Crime scene and autopsy photos, which are key evidence in criminal trials, took center stage Thursday in the murder trial of George Wagner IV who is charged in the 2016 killings of eight members of the Rhoden family in Pike County.
Defense lawyer John Parker filed a formal motion seeking a mistrial in the case, citing the prosecutors use of "gruesome" photos that he argued can prejudice the jury against his client. He asked for a mistrial Wednesday for the same reason.
"The gruesome photos are intended to get sympathy from the jury. Gruesome photos lead to more guilty verdicts than if the phots were not gruesome," he said in the motion, adding that the defense has never disputed the cause and manner of death of the victims.
Pike County Judge Randy Deering overruled the motion, as he had the day before.
Media files appeal
Later in the day, the media filed an appeal seeking greater access to broadcast and photograph pieces of evidence that prosecutors are showing to jurors. Such photos help prosecutors establish that a crime was committed, show potential evidence and establish a victim's cause and manner of death.
In their appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeals, the seven media outlets argue that Ohio law and state rules governing court proceedings presume trials are public and that a judge shall permit broadcasting or recording of trials and also allows for photographs of proceedings.
In this case, Pike County Common Pleas Judge Randy Deering amended an earlier media order to restrict media from broadcasting or taking photos of evidence that show blood, bodies or of juveniles. Dozens of crime scene and autopsy photos have been displayed on three, large digital monitors for the jury and members of the gallery to view.
But before that happens, prosecutors, and a victim advocate, have repeatedly turned to photographers and videographers in the courtroom and instructed them not to display crime scene or autopsy photos.
Specifically at issue in this case, was a newspaper reporter's request to take a photograph of a bloody shoe print left at one of the scenes. Shoe prints, prosecutors have said, will be a key piece of evidence in the trial. The court did not allow that image to be photographed or broadcast.
More broadly, the outlets argue that the law does not allow for a judge to selectively restrict the media from broadcasting or photographing certain parts of a trial that are displayed in open court and available to the public or anyone sitting in court.
Prosecutor uses fewer graphic crime scene photos
Special Prosecutor Angela Canepa did use fewer graphic photos of the three victims found shot to death in their beds in a trailer that was the third of four crime scenes jurors will be walked through.
Bryan White, who was a crime-scene investigator with the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation in 2016, was assigned to lead the investigation and evidence collection of the trailer of Dana Rhoden, 38. Dana lived at the trailer with her children, Hanna May Rhoden, 19, and Christopher Rhoden Jr., 16. They were the fifth, sixth and seventh victims found by family members shot to death on April 22, 2016.
White testified that there did not appear to be any forced entry of the front door to the home, that the back door leading to an addition was wrapped in plastic and a cellar door appeared inoperable.
He testified that he found shoe prints just on vinyl flooring just inside the foot door and took shoe impressions to be sent to the Ohio crime lab for further analysis.
White walked jurors through each bedroom where each of the three Rhodens were found, but Canepa only displayed a few photos of each victim on the monitors. Parker did not object to any of the images, as he has previously.
White said Christopher Rhoden Jr. was shot at least once in the front of the head and once in the back of head. He was found lying on his stomach in bed, with a red comforter pulled up to his neck, with one shoulder exposed.
White found Hanna Rhoden, who had given birth just days before, shot in the head in her bed. She was lying on her right side with her right breast exposed as if she had been breastfeeding. Her days-old daughter was found in bed next to her alive and physically unharmed. A crib was next to her bed and a toddler bed, presumably for her 2 1/2-year-old daughter was on the other side of her bed. The toddler was not home the night of the killings.
White testified that Dana Rhoden's body and head were completely covered by a blue and yellow floral comforter. When investigators pulled off the comforter, they found her had was covered by a pillow, which was removed. White said she was shot in the forehead and also in the right side of her head. He noted that neither the pillow found over her head nor the one next to her had bullet holes through it.
White began his testimony about how investigators began to collect evidence, when a juror indicated she needed a break.
The juror was not feeling well and Deering adjourned the trial early.
Proceedings are expected to resume Friday morning when White is expected to continue his testimony. Dr,. Karen Looman, who performed the autopsies, is also expected to testify.
Questions for students:
What kind of lede did I use and why? Why do you think I started this story this way and not with the day's testimony? Do you agree with this approach; why or why not.
Is there a nut graph in this story? If so, point it out and if not, explain why there is not a nut graph.
Review the two linked court filings and write a summary lede for each. NOTE: your job here is to get to the news in each and write it in plain language and not legalese, which is rife in both. Our job is to cut through jargon.
What questions to you have for me or about the case?
What kind of lede did I use and why? Why do you think I started this story this way and not with the day's testimony? Do you agree with this approach; why or why not.
You used a summary lede. I'm not sure why you started the story this way, but it could've been to show readers what the main focus of the post was going to be. This post is packed with a lot of information, and I had to reread a few sections because I was confused about some of the court proceedings. I liked that you used a summary lede because starting the post by telling readers that the main point is the crime scene and autopsy…
The lead is a summary lead I know this because the lead is centered around the crime scene photos which was the main focus in court that day. The summary lead is good because it quickly sums up what happened in court that day. The second paragraph is the nut graph because it provides more details that help support the lead.
I believe there is a nut graph in your second paragraph where you explain what the intentions of the use of the photos was. It also sums up most of the story as well.
You chose to do a summary lede, you are summarizing what happened prior. You summed up the day before in court. It was a good idea because it catches people up if they have not read the blog prior to this blog.
I think this would be a summary lede with the crime scene photos and autopsies being the subject. I believe you chose to start this way because in general it best explains what happened that day. The evidence was the subject of the day, so it is also the subject of the lede. I believe paragraph under it is the nut graph, as it further details what exactly happened in court that day.