads. "It is clear from Juror D.E.'s statement her mind was made up on Ryan's guilty before hearing the evidence."

http://www.fox19.com/Global/story.asp?S=...ormat=HTML