News
News Home
Quick Bites
Exploradio
News Archive
News Channel
Special Features
NPR
nowplaying
On AirNewsClassical
Loading...
  
School Closings
WKSU Support
Funding for WKSU is made possible in part through support from the following businesses and organizations.

Wayside Furniture

Meaden & Moore

Lehmans


For more information on how your company or organization can support WKSU, download the WKSU Media Kit.

(WKSU Media Kit PDF icon )


Donate Your Vehicle to WKSU

Programs Schedule Make A Pledge Member BenefitsFAQ/HelpContact Us
Crime and Courts


Should an Ohio man be tried for the sixth time for murder?
Ohio Supreme Court takes up questions that range from questions of timing to questions of U.S. constitutional protections
by WKSU's M.L. SCHULTZE


Web Editor
M.L. Schultze
 
The case of an Austintown man argued before the Ohio Supreme Court ranged from issues of constitutional protections to those of timing.
Download (WKSU Only)
In The Region:
The state of Ohio’s attorneys ran into a tough audience today in arguments before the Ohio Supreme Court that an Austintown man should be tried for the sixth time for murder. WKSU’s M.L. Schultze has more on what defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges call ‘an unusual case.’
LISTEN: Double jeopardy or the state doing a thorough job?

Other options:
Windows Media / MP3 Download (2:36)


Christopher Anderson was locked up on Aug. 22, 2002, charged with strangling Amber Zurcher to death. Since then, he’s been put on trial five times. Twice, the case ended in mistrials, twice in hung juries and once, his conviction was overturned on appeal.

When the state set a sixth trial date in 2011, Anderson asked the judge to throw the case out, saying the state is unconstitutionally trying him again and again on the same charges.

The judge refused, and Anderson appealed.

The arguments before the Ohio Supreme Court now hinge on two points: Whether a sixth trial is fair and constitutional, and whether the appeals judges should even be considering the case in the first place.

Ralph Rivera – representing the state – focused on the second argument. He told the justices that – based on state law – Anderson has no right to appeal until after he goes all the way through a sixth trial.

Let the system play out
Rivera ran into a skeptic in, among others, Justice William O’Neill.

“It just seems to me you’re asking this court to authorize the state of Ohio to say, ‘Trust us, we won’t do this unnecessarily and it can be cleaned up in the appellate process,'" said the judge. "But the reality is, you can’t give this person that time back, can you?"

Rivera acknowledged, “No, in that sense you can’t give him the time back," but then he said those concerns are based on believing Anderson's "arguments are meritorious at the end.”

Rivera maintained that only after a trial can Anderson argue there should not have been a trial, and that he might not win that argument.

Rivera maintained that only after a trial can Anderson argue there should NOT have been a trial.

How many trials are enough?
Anderson’s attorney John Juhasz says that strains constitutional protections of due process and against double jeopardy. He ran into his own skeptic in Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’connor.

"Five times already, Christopher Anderson has suffered the anxiety, the expense, the personal strain of risking a conviction for an offence for which he says he’s innocent," said Juhasz.

Then his own skeptic, Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor interrupted. “But these trials were legitimately declared not to be trials because of the nature of the outcome. A hung jury, a reversal by the court of appeals with a remand for a retrial. These were all trials that were legitimately disposed of and in none of the trials was there an acquittal.”

Several times, the justices returned to the question of how many trials is enough.

Juhasz attempted to answer, by saying it’s more than one, but less than what his client is facing. He noted that Anderson has been in jail or prison for more than 11 years – with no conviction standing against him.

Anderson’s attorney John Juhasz says that strains constitutional protections of due process and against double jeopardy. 

Add Your Comment
Name:

Location:

E-mail: (not published, only used to contact you about your comment)


Comments:




 
Page Options

Print this page

E-Mail this page / Send mp3

Share on Facebook




Stories with Recent Comments

Bridgestone exec indictments are latest step in a billion-dollar price-fixing case
Why is O.P.E.C Not investigated and charges brought against it and it's member companies? It sounds exactly the same...

Ohio's new drilling rules rely on known earthquake faults
requiring drillers to place seismic monitors when they drill within 3 miles of known fault lines. This comment really upsets me!! What good does an instrument t...

Kasich's gubernatorial ad focuses on his blue-collar roots
John Kasich is the biggest con-man in America. He will say one thing and then do the opposite. He is terribly successful at fooling the public and he is worki...

Cab drivers who refuse to drive Gay Games taxis will be replaced
the irony is that most americans distrust or hate muslims much more than they hate gays!! silly ignorant bigots-GO HOME!!!

New transportation companies come to Cleveland
Ride-sharing companies are breaking laws and regulations every day. From regulatory fee evasion to use of smartphone while driving (and even two smartphones(!) ...

Cleveland anti-poverty agency executive resigns amid financial probe
That committee won't be too independent. He plans to stay on until after the new appointee is chosen.

How can you wipe a criminal record clean?
Great article! NO CLINIC in May 2014, however, because it's graduation month for students For the next dates of the FREE Legal Clinic to help with Expungment,...

Drilling remains suspended while ODNR investigates NE Ohio earthquakes
Flaring and lights, so has all been halted? Also, smell of HS2 and sounds of an auger/drilling/water rushing underground. So, has all been halted? In light of t...

Will the Ohio River carry fracking wastewater?
Texas $ vs. WV citizens . Who will our governor listen to?

Copyright © 2014 WKSU Public Radio, All Rights Reserved.

 
In Partnership With:

NPR PRI Kent State University

listen in windows media format listen in realplayer format Car Talk Hosts: Tom & Ray Magliozzi Fresh Air Host: Terry Gross A Service of Kent State University 89.7 WKSU | NPR.Classical.Other smart stuff. NPR Senior Correspondent: Noah Adams Living on Earth Host: Steve Curwood 89.7 WKSU | NPR.Classical.Other smart stuff. A Service of Kent State University