07-28-2012, 01:46 PM
(07-28-2012, 12:15 PM)lucimhome Wrote: This is what is recorded on the clerk of the courts docket. It looks to me that it's an Acquittal.
I hope the fed's come in and file charges. Maybe they will once they get the other male & female match on the DNA.
Title : VRD:ACQUITTAL
800-000000057 issued by 226 ()
July 26, 2012. Court Reporter JANET TERRY, Assistant
Prosecutor TIMOTHY BRAUN, LOUIS KOUNTOURIS and CHARLES
MCDONALD, MERLE R. DECH on behalf of the Defendant, and
Defendant CAMEO PETTAWAY present in court.
Trial resumes. Witnesses sworn in on behalf of the State
of Ohio. Exhibits admitted.
State rested and defendant made a Rule 29 Motion for
Acquittal. After due consideration of evidence presented,
Court granted motion. Defendant found not guilty and
ordered discharged.
JUDGE JAMES D. BATES
PARTY : D1 - PETTAWAY CAMEO
What i believe to be important in the entry above is that the sentence, "After due consideration of evidence presented, Court granted motion," allows for an appeal of Judge Bates' rulings that disallowed certain evidence offered by the State. If those rulings are reversed by Appellate Court, Pettaway still cannot be retried criminally due to jeopardy already having attached due to acquittal (rather than dismissal, which was not an option for Bates under the law), but it would probably be, IMO, the only way the prosecution would consider pursuing federal charges. A second trial in federal court with the prosecution handcuffed the same way as in Bates' court would likely have the same result, and therefore, again IMO, be unlikely to be considered.
As a side note, the prosecutors in the Pettaway trial began with the same evidence and strategy as the Williams prosecutors, but were dealt serious blows on what evidence they could present. The prosecutors in Williams case got applause and hugs, and deservedly so. But I feel for those gentlemen, who worked just as hard and were similarly emotionally invested, only to have to sit with the stunned families and try to explain how subtle rules of law robbed the families, and the community (my words, not the prosecutors) of the opportunity to have the jury who had invested a week of their lives to hearing the evidence that WAS presented, deliberate and reach a verdict. It strikes me as a slap in the face that the jury was basically told when the motion was granted that, "I, the judge, don't believe the State made its case, and further, I believe you're too stupid to reach that conclusion, so I've decided to reach it for you."