Johnny S. Clarke & Lisa Straub- young Ohio couple murdered

[Older Than Dirt]

PARTY : D1 - WILLIAMS SAMUEL TODD

6/18/2012 1 Title : ORD:MOTION DENIED
632-000005836 issued by 153 ()

Defendant, Samuel Todd Williams, in his motions designated
D#31 and D#39 challenges
constitutionality of the capital specifications charged in
the indictment against him. The Court rules as follows:
#D31 - Motion to Dismiss Capital Specification:
Defendant by this motion asks that this Court dismiss the
capital specifications filed against him arguing that the
decision to present the capital specifications to the
Lucas County Grand jury was the result of an
unconstitutional, arbitrary decision by the Lucas County
Prosecutor's Office. In support of this motion, Defendant
has listed ten defendants charged with homicide and one or
more other felonies, claiming that none of these
defendants were indicted with "death specifications." It
is from this bare listing of defendants and charges that
Defendant argues that "[A] review of the case files
yielded no discernible distinction between the acts
constituting the offenses in these cases and the instant
case."

Defendant's motion is deficient in numerous areas. First,
none of the listed cases involve the death of multiple
victims as does the present case. Next, there is no
allegation, let alone evidence, as to whether capital
specifications were sought by the State in any of the
listed cases. Additionally, it may be that the lack of
death specifications was the result of decisions by the
grand jury itself and not a decision by the prosecutor.
Further, it has been repeatedly held that "absent facts to
the contrary, it cannot be assumed that prosecutors will
be motivated in their charging decision by factors other
than the strength of their case and the likelihood that a
jury would impose the death penalty if it convicts." State
v. Frazier, 6^th Dist. No. L-07-1388, 2008-Ohio-5027, ¶ 66,
citing State v. Jenkins, 15 Ohio St.3d 164, 169, 473
N.E.2d 264 (1984).
The State of Ohio has broad discretion as to charging
decisions. Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364, 98
S.Ct. 663, 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978). There is a "strong
presumption of regularity" in prosecutorial discretion.
State v. Norris, 147 Ohio App.3d 224, 229, 2002-Ohio-1033
(1^st Dist.). The prosecution is presumed not to have
discriminated and, therefore, the burden is on the
defendant to show otherwise. State v. Keene, 81 Ohio St.3d
646, 653, 1998-Ohio-342, 693 N.E.2d 246.
A mere showing that another person similarly situated was
not prosecuted is not enough; a defendant must demonstrate
actual discrimination due to invidious motives or bad
faith. State v. Freeman, 20 Ohio St.3d 55, 58, 485 N.E.2d
1043 (1985). Intentional or purposeful discrimination
will not be presumed from a showing of differing
treatment. Id.
Defendant has failed as to his burden. Therefore,
Defendant's Motion #D31 is found not well taken and
DENIED.

#D39 - Motion to Dismiss Capital Components:
In this motion Defendant seeks to have the death
specifications dismissed due to Constitutional and
international law violations. Defendant raises 13 claims,
many of which contain multiple sub-arguments.

During the course of the 31 years since Ohio reinstated
the death penalty, the Ohio Supreme Court has addressed
all of the claims raised. In so doing, the Ohio Supreme
Court has repeatedly held that Ohio's death penalty scheme
is constitutional and does not violate international law.
In capital cases, when issues of law have been considered
and decided by the Supreme Court of Ohio and are raised
anew in a subsequent capital case, it is proper to dispose
of these issues summarily. State v. Poindexter, 36 Ohio
St.3d 1, 520 N.E.2d 568 (1988), syllabus.
The Supreme Court of Ohio has previously addressed the
issues which the Defendant raises in support of his motion
to dismiss. See State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181, 2002-
Ohio-2128, 767 N.E.2d 166; State v. Carter, 89 Ohio St.3d
593, 607, 2000-Ohio-172, 734 N.E.2d 345; State v. Steffen,
31 Ohio St.3d 111, 509 N.E.2d 383 (1987), paragraph one of
the syllabus; State v. Jenkins, 15 Ohio St.3d 164, 473
N.E.2d 264 (1984); State v. Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239, 473
N.E.2d 768 (1984); State v. Buell, 22 Ohio St.3d 124, 489
N.E.2d 795 (1986); State v. Williams, 23 Ohio St.3d 16,
490 N.E.2d 906 (1986); Poindexter, supra; State v. Roe, 41
Ohio St.3d 18, 535 N.E.2d 1351 (1989); State v. Bradley,
42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989); State v. Hicks,
43 Ohio St.3d 72, 538 N.E.2d 1030 (1989); State v.
Coleman, 45 Ohio St.3d 298, 544 N.E.2d 622 (1989); State
v. Johnson, 46 Ohio St.3d 96, 545 N.E.2d 636 (1989).
The Court further rejects the Defendant's claim that
Ohio's death penalty statutes violate international law
and treaties to which the United States is a party. See
State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404, 456, 2008-Ohio-2, 880
N.E.2d 31; State v. Bey, 85 Ohio St.3d 487, 502, 1999-
Ohio-283, 709 N.E.2d 484.
Defendant's Motion #D39 is found not well taken and
DENIED.

JUDGE DEAN MANDROS
PARTY : D1 - WILLIAMS SAMUEL TODD