WEST CHESTER, Ohio — The Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in the appeal of a West Chester man sentenced to death for killing four members of his family, with defense attorneys arguing Gurpreet Singh's convictions should be overturned because he did not receive a fair trial.
Singh was sentenced to death in May 2024 after a three-judge panel convicted him of murdering his wife, his father-in-law, his mother-in-law and his wife's aunt inside the family's West Chester apartment in April 2019.
Singh's first trial in 2022 ended in a mistrial after jurors could not reach a unanimous verdict.
Under Ohio law, every person sentenced to death receives an automatic direct appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. The mandatory review sends the case directly to the state's highest court, where justices independently examine the trial record and reweigh the evidence to determine whether the conviction and death sentence should stand.
During nearly an hour of arguments Tuesday, the court questioned Kathryn Sandford, who represents Singh through the state's public defender's office, on several of the 24 legal issues raised in Singh's appeal, focusing primarily on his decision to waive a jury trial, the admission of firearm evidence and claims that his trial attorneys were ineffective.
Sandford argued Singh's attorneys made a critical mistake by advising him to waive a jury after his first trial ended in a hung jury.
WATCH: Will Gurpreet Singh stay on death row? Ohio Supreme Court weighs appeal
"There was a jury on this case, and the jury was not unanimous for a conviction," Sandford said.
Sandford argued that because only one juror is needed to prevent either a conviction or a death sentence, abandoning a jury after the first trial made little strategic sense.
"There was one holdout at the first jury," Sandford said. "A hung jury was certainly better than three-to-one with the three-judge panel."
She also argued Singh's waiver was not knowing and voluntary because English is not his first language and the written waiver did not specifically explain that it applied to both the guilt and sentencing phases of the capital trial. Sandford noted Singh used an interpreter throughout the case and argued his attorneys should have used one when discussing the jury waiver.
Another key issue involved a Beretta handgun found in Singh's bedroom. Defense attorneys contend the legally owned firearm was unrelated to the murders — which prosecutors say were committed with a different 9 mm pistol later recovered from a pond behind the apartment — and should never have been admitted into evidence.
A justice pushed back on Sandford's argument, noting that the defense first mentioned the gun during opening statements.
"They did, but opening statements are not evidence," Sandford said, arguing introducing the firearm unfairly suggested Singh had access to weapons and prejudiced the judges against him.
But Butler County Assistant Prosecutor Willa Concannon urged the court to uphold the convictions, arguing the defense itself made the handgun relevant.
"Defense counsel stood up in opening and claimed that the Beretta was evidence of this defendant's innocence," Concannon told the court. "Once counsel expressly stated that the Beretta was evidence of innocence, the state had the right to respond with relevant rebuttal evidence."
Concannon argued the firearm was introduced for a limited purpose — to rebut Singh's claim that he came home after the killings and discovered the victims.
"The state contended that an innocent, law-abiding person would have retrieved this readily operable, lawfully possessed firearm to protect himself and his children," she said.
Several justices also questioned both sides about whether Singh knowingly waived his constitutional right to a jury trial before his retrial.
Concannon argued Ohio law requires only that a jury waiver be in writing, signed, filed with the court and made in open court after consultation with counsel — requirements she said were clearly met.
"The defendant's written waiver here easily satisfied the requirements that this court has mandated for a valid capital jury waiver," Concannon said. "There's nothing in this record that suggests he didn't understand the waiver through the interpreter."
The prosecutor repeatedly emphasized what she described as overwhelming evidence against Singh, including GPS and cellphone location data placing him inside the apartment during the shootings, blood evidence, gunshot residue on both of his hands, witness testimony and what she characterized as repeated lies to investigators.
"This defendant was in this apartment at the time of the shootings," Concannon said. "He was the only one that exited that apartment alive."
At the conclusion of Tuesday's hearing, Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy announced the court would take the case under advisement.
A written decision is expected later this year.
This story was reported on-air by a journalist and has been converted to this platform with the assistance of AI. Our editorial team verifies all reporting on all platforms for fairness and accuracy.
