Either George Wagner IV, 30, froze — or the silencer on his semi-automatic rifle did — the night of the killings of eight members of a southern Ohio family in 2016, the lead prosecutor said in her opening statement to the jury Monday.
That's the only reason he didn't fatally shoot members of the Rhoden family, said special prosecutor Angela Canepa during her painstakingly detailed five-hour outline of the state's case against Wagner.
"These murders happened after a period of three months of planning and plotting and purchasing and preparing and executing eight individuals of a family,'' Canepa said.
Wagner faces 22 counts, including eight counts of aggravated murder, in Ohio's most complex and costly murder investigation and criminal trial. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges, which the state also leveled against his younger brother, his father and his mother. His brother and mother pleaded guilty in 2021 and agreed to testify against him for reduced sentences. The motive in the case, prosecutors allege: Custody of a shared daughter between the two families.
But one of Wagner's lawyer, Richard Nash, told jurors in his much-awaited opening statement that his client was not with his brother, Jake, and their father, Billy, the night of the homicides. Instead, he said George Wagner found out about the killings the next morning when his brother received in a phone call from a friend.
"Jake put on an act worthy of an Academy Award,'' Nash told the jurors of Jake Wagner's response. "...As [Jake] wept and cried on the phone, that is the first time George learned about murders."
The state got conned by the statements Jake Wagner and Angela Wagner provided to investigators, Nash told jurors.
Nash also said his client was not involved in the planning of the killings. He said Billy and Jake planned the killings and their father convinced their mother to buy items to aid in the crimes.
Nash's statement is the first time lawyers have outlined their defense of George Wagner, whom Canepa painted Monday not only as a willing participant but one who was involved in the planning, execution and cover-up of the April 21-22, 2016 crimes that shocked and stunned rural Pike County.
Nash told jurors to keep in mind five things as they listened to upcoming testimony:
What Jake will say on the stand. He will testify that George was not involved in the planning, nor the shootings and did nothing to destroy evidence.
The credibility of Angela and Jake, whom he called con artists and liars.
The incentives offered by the state to get statements from Jake and Angela Wagner.
All the Wagners except George had a motive to kill: Angela believed Jake's daughter, who is also her granddaughter, was molested while in Hanna Rhoden's care; Jake was jealous and abusive to Hanna Rhoden to the point of murderous rage; Billy was involved in drugs, which Nash said is rife in the case.
George is different than his family members and should not be judged by the sins of his family.
"George disagreed with the way that his family lived their life. He disagreed with them so much, he actually engaged in physical fistfights with his father,'' Nash said near the end of his 35-minute opening argument.
Nash's comments came after Canepa disclosed new details in the case including the order in which the victims were killed, that Jake lead them to the guns she alleged were used in the killings. The guns, she said, were broken down and hidden in concrete in five-gallon buckets found at the bottom of his grandmother's pond.
Canepa said everyone was asleep when they they were killed except Hanna Rhoden, Dana Rhoden as well as Chris, Sr. and Gary Rhoden. Jake told prosecutors he repositioned Hanna's body so her five-day old daughter could continue to nurse.
The case, which is expected to last between six and eight weeks, resumes Tuesday when witnesses are expected to take the stand and begin testimony.
How long do opening statements usually take, and is the judge able to call a recess in the middle of opening statements if they do take a long time, like in this case?
Do you feel your lack of visual and audio components in your reporting while you've been absent have set you back? A lot of consumers require these elements to keep them engaged in a story; are they something you focus on with your reporting?
The details of this case are very convoluted, as you said. Is there a specific way you're keeping everything in order for yourself when you're sitting in the courtroom? Have you ever felt you've been caught off-guard in trials like this, especially with opening statements like Canepa's that is disclosing new details right off the bat?
Do you think the opening statements from the prosecution taking 5 hours will affect how jurors view the case? Was it too much?
When listening to something like this, would you typically write everything down or just the important parts? I think you would write what the witness says and the answers they give to everything because that would be where you find most of you facts. I would also write down what the judge says since they can overall rule or substain the objection.