Ohio Supreme Court declines to hear Ryan Widmer's appeal for a fourth trial

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The Ohio Supreme Court has refused to hear Ryan Widmer's bid for a fourth trial in the 2008 bathtub drowning of his wife.

The state's highest court Wednesday stated it declines jurisdiction in Widmer's appeal of last year's ruling by the state's 12th District Court of Appeals.

Widmer's attorneys contend that police improperly removed the couple's bathtub from their home as evidence. Prosecutors responded that the argument had no legal merit.

The 12th District appeals court in January rejected a separate appeal focused on a detective's alleged misconduct and lack of testing of Sarah Widmer's remains for a possible genetic disorder.

Widmer is serving 15 years to life for a 2011 murder conviction.

Ryan Widmer's attorney, Michele Berry, said she will be filing another brief with the Ohio Supreme Court next week, asking the court to review the issues in Widmer's 2012 appeal about one of Widmer's investigators,  former Lt. Jeff Braley, and his falsified credentials. She released the following statement about the decision:

"I will be filing another brief to the Ohio Supreme Court next week, asking the court to review the issues in Widmer's 2012 appeal (regarding genetic testing and the undisclosed information about former Lt. Jeff Braley's falsified credentials). Also, in light of the Ohio Supreme Court declining jurisdiction in the 2011 appeal today, I'll be filing a federal Habeas petition to have the federal courts review the issues raised in the 2011 appeal which include the illegal seizure of the bathtub from the Widmer home and the use of unreliable junk science to allegedly identify a male forearm mark in the bathtub. I don't see the Ohio Supreme Court's decision to decline jurisdiction in the 2011 case as a set back whatsoever, just an opportunity to move forward to the federal courts sooner. Ryan's case involves Constitutional violations that warrant reversal of his conviction, and we look forward to the federal courts' review. This is a step we've been anxious to reach for a while."

Print this article Back to Top

Comments

or Subscribe now so you can share your opinion! It’s only a penny for a month trial.