Change of venue sought for Coonrod
Lead Summary
By
Brandy Chandler-brandychandler@gmail.com
The defense attorneys of a Greenfield man facing capital murder charges in the deaths of his two sons have filed a motion for a change of venue, as Highland County has been so "saturated with the facts underlying this case."
William J. Mooney and Jerry L. McHenry, of the Ohio Public Defender's Office, filed a motion on behalf of Wesley Coonrod in Highland County Common Pleas Court on April 23 that "respectfully requests that this court order a change of venue for this case in order to ensure that Mr. Coonrod receives a fair trial before a jury untainted by pre-trial publicity."
The court has scheduled a hearing on this, and 31 other motions filed by the defense, to be heard May 3. The state, represented by the Highland County Prosecutor's Office, has until May 7 to file a response, according to court documents.
The motion for a change of venue states that Coonrod's "indictment and arraignment have been the subject of extensive media coverage, both in television and print journalism," and specifies only The Highland County Press' print edition and website as an example of newspaper coverage, though numerous examples of other media outlets are submitted as supporting documents.
"These news stories include suggestive details that will prevent a local jury from being unbiased," according to the motion. "For example, Cincinnati's Channel 12 reported on its website, 'the prosecutor believes Coonrod intentionally set the fire last month.' A story in the Highland County Press included the detail that Mr. Coonrod was alleged to be 'extremely intoxicated' at the time of the fire. Other news stories included interviews with the mother and multiple pictures of the children - both are which was intended to inflame (sic) local sentiment against Mr. Coonrod. Additionally, many of these websites allow for comments from the community. These posted comments reflect the already biased attitude of local citizens against Mr. Coonrod. Comments in response to a Cincinnati news story included the opinion that Mr. Coonrod must be guilty and surely started the fire.
"As the media has (sic) reported on this case from Columbus to Cincinnati, Mr. Coonrod respectfully requests that the venue be changed to a court that is outside of the area where media has (sic) reported on his case," according to the motion. "This county has been so saturated with the facts underlying this case that it is impossible for defendant to receive a fair trial before a jury. Only a trial in another county will allow for the empanelling of a jury composed of impartial persons who learn of the case though the evidence properly admitted during trial. Therefore, this court should grant a change of venue."
During Coonrod's arraignment hearing on April 9, Highland County Common Pleas Court Judge Rocky Coss announced that he was putting on an entry limiting comments to media by trial participants.
"If the court does not grant this motion on the basis of the arguments advanced herein and the supporting documents submitted," according to the defense's motion, "defendant respectfully requests this court hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion so that defendant may adduce evidence that would detail matters relevant to the full and fair adjudication of this motion."[[In-content Ad]]
William J. Mooney and Jerry L. McHenry, of the Ohio Public Defender's Office, filed a motion on behalf of Wesley Coonrod in Highland County Common Pleas Court on April 23 that "respectfully requests that this court order a change of venue for this case in order to ensure that Mr. Coonrod receives a fair trial before a jury untainted by pre-trial publicity."
The court has scheduled a hearing on this, and 31 other motions filed by the defense, to be heard May 3. The state, represented by the Highland County Prosecutor's Office, has until May 7 to file a response, according to court documents.
The motion for a change of venue states that Coonrod's "indictment and arraignment have been the subject of extensive media coverage, both in television and print journalism," and specifies only The Highland County Press' print edition and website as an example of newspaper coverage, though numerous examples of other media outlets are submitted as supporting documents.
"These news stories include suggestive details that will prevent a local jury from being unbiased," according to the motion. "For example, Cincinnati's Channel 12 reported on its website, 'the prosecutor believes Coonrod intentionally set the fire last month.' A story in the Highland County Press included the detail that Mr. Coonrod was alleged to be 'extremely intoxicated' at the time of the fire. Other news stories included interviews with the mother and multiple pictures of the children - both are which was intended to inflame (sic) local sentiment against Mr. Coonrod. Additionally, many of these websites allow for comments from the community. These posted comments reflect the already biased attitude of local citizens against Mr. Coonrod. Comments in response to a Cincinnati news story included the opinion that Mr. Coonrod must be guilty and surely started the fire.
"As the media has (sic) reported on this case from Columbus to Cincinnati, Mr. Coonrod respectfully requests that the venue be changed to a court that is outside of the area where media has (sic) reported on his case," according to the motion. "This county has been so saturated with the facts underlying this case that it is impossible for defendant to receive a fair trial before a jury. Only a trial in another county will allow for the empanelling of a jury composed of impartial persons who learn of the case though the evidence properly admitted during trial. Therefore, this court should grant a change of venue."
During Coonrod's arraignment hearing on April 9, Highland County Common Pleas Court Judge Rocky Coss announced that he was putting on an entry limiting comments to media by trial participants.
"If the court does not grant this motion on the basis of the arguments advanced herein and the supporting documents submitted," according to the defense's motion, "defendant respectfully requests this court hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion so that defendant may adduce evidence that would detail matters relevant to the full and fair adjudication of this motion."[[In-content Ad]]