Category Archives: Appeals

Ohio Supreme Court Declines To Hear Widmer Appeal

The Ohio Supreme Court has declined a request to review the conviction of Ryan Widmer.

Widmer was convicted of drowing his wife, Sarah, in the couple’s Warren County home.  A first trial was declared a mistrial after allegations of juror misconduct arose.  A second trial ended with a hung jury.  Widmer was convicted after a third trial.  He is currently serving a sentence of 15 years to life.

Widmer’s attorneys asked the Ohio Supreme Court to consider whether DNA testing should have been allowed on his wife in order to determine whether she suffered from a genetic disorder that could have led to her death.

An appeals court has previously rejected Widmer’s arguments.  His next step could be to ask the United States Supreme Court to review the case.

abbreviatedLogo

Widmer Conviction Upheld By Appeals Court. Court Criticizes Widmer Attorneys.

An Ohio court of appeals has upheld the conviction of Ryan Widmer for the bathtub murder of his wife in Warren County.

The case is available online. State v. Widmer, 2013-Ohio-62.

This is a second appeal from Ryan K. Widmer.  In this appeal, he sought a new trial based on allegations that the prosecution failed to disclose information about false statements made by the lead investigator.  Widmer also sought a new genetic DNA testing and raised some procedural arguments.

In 2011, after three jury trials, Widmer was found guilty of murdering his wife, Sarah Widmer, by forcibly drowning her in a bathtub in their home.  He is serving a 15-year prison sentence.

Widmer’s first argument concerned the role if Lieutenant Jeffrey Braley. Lieutenant Braley was an officer with the Hamilton Township Police Department.  He conducted much of the investigation, including collecting and processing evidence in the home.  He was also present at the autopsy.

The defense later learned that Braley had lied on his application for employment.   The trial judge, however, did not permit the defense to introduce this evidence at trial.

Widmer’s legal argument is that the United States Supreme Court, in a decision known as Brady, requires the state to turn over to turn over evidence in its possession that is both favorable to the accused and material to guilt or punishment.

Widmer argued that the evidence about Braley was important because it related to his trial strategy and the impeachment of Braley.   In particular, Widmer suggested that if Braley had admitted to falsifying the employment application, the defense could have focused on incompetence and dishonesty on the integrity of the investigation.  The court rejected this argument, reasoning that “Braley’s alleged misconduct, including falsifying the 1996 employment application, had no bearing on the issues of whether he was qualified to be a lieutenant detective and whether he was capable of properly handling the Widmer investigation.”  The court explained this decision as follows:

the defense had ample opportunity to cross-examine Braley and other testifying officers about the orders that Braley gave at the scene, as well as his handling of the evidence.  Similarly, nothing prevented Widmer from asking Braley additional questions about his actual training and experience in collecting evidence, dusting for fingerprints, and managing a crime scene investigation.   

This included the fact that the jury heard testimony from multiple witnesses that the evidence from the tub had changed while it was in police custody.

The court rejected all of the arguments from the defense.  The court found that Braley’s potential false statements – and possible perjury during a hearing on this matter – were not relevant to many of the issues at trial.  The court found, for example, that the false employment application was not relevant to whether Braley only collected evidence that might help the prosecution, whether Braley’s lack of real police experience impacted his communication with the prosecution about possible charges, and whether Braley improperly influenced the coroner.

The court concluded:

There is no reasonable likelihood that knowledge by the jury that Braley lied about various credentials and whether he filled out the 1996 employment application could have affected its decision on the ultimate issue of whether Widmer was guilty of murdering Sarah.  This conclusion is particularly compelling in light of the ample additional evidence supporting Widmer’s guilt, . . .

The court also upheld the trial courts decision to not permit Braley to be questioned about his application during the Widmer trial.  The court explained that this information likely would not have affected the decision of the jury: “Braley was not on trial for fraud ormisconduct; Widmer was on trial for murder, and examining this part of Braley’s past would only lead to surprise, jury confusion, and a waste of time . . .”

The court of appeals also rejected some procedural and technical arguments raised by Widmer.  In the end, the he court concluded that it remained confident in the Widmer verdict.

Widmer also argued that he should have been granted access to Sarah’s biological remains for the purpose of DNA testing in order to determine if she suffered from a congenital heart defect called Long QT Syndrome, which may have caused her to drown.  The decision in this case rests on a close reading of the law in Ohio permitting DNA testing.  In most instances, the court concluded that the law does not apply to this type of situation – instead, the law is aimed at situations where the DNA evidence can exclude the defendant as the person who committed the crime.   The law, the court concluded, does not permit DNA testing of victims. The court also rejected an argument that the due process or equal protection clause of the Constitution requires such testing.

The court was critical of Widmer’s attorneys.  At one point, the court suggested that attorneys might have misrepresented some of the evidence during oral argument.  The court gave the attorneys the “the benefit of the doubt” but cautioned them about further such representations of the evidence bordering on “hyperbole.”  The Widmer case is the type of high profile  appeal where a person would benefit from having the most experienced appellate counsel.

Widmer’s case will now be considered by the Ohio Supreme Court, which must decide whether or not to hear further appeals.

What’s Next for Ryan Widmer After His Conviction Is Upheld.

 

Ryan Widmer will not get a new trial.  At least not yet.  The Ohio Twelfth District Court of Appeals has affirmed his conviction.

A detailed review of the decision and a link to the entire opinion can be found on the Ohio Criminal Appeals Blog.

Widmer was initially convicted and sentenced to 15 years to life in prison.  A new trial was granted after it was discovered that jury members, during their deliberation, had improperly discussed personal and external matters regarding the length of time it took them to dry after bathing.

A second trial took place in May 2010.  After the jury was unable to reach a verdict, a mistrial was declared.

At a third trial, he was again convicted of murder.

Widmer raised a number of issues on appeal.  The most important were the seizure of the bathtub and the sufficiency of the evidence.

In regards to the bathtub, Widmer suggested that counsel should have filed a motion to suppress the seizure of the bathtub on the grounds that the seizure was outside the scope of the search warrant.  The court rejected this argument, saying, “Although the warrant did not specifically list the bathtub, this does not invalidate its seizure.  The warrant still enabled the officers to reasonably ascertain and identify the things that were authorized to be seized . . Common sense dictates that in an alleged bathtub drowning, valuable evidence, including latent fingerprints, can be obtained from a search of the bathroom and bathtub.”

In regards to the sufficiency of the evidence, the court said that “The state presented evidence that Sarah and Widmer were the only two individuals present in the Widmers’ home on the night of Sarah’s death.  The state also presented evidence that Sarah died from a forcible drowning. . . .” 

Finally, the court rejected an argument that the defense should have been permitted to obtain additional information about the investigating officer’s education and employment background.  The court agreed that this evidence was unlikely to be admissible character evidence, and that it could “mislead the jury or cause confusion of the issues.”

In a separate appeal, the Appeals Court will consider allegations that authorities improperly withheld information that called into question the credibility of the lead investigator on the case.  The investigator, who worked for the Hamilton Township Police Department, was forced to resign after an investigation found misstatements on his resume.  The defense argued that even though the investigator did not provide significant testimony at trial, his role affected the entire course of the investigation.  The Appeals Court is also considering whether to compel the state to allow new genetic testing of the victim’s blood to search for evidence of a heart-rhythm disturbance that could have led to her drowning.  A ruling on this separate appeal is expected in early 2013.

Widmer remains in prison.  He is serving a sentence of 15 years to life.

Widmer’s further appeals will become increasingly difficult.

The next step for Widmer is an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.  The Ohio Supreme Court does not have to take the case, however.  The court only takes a small percentage of the cases presented, and usually looks for cases of significant legal significance.  If the Ohio Supreme Court does not take the case, or takes the case and rules against Widmer, then Widmer may seek review in the United States Supreme Court.  Like the Ohio Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court only hears a very small percentage of the cases presented.

After exhausting all of this direct appeals through the United States Supreme Court, Widmer may seek what is called collateral review, by filing a petition for habeas corpus in the Federal District Court in Ohio.  Defendants typically do not have a great track record of success in Federal habeas cases, as this type of appeal is limited by various Federal statutes and court decisions.

The difficulty of further appeals in this case illustrates the type of vigorousness, knowledge, and courtroom experience found in a select group of attorneys necessary for defendants to achieve favorable outcomes in the courts of appeals.  Criminal appeals, especially, require an attorney with considerable experience in state and federal appeals, including federal habeas corpus petitions.  This attorney must closely examine what happened at trial and navigate a sometimes complicated set of procedural hurdles to determine the best way to obtain the relief sought.