Speaker 1: George Wagner, the Fourth was trying to keep the testimony
Speaker 1: of family members who have already confessed out of his trial.
Speaker 1: His lawyers argued Tuesday that his brother Jake and his
Speaker 1: mother Angela should not be allowed to testify against him.
Speaker 1: Defense lawyer John Parker argued that such an agreement violates
Speaker 1: due process. In the end Circuit Court Judge Randy Deering
Speaker 1: ruled against the defense motion, meaning that both Jake and
Speaker 1: Angela can testify and that their confessions can be used
Speaker 1: in court. Welcome to the Pike and Massacre, a production
Speaker 1: of Katie Studios and iHeartRadio, Season three, Episode six, Trial
Speaker 1: and Error. I'm Courtney, I'm Shong, a television producer at
Speaker 1: Katie Studios. With Stephanie Leidecker and Jeff Shane. We're breaking
Speaker 1: down the court proceedings against the Wagners as they currently stand,
Speaker 1: as well as looking into information on the court room players.
Speaker 1: The test is, can you get twelve people from Pike
Speaker 1: County that can be fair and impartial and give that
Speaker 1: mister Wagner, give the State of Ohio fair trial. On
Speaker 1: January nineteenth, twenty twenty two, George Wagner's attorneys filed emotion
Speaker 1: for a change of venue. They basically outline the reasons
Speaker 1: why they believe a fair and impartial jury cannot be
Speaker 1: seated in Pike County. They say they will be providing
Speaker 1: the court with evidence of this just prejudicial negative pre
Speaker 1: trial publicity. I mean there are people who are scared
Speaker 1: as Wagner's too, So you may find people who are like,
Speaker 1: I am not doing this. Death penalty cases are hard,
Speaker 1: and I think they're meant to be hard, to be honest,
Speaker 1: because there's a lot at stake in Ohio. Just knowing
Speaker 1: about it, or being present, or driving the getaway car
Speaker 1: or being a part of this conspiracy. In Ohio, you're
Speaker 1: just as guilty. George. The Forest case is set to
Speaker 1: go to trial, and that is even if they can
Speaker 1: find a jury in time, because in Ohio, when you're
Speaker 1: selecting a jury, you have to pick a jury in
Speaker 1: the venue in which the crime happened. As a reminder,
Speaker 1: at this point, the Wagner family, one seemingly tight knit,
Speaker 1: are fully unraveling. Jake Wagner was the first Domino to fall,
Speaker 1: pleading guilty to murdering five of the a Rodents in
Speaker 1: exchange for testifying against his family matriarch. Angelo Wagner folded next,
Speaker 1: pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit aggravated murder and other
Speaker 1: charges as part of her plea deal. Here's reporter and
Speaker 1: Nette Levy. Angelo Wagner pleaded guilty. She admitted to her
Speaker 1: role in the planning of these homicides, and she could
Speaker 1: get out after serving thirty years. It's not a given,
Speaker 1: but she's eligible for release after serving thirty years. She
Speaker 1: admitted to basically helping plan all of this and carry
Speaker 1: it out. That she did not go to the scenes
Speaker 1: of the murders that night. That leaves two remaining suspects,
Speaker 1: father Billy Wagner and his thirty year old son George Wagner,
Speaker 1: both have pled not guilty and are awaiting trials. In
Speaker 1: some of these hearings all of four defendants. Each defendant
Speaker 1: was made an offer by the state to cooperate, so
Speaker 1: Jake and Angela took that offer, and it appears that
Speaker 1: George the fourth and Billy did not. So that's kind
Speaker 1: of where we are right now. A Neette the arises
Speaker 1: that there's little chance for a plea deal for George
Speaker 1: and his father at this stage. After four years of
Speaker 1: steadfastly denying any involvement in the slayings. I would think
Speaker 1: the only incentive for either one of them to plead
Speaker 1: guilty would be to go to the state and say, Okay,
Speaker 1: I'll plead guilty. Just take the death coin of the
Speaker 1: off the table. I don't see why the state would
Speaker 1: offer them any reduced time, especially if you've got two
Speaker 1: other family members who are willing to testify against that.
Speaker 1: Jake pleaded guilty and he's going to present for the
Speaker 1: rest of his life. The only way he's leaving there
Speaker 1: is in a box, and he knows that. So there
Speaker 1: would be no reason that the state, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: would make any other offer to Billy or George. The
Speaker 1: State of Ohio was represented by fusecuting attorney Robert Junk,
Speaker 1: also by Special prosecuting Attorney to Angela Kaneppa. Ajie Kaneppa
Speaker 1: has been a special prosecutor on this case. From the outset.
Speaker 1: We've heard a lot from Angie Kaneppa in the courtroom
Speaker 1: this season, but didn't know much about her. Here's former
Speaker 1: prosecutor Anne Flanagan, followed by Stephanie and Jeff Well. She
Speaker 1: seems very calm and it's a nerve wracking experience because
Speaker 1: there's so much you have to stay on top of it.
Speaker 1: It seems like they're depending on her quite a bit,
Speaker 1: but she doesn't seem I don't buy that. She seems
Speaker 1: very self possessed and focused. And I think in my mind,
Speaker 1: when I've handled faces and that often had children as
Speaker 1: victims or others, I know that I am work and
Speaker 1: fighting for that victim and for that family, and that
Speaker 1: helps me put it aside any of my own nervousness
Speaker 1: or etginess. Not that it won't be there, but it
Speaker 1: helps to me put it in the right place. So
Speaker 1: here's what we know about Angie Kaneppa. She's the special prosecutor.
Speaker 1: We know that she studied undergrad at Bowling Green State University.
Speaker 1: She also went to law school at Ohio State. Started
Speaker 1: practicing law in nineteen ninety, and she worked for the
Speaker 1: Franklin County Prosecutor's Office in Columbus for over twenty years
Speaker 1: before going to the Ohio Attorney General's Office in twenty thirteen.
Speaker 1: In May of twenty twenty, she raised eyebrows when she
Speaker 1: resigned from the Attorney General's office with a one sentence
Speaker 1: letter that read effective June twenty twenty, I hereby resign
Speaker 1: my position as Section chiefs but in the Special Prosecution
Speaker 1: section of the Ohio Attorney General's Office. Now, when asked
Speaker 1: for a comment about the sudden and sort of kurt departure,
Speaker 1: a spokesperson for the office referred to the press back
Speaker 1: to Kneppa. That would just to me imply that they
Speaker 1: didn't want to deal with it, and they were washing
Speaker 1: their hands clean of her and her relationship with the office.
Speaker 1: That's interesting that she resigned mid trial. You know, they
Speaker 1: were in the thick of it in June of twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: and these trials were ongoing and just really about to
Speaker 1: heat up. So for her to do a heart and
Speaker 1: then come back as a special prosecutor is interesting. I
Speaker 1: mean when it happened, people and pikedon were like, are
Speaker 1: the trials falling apart? Is everything folding? Is this going away?
Speaker 1: It brought a lot of uncertainty to the case, at
Speaker 1: least for the public. However, it couldn't have been all
Speaker 1: bad blood, because just a few weeks after this resignation,
Speaker 1: Kneppa was brought back on the case as a special
Speaker 1: prosecutor at the rate of sixty five dollars an hour.
Speaker 1: That's actually around double the average of a prosecutors salary
Speaker 1: in Ohio, who usually make around thirty three dollars an hour.
Speaker 1: And to sort of add perspective to that, defense attorneys
Speaker 1: can make six hundred dollars an hour, if not more
Speaker 1: sometimes so to work for the state as an attorney,
Speaker 1: you're definitely not in it for the money. Each Wagner
Speaker 1: trial was expected to cost a million dollars for the state.
Speaker 1: That's actually a bit lower than the national average, which
Speaker 1: is about one point three million per case. In talking
Speaker 1: to a lot of Piked and locals, people in Pike
Speaker 1: County particularly are kind of frustrated and fed up with
Speaker 1: how long these cases are taking because they feel that
Speaker 1: it's taxpayer dollars that are being spent. You've got to
Speaker 1: keep in mind, though, this is for capital murder trials
Speaker 1: at one point, those do take time, right, the wheels
Speaker 1: of justice sometimes can move slowly, and perhaps for good reason.
Speaker 1: Rob Junk is an important figure in Pike County and
Speaker 1: plays a very large role in the prosecution of the
Speaker 1: four Wagners. At age fifty five, Rob Junk has been
Speaker 1: practicing law since nineteen ninety one. After completing his undergrad
Speaker 1: at Case Western Reserve University. He also went to law
Speaker 1: school at Cincinnati College of Law. He's been prosecuting attorney
Speaker 1: in Pike County since being elected in nineteen ninety six,
Speaker 1: and most recently, he actually ran to become the Pike
Speaker 1: County Commons plea judge, an election that he won, and
Speaker 1: he's due to actually take office in twenty twenty three
Speaker 1: at some point. It's pretty unclear at the moment how
Speaker 1: this shift in his position will affect the Wagner cases,
Speaker 1: but as part of his campaign, he vowed to fairly
Speaker 1: and impartially enforce and apply the law. So aside from
Speaker 1: working the road in cases and winning elections, Junk is
Speaker 1: also involved in a pretty public feud with former Pike
Speaker 1: County Sheriff Charles Reader, who we all know has come
Speaker 1: under some scrutiny for illegal activities that he's partaken in.
Speaker 1: It all started in November twenty eighteen, when there was
Speaker 1: an miss complaint filed against Reader, just days before the
Speaker 1: Wagoners were arrested. The complaint read Reader just does whatever
Speaker 1: he wants and no one ever calls him on it.
Speaker 1: We are scared to death of him. He is unstable
Speaker 1: and threatens people. In May of twenty nineteen, Junk asked
Speaker 1: Reader to step down from any criminal investigations. Reader fired
Speaker 1: back in a public and sense deleted Facebook post that read,
Speaker 1: put your seatbelt on, buddy. No one else may stand
Speaker 1: up to you and your crooked as connections, but I will,
Speaker 1: so help me God. At one point, Reader wrote another
Speaker 1: post saying it's past time to clean the junk out
Speaker 1: of Pike County. Rob Junk responded also on Facebook, surmising
Speaker 1: that the request to recuse himself from investigations cause the outburst.
Speaker 1: He wrote again on Facebook, apparently this makes me a
Speaker 1: serpent hiding in the shadows because I and my office
Speaker 1: are following the law. So these are two publicly elected
Speaker 1: officials fighting on Facebook. It's a pretty big deal to
Speaker 1: have a very public dispute like this between the prosecutor
Speaker 1: and also the sheriff, who was in office when these
Speaker 1: murders happened and is currently doing time for allegedly taking bribes.
Speaker 1: It could be seen as a very messy feud being
Speaker 1: played out publicly. While George Wagner's defense team staunchly defends
Speaker 1: his innocence, the prosecution's theory is that George had his
Speaker 1: hand in the murders as much as anyone else. Veteran
Speaker 1: Ohio prosecutor and Flanagan elaborates on this. When you hear
Speaker 1: these people bolstering each other and actually sharing ideas and dynamics,
Speaker 1: they're just as much a part of all that ended
Speaker 1: up happening as the person who actually pulled the trigger.
Speaker 1: And I know that, and I think jurors know that.
Speaker 1: People know that, but will they really hold them accountable.
Speaker 1: We know that people in a mob act differently than
Speaker 1: people individually. If people in that mob step back and
Speaker 1: don't participate and step away from it, it may not happen.
Speaker 1: And what a difference that would have made in the
Speaker 1: lives of the Rodents. Jake and his testimony said his
Speaker 1: brother was at the crime scene but didn't shoot anyone.
Speaker 1: Here's pretty, Sir, Chris Graves. The information she's referencing is
Speaker 1: taken directly from Motion eighty. Jake's own conduct in the
Speaker 1: murders has been corroborated by his disclosure of murder weapons.
Speaker 1: It is also true that the truck allegedly used by
Speaker 1: Jake and Billy in the murders has been recovered as
Speaker 1: a result of his proffer, but Jake has stated clearly
Speaker 1: that George did not shoot new One, did not fire
Speaker 1: a shot, was not supposed to go with Jake and
Speaker 1: Billy on the murder spree, and only went in as
Speaker 1: a last second to protect Jake from Billy, who was
Speaker 1: thought he might kill Jake at the end of the
Speaker 1: series of aggregated murders, presumably to get rid of a witness.
Speaker 1: In the state of Ohio, planning and executing a murder
Speaker 1: is still murder even if you don't pull the trigger.
Speaker 1: There's also evidence that George bought the truck used the
Speaker 1: net of the murder. George Wagner's child has said for
Speaker 1: August twenty ninth his father, Billy Wagner's child will be
Speaker 1: later this year, and as often happens in murder trials,
Speaker 1: George's defense team has followed a flurry of motions to
Speaker 1: suppress evidence and expert testimony to stymy the prosecution's case,
Speaker 1: Defendish Motion sixty five, which is entitled motion to compel
Speaker 1: production of other acts evidence pursuant to Evidence Rule four
Speaker 1: or four B, and then Defendis's Motion Number seventy seven.
Speaker 1: Pre trial motions on both sides especially in a murder case,
Speaker 1: are routine. The presiding judge holds initial hearings to see
Speaker 1: whether certain evidence should be allowed in front of a jury,
Speaker 1: and in this case, where the trial should even happen.
Speaker 1: Today's May second, twenty twenty two. Unless you like hearing,
Speaker 1: we'd have a hearing schedule along motions today. The defendant
Speaker 1: was present in court for those attorney's jaw Patrick Parker
Speaker 1: and Richard M. Nash. Here again, Stephanie and Jeff on
Speaker 1: what we know about George Wagner the fourth defense team.
Speaker 1: According to our research, it's actually not that common to
Speaker 1: have more than one criminal defense lawyer. However, when you're
Speaker 1: being charged with a crime as severe as George's, having
Speaker 1: more than one lawyer actually might be pretty helpful in
Speaker 1: the sense that they have different areas of focus, or
Speaker 1: that they're able to work different hours and thus get
Speaker 1: more work done. George Wagner's defense attorney is John Patrick Parker.
Speaker 1: He's been practicing criminal defense in Ohio for thirty three
Speaker 1: years and is based out of Cleveland. He also attended
Speaker 1: Case Western Reserve Law School. The second attorney for George
Speaker 1: Wagner is Richard Nash, and Richard is a local lawyer
Speaker 1: based out of Portsmith. His areas of focus are criminal defense,
Speaker 1: traffic offenses, as well as post conviction dealings. At forty
Speaker 1: six years old, he was born in Oklahoma City and
Speaker 1: attended Cleveland d University for law school and has been
Speaker 1: practicing law since two thousand and four. In our research
Speaker 1: of Richard Nash, we actually found out that a previous
Speaker 1: client is also involved in this story. He represented none
Speaker 1: other than Michael Moran when he was facing sex trafficking
Speaker 1: charges back in twenty twenty. And remember Michael Moran represented
Speaker 1: George's grandfather and Angela's father, petty criminal Pug Carter years ago.
Speaker 1: This means that the lawyer who is currently defending George
Speaker 1: used to defend the lawyer who defended Angela's dad. It's
Speaker 1: a little complicated, but it speaks to how this community
Speaker 1: is very much tied together. It's super interesting, by the way,
Speaker 1: even just seeing all of the players come together because
Speaker 1: they're steeped in history. We're going to take a break.
Speaker 1: We'll be back in a moment. Under federal rules, the
Speaker 1: presiding judge is termed quote, the gate keeper of what
Speaker 1: evidence will be allowed. Here's thirty year Hamilton County, Ohio
Speaker 1: Judge Patrick Dinklocker on the functions motion, Serf, you're cleaning
Speaker 1: the slate so you can have a nice, clean trial
Speaker 1: where you're getting rid of all those things that Wait
Speaker 1: a minute, I don't like the color of the curtains
Speaker 1: in this room. You file motion. You don't want to
Speaker 1: bring that motion in the middle of the trial, because
Speaker 1: it's like you're waiting halfway through the trial and there's
Speaker 1: no sense enough. And in simplest forms, these are things
Speaker 1: that need to be taken care of so that you
Speaker 1: can have a fair, clean trial. In a drug possession case,
Speaker 1: for example, the defense might ask the judge to exclude
Speaker 1: drug paraphernalia that the defense argues was attained through the
Speaker 1: legal search of the defendant's house. In a murder trial
Speaker 1: such as this, a motion may seek to suppress key
Speaker 1: witnessed testimony or ballistics findings. Often, motions highlight issues with
Speaker 1: the case that become the basis for an appeal down
Speaker 1: the line. One woman concerned for the defense was the
Speaker 1: issue of venue. George the Force Child was originally slated
Speaker 1: from March twentieth, twenty twenty, but in January, his attorney
Speaker 1: issued emotion to change the trial venue to a different jurisdiction.
Speaker 1: Judges is obviously one of the highest profile cases in
Speaker 1: the history of this community. There were news conferences held
Speaker 1: by the Attorney General, by the local sheriff, by different
Speaker 1: members of law enforcement updating the community on the status
Speaker 1: of the investigation. Went on for two and a half years,
Speaker 1: and this is subject to great social media discussion in
Speaker 1: the community. And it's our point of view that a
Speaker 1: jury will not be able to be selected here. That's
Speaker 1: fair to our client, given all of this publicity, given
Speaker 1: all the notoriety of this case, we're asking the court
Speaker 1: to change venue. In essence, the defense argued that the
Speaker 1: murders were so widely followed locally that Poidier the process
Speaker 1: of finding impartial jurors was impossible in Pike County. We
Speaker 1: don't think the court can get a fair jury, even
Speaker 1: though there are many people that probably would give it
Speaker 1: their best effort. But we don't think if people are
Speaker 1: being really honest with themselves and with the court, that
Speaker 1: they're going to be able to say that they're able
Speaker 1: to put aside everything they know about the case, whether
Speaker 1: it's true or not true, and give George a fair trial.
Speaker 1: Mike Allen is a criminal defense attorney in Cincinnati an
Speaker 1: illegal analyst for Fox nineteen and Cincinnati. He makes a
Speaker 1: crucial point about the essential fairness of most chairsts. It's
Speaker 1: a motion for change of venue. Those motions are frequently
Speaker 1: filed in high profile cases. They're frequently filed, but seldom granted. However,
Speaker 1: in this case, though, because Pike County is such a
Speaker 1: small county and I don't know how many registered voters
Speaker 1: they have, they might have a problem seating a jury.
Speaker 1: But here's the thing, and this is probably the most
Speaker 1: important part of this, and I don't think a lot
Speaker 1: of people realize it. If a potential juror who is
Speaker 1: under oath answers a judge's question, can you divorce yourselves
Speaker 1: and block out of your mind any pre trial publicity
Speaker 1: that you have heard and render a verdict based upon
Speaker 1: the evidence and the law. If that juror says, yes,
Speaker 1: your honor, then that's a good juror. I mean, just
Speaker 1: because someone has seen or heard or read a newspaper
Speaker 1: article about it, that does not disqualify them, because if
Speaker 1: it did, probably nine of the people in Pike County
Speaker 1: would have seen or heard something about it retire Judge
Speaker 1: Sylvia Hendon, who's been thirty three years in the benjam
Speaker 1: Hamilton County, two hundred miles from Piketon, has a different
Speaker 1: view of things. I think the change of venue in
Speaker 1: this case is probably going to be the most hotly debated,
Speaker 1: both before and after the trial. Again, Pike County is
Speaker 1: a county of somewhere between twenty five and thirty thousand people.
Speaker 1: It is going to be extremely difficult, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: to find people in that county who don't know somebody
Speaker 1: involved in the case and don't have an opinion on
Speaker 1: what happened here. Again, my Allen, if it were not
Speaker 1: a small county, I think it would be a no
Speaker 1: brainer that the venue would not change. But because it
Speaker 1: is such a small county with a small number of
Speaker 1: registered voters, they might blow through all of them. But
Speaker 1: there used to be a law, and I think it's
Speaker 1: still there that if you run out of registered voters,
Speaker 1: a judge can basically send his ballot or the cops
Speaker 1: or anybody at his discretion to just literally pull him
Speaker 1: off the street. The other thing you have to think about,
Speaker 1: and I thought about while reading this thing with respect
Speaker 1: to a change of venue. Okay, he grants a change
Speaker 1: of venue, but to where? I mean, where in the
Speaker 1: state of Ohio, in the Midwest, where could a judge
Speaker 1: send it to where there was not all this pre
Speaker 1: trial publicity. I mean, as you well know that this
Speaker 1: is a case of immense public curiosity and people are
Speaker 1: going to read about it and watch things on TV
Speaker 1: and read the newspaper. It's just like, okay, we'll change
Speaker 1: the venue, but where and to what end. In addition
Speaker 1: to the venue challenge, An Flanagan says, a lot of
Speaker 1: potential tours will simply not want to serve on this
Speaker 1: controversial trial. We see jurs that don't want to be there.
Speaker 1: They're just uncomfortable, and so what happens. Sometimes you'll see
Speaker 1: one jur say I can't be fair, and you try
Speaker 1: to quest someone why they can't be fair, and they
Speaker 1: really don't have any reason. They're just saying they can't
Speaker 1: be fair, right that this or that. Well, when two
Speaker 1: jurs down the road, we'll come up at the same thing.
Speaker 1: They learned how to get off of a journey. Judge
Speaker 1: Patrick Dinklocker, famous for trying the first woman in Hamilton
Speaker 1: County for the death penalty, lays out another potential scenario
Speaker 1: of jury contamination. Okay, you said you saw the newspaper,
Speaker 1: what did you actually read? Did you see it on
Speaker 1: social media? Did you talk to your friends about it?
Speaker 1: Did you text anybody about it? I think those are
Speaker 1: all relevant questions and questions that the attorneys will ask
Speaker 1: regarding you know, whether or not they're going to be
Speaker 1: fair and impartial, because they can obviously say you, I'm
Speaker 1: fair and impartial. But if the lead up to that
Speaker 1: is they wrote on Facebook saying, Wow, this guy's guilty
Speaker 1: as can be, you know, and they admit to something, well,
Speaker 1: then the judge is in a different situation. They've got
Speaker 1: this guy, hume. If you can't get twelve people that
Speaker 1: can put upside all the social media all or whatever
Speaker 1: the publicity they've seen and whatever, then you're right. Then
Speaker 1: you change the venue. And that's something that both sides
Speaker 1: will probably bring up. On May second, twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: Judge Randy Deering torpedo the defense's motion for a new venue,
Speaker 1: ruling that George the fourth trial would remain in Pike County.
Speaker 1: The ruling cleared a path for the trial that reporter
Speaker 1: Anginette Leevey says will be a heated one. This is
Speaker 1: a really old courthouse. I think it's from the Civil
Speaker 1: War era, so the air conditioning is not great. So
Speaker 1: jury selection starting on July fifth? Could you get any hotter?
Speaker 1: I mean, could you kick any more uncomfortable time of
Speaker 1: the year in Ohio where it gets so muggy and
Speaker 1: gross and humid because of being in the Ohio River Valley.
Speaker 1: Could you pick a worse time to do this? No
Speaker 1: matter the weather, it's on Judge Randy Daring to oversee
Speaker 1: this trial. Here's Stephanie and Jeff. Here's what we know
Speaker 1: about Judge Randy Deering. He went to undergrad and law
Speaker 1: school at Ohio State and started practicing law in nineteen
Speaker 1: seventy four. Judge Deering took office in two thousand and
Speaker 1: five and was reelected in twenty ten and most recently
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen. Interestingly enough, in May of twenty fifteen,
Speaker 1: Judge Deering swore in Charles Reader as the forty first
Speaker 1: Pike County Sheriff, and Charles Reader is obviously very involved
Speaker 1: in this story. We called the County Clerk's office, who
Speaker 1: informed us that at seventy years old, Judge Deering is
Speaker 1: now too old to officially serve as a judge, meaning
Speaker 1: that he can't run again. His time as judge will
Speaker 1: end in January or February of twenty twenty three. That
Speaker 1: being said, because the Wagner cases will likely be ongoing
Speaker 1: at that time, the Supreme Court could appoint him as
Speaker 1: a retired judge over the case or cases so that
Speaker 1: he could finish them out. The trial promises to be
Speaker 1: a long one. There are some three hundred and fifty witnesses.
Speaker 1: Imagine the problem that many witnesses would have created if
Speaker 1: the venue were forced to move or to the fourth
Speaker 1: attorney has press judged during to release and seal a
Speaker 1: pre trial copy of transcripts of all witnesses who testified
Speaker 1: before the grand jury in twenty eighteen. The prosecution of
Speaker 1: counter that the Ohio State Supreme Court already ruled the
Speaker 1: defense is not entitled to that information. The list of
Speaker 1: witnesses is extensive, but Ann Flanagan points out that there
Speaker 1: are four suspects and eight victims. In a tangled case
Speaker 1: like this, with so many suspects witnesses at up, you
Speaker 1: have eight individuals chilled, and I don't know how many
Speaker 1: corners participated in the autopsies. I don't know if it
Speaker 1: was all one or if it was a number, but
Speaker 1: just right there, just think you have a multiplied factor
Speaker 1: because all of those homicides are part of each one
Speaker 1: of these defendant's cases. And then you have all of
Speaker 1: the analysts. You have a blood witnesses, you get the
Speaker 1: shoot print witnesses, you have custodians. Who's the custodian of
Speaker 1: the Walmart shoe department, I mean, and the receipt how
Speaker 1: did they get the bookkeeping records of the receipt and
Speaker 1: the video authentication from Walmart? So theoretically you get you
Speaker 1: have like three witnesses from Walmart just to say, yes,
Speaker 1: this is the receipt, we keep it in the ordinary
Speaker 1: course of business. And somebody who TEX does the same
Speaker 1: thing for video, and somebody that handles the shoe department,
Speaker 1: and you can say, yes, we keep athletic work shoes
Speaker 1: or whatever. In a May hearing, as George, the fourth
Speaker 1: defense team continued to hurl motions at the bench, George
Speaker 1: Wagner bearded and Balding began to look defeated. It's worth
Speaker 1: noting that the defendants do not appear in court and shackles.
Speaker 1: This is done so they can avoid the appearance of guilt.
Speaker 1: Billy and George, you know, all of them. Actually, anytime
Speaker 1: they've appeared in court, Pike County bought a stun best.
Speaker 1: It's like this thing that they wear under their clothes
Speaker 1: so that if they get out a line or try
Speaker 1: to escape, or they grab a pen and try to
Speaker 1: stab somebody or whatever. Literally, the deputies can push a
Speaker 1: button and I think eighty thousand bolts into their bodies.
Speaker 1: We have to remember that all this legal wrangling is
Speaker 1: particularly intense because George Wagner is facing the death penalty.
Speaker 1: As a reminder, Jake Wagner's pleadal takes the death sentence
Speaker 1: off the table for him and his family members, but
Speaker 1: only if he testifies to the satisfaction of the prosecution.
Speaker 1: The jury must carefully consider the possibility that just because
Speaker 1: George is Jake's brother and Angela and Billy's son, it
Speaker 1: does not necessarily mean he pulled the trigger that night
Speaker 1: in April twenty sixteen, and if he didn't actually shoot anyone,
Speaker 1: should he face legal injection. Here's George Wagner's defense team.
Speaker 1: What is really important here is that the court talks
Speaker 1: about a basic premise of our criminal justice system is
Speaker 1: as follows. Our law punishes people for what they do
Speaker 1: and not who they are. And why is it important
Speaker 1: in this case. The reason it's important in this case
Speaker 1: is that the court is aware the state is arguing
Speaker 1: that George is part of a conspiracy and a criminal
Speaker 1: enterprise and participate in the aggravated murders and the other
Speaker 1: twenty two counts. And a large part of the state's argument,
Speaker 1: we anticipate, is he's a Wagner and this is how
Speaker 1: the Wagners operate. Now, there certainly is a conspiracy charge,
Speaker 1: we understand that, and there's specific law with respect to conspiracy,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't necessarily apply to everything. So we think
Speaker 1: it's important that the court keep this basic premise of
Speaker 1: our justice system in mind and at the appropriate time
Speaker 1: and struct the jury concerning that. And the event of
Speaker 1: a guilty verdict for George Wagner, there's the possibility that
Speaker 1: the death penalty will still be on the table. Here's
Speaker 1: a plan again, and Judge Klocker to breakdown on what
Speaker 1: happens next. And I gotta be careful with what I say,
Speaker 1: because you're supposed to treat the guy who breaks a
Speaker 1: window and goes into drug store the same as you
Speaker 1: do a des penalty person. But the practicality of it
Speaker 1: is that you know you're dealing with the most serious
Speaker 1: of cases. You know you have to do everything you
Speaker 1: can to try to get it right because there's a
Speaker 1: life on the line, and at least for some of us,
Speaker 1: life is very very, very very important. At this point,
Speaker 1: we would say there would be two phases, and so
Speaker 1: the first phase is the liability or trying to determine
Speaker 1: did the state in fact prove that he was a
Speaker 1: complicitor in these homicides as to George the fourth And
Speaker 1: then the second phase would be a weighing process for
Speaker 1: the jury. It's called a mitigation hearing. It is unique
Speaker 1: and that this is the one time where you have
Speaker 1: jurors essentially participate in the decisions. Typically, for all other crimes,
Speaker 1: the judge will make the decision on sentencing within the
Speaker 1: guidelines of our legislature. However, in the capital case, the
Speaker 1: jury will be part of a weighing process. They are
Speaker 1: still not sentencing, but they are going to give a
Speaker 1: recommendation to the judge, should he have an opportunity at parole,
Speaker 1: should he have the highest number of years before that
Speaker 1: opportunity at parole comes up. Should he have no chance
Speaker 1: at parole just a life sentence, or should be in
Speaker 1: fact be exposed to execution the definitely. Ultimately, the jury
Speaker 1: can be swapped for a three judge panel, the defending
Speaker 1: can elect to have a three judge panel. Then the
Speaker 1: three judge panel tries the case. Okay, they render a
Speaker 1: verdict this whether or not the person is guilty or not,
Speaker 1: and then they sentence okay, which you know can be
Speaker 1: the death penalty, can be life without parole, life after
Speaker 1: twenty or thirty or whatever. The judges can do that,
Speaker 1: but most times the jury trial, So the trial is
Speaker 1: conducted in front of the jury because obviously you don't
Speaker 1: get to the death penalty phase until you make a
Speaker 1: determination that the guy's guilty of what he's charged with.
Speaker 1: And for example, I mean he's charged with aggravated murder
Speaker 1: with what they call death specs. There are further hearings
Speaker 1: to be had before the defendant's fade is sealed. Eventually
Speaker 1: the case may head to the highest court in the
Speaker 1: state of Ohio. But if the jury does go ahead
Speaker 1: and signs off and makes the recommendation that they believe
Speaker 1: the death penalty is appropriate. Then it goes to the
Speaker 1: judge to make a decision. The judge has another hearing
Speaker 1: with the defendant participating, counsel participating. You know, a lot
Speaker 1: of different things go into it. Then the judge makes
Speaker 1: a decision. If the judge says the death penalty is
Speaker 1: warranted in the case, then the judge signs off on that.
Speaker 1: The next step then is to go to the Ohio
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, and then the Ohio Supreme Court reviews the
Speaker 1: whole record, reviews everything they can review about the case.
Speaker 1: Whatever defense counsel brings up is something that they believe
Speaker 1: should be a reason to throw out the death penalty,
Speaker 1: or throughout the conviction, or throughout the whole case. At
Speaker 1: every phase, the onus is always on the honorable person
Speaker 1: on the bench to rule as fairly as possible. I
Speaker 1: think you truly, truly, truly have to want to be
Speaker 1: fair and treat everybody fairly. You truly have to seek justice.
Speaker 1: Everybody's got a different definition of justice. I understand that.
Speaker 1: But for me, you want to be able to walk
Speaker 1: off that bench and say to yourself, I did the
Speaker 1: best I could. I try to be fair to everybody.
Speaker 1: When I think about a really good judge, I think
Speaker 1: about somebody who is willing to put in the time
Speaker 1: to read everything there is to read, maybe most importantly,
Speaker 1: to listen to everything that's being presented. And I think
Speaker 1: probably paramount is to keep an open mind until the
Speaker 1: end of the case. Now that's a hard thing to
Speaker 1: do because everybody brings to the bench their own personal experiences.
Speaker 1: But it is just critically important that you don't come
Speaker 1: in there with your mind made up. You do a
Speaker 1: disservice to your oath if you do that. But an
Speaker 1: excellent judge needs a jury capable of looking at the
Speaker 1: case squarely. I think it's real important. And I've told
Speaker 1: over the years a number of attorneys that we're not
Speaker 1: here trying to get twelve people that are going to
Speaker 1: go for you, And we're not here for the other
Speaker 1: side of getting twelve people. You guys are supposed to
Speaker 1: be working to get a fair and impartial jury. That's
Speaker 1: your job. Now, that's easy for me to say. For
Speaker 1: the prosecution, for example, all it takes is one person.
Speaker 1: They've got one person that you know is well. I
Speaker 1: really don't like the death penalty. I don't think it's
Speaker 1: a good thing. I really don't want to do it.
Speaker 1: I mean that sounds like kind of a weak juror
Speaker 1: for the prosecution. I think you'd agree. Okay, so they
Speaker 1: maybe have to use a peremptory to get rid of
Speaker 1: that person. Let's stop here for another break. As Judge
Speaker 1: Hendon points out, the whole legal procedure, while carefully architected
Speaker 1: to bring justice and closure to families, can do nothing
Speaker 1: to restore what's been lost. If there is a tragedy
Speaker 1: greater than the tragedy that unfolded in this case, it
Speaker 1: has to be the fact that this child is now
Speaker 1: without a mother and a father in a set of
Speaker 1: circumstances that someday she'll be old enough to understand it's
Speaker 1: tragic beyond description. Reflecting on her time as prosecutor, and
Speaker 1: Flannagan comments on the distinct feeling of loss in the courtroom,
Speaker 1: that's one of the things I don't miss. And I
Speaker 1: didn't know how much I didn't miss until I started
Speaker 1: reviewing all of this, and I thought, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: it just springs back so much and how hard the
Speaker 1: attorneys for both sides are to bring fair justice to
Speaker 1: their sides. But because they're good advocates and they do care.
Speaker 1: I think it's just a tremendously intense experience and one
Speaker 1: can only imagine how it comes across to the families
Speaker 1: who are sitting there on the personal side of appearing
Speaker 1: about the loss of someone and not really interested in
Speaker 1: the technology behind shoeprints, who are blood spatter or this
Speaker 1: or that. They just start feeling that someone they loved
Speaker 1: just gone. More on that next time. If you're enjoying
Speaker 1: The Pikes and Massacre, listen to our other hit series,
Speaker 1: Crazy and Love. New episodes there every Tuesday. Wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts. For more information and case photos, follow
Speaker 1: us on Instagram at Katie Underscore Studios. The Pikes and
Speaker 1: Massacre is produced by Stephanie Lydeger, Jeff Shane, Chris Graves,
Speaker 1: Alan Wader, and me Courtney Armstrong. Editing and sound designed
Speaker 1: by Jeff Tis. Music by Jared Aston. The Piked and
Speaker 1: Massacre is a production of Katie Studios and iHeartRadio. For
Speaker 1: more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.