The state official argues against a new trial for the convicted murderer of Rowan Sweeney | News, sports, jobs

Jungown-a assistant of the Ohio Attorney General presented an answer on Wednesday to the appeal presented by Brandon Crump Jr., 22, of his sentences and sentence in the murder of 2020 by Rowan Sweeney, 4, and the shootings of four adults in Struthers.

Deputy Attorney General Drew Wood first played the statement of Crump’s lawyer Rhys Cartwright-Jones that the common court judge of the County County, Anthony D’Amolito, erred by allowing more than 100 “frightening and repetitive photographs” to be shown to the jury, which Cartwright-Jones claimed the jury against the jury against the jury.

First, the registration does not show that CRump’s litigating lawyer, Lou Defabio, opposed more than three of the photographs that were introduced, according to Wood’s presentation. As a result, the use of photos can only be denied in “exceptional circumstances and only to avoid a spontaneous abortion of justice,” Drew said.

Cartwright-Jones requested the 7th District Court of Appeals to reverse the CRump’s convictions, to eliminate the CRump sentence and order its case to the common court for a new trial, stating that Crump’s argument on the photos should be reviewed under the standard of capital murder cases, despite the fact that Crump did not face the death penalty.

The case of CRump involved “the most serious crimes”, and Crump was 17, a minor, at the time of crimes, “a fact that requires greater caution to guarantee equity and avoid improper prejudice,” Cartwright-Jones argued in his previous report.

However, Woods argued that Ohio’s Supreme Court “established a brilliant line rule with respect to frightful photographs: capital cases receive a high review standard, while non -capital cases” do not. “The question is whether the danger of unfair prejudice substantially overcome the value (evidence) of photographs,” Wood said.

There were probative reasons why the child’s photographs were still in Struthers’s house after the homicide was relevant, Woods said. One was that the technician of the crime scene could show the “length at which it was to make sure the scene was documented,” says the presentation.

Because this was not a capital case, D’Apolito weighed correctly only if the probative value of the photos exceeded the danger of unfair prejudice towards the roll, Woods said.

Crump was convicted in the trial of aggravated murder and other crimes for killing Rowan, and stealing and trying to kill the four adults shooting them during a robbery. Crump was sentenced to 52 years of life imprisonment in July.

Two coacked, Kimonie Bryant, 28, and Andre McCoy, 24, made guilt agreements and were sentenced to more short sentences of life imprisonment than CRump. McCoy, Rowan’s mother, Alexis Schneider and Cassandra Marsicola testified at the Crump trial. The three were shot inside Struthers’s house, but survived. A fourth shot victim, Yarnell Green, Schneider’s boyfriend, was shot dead outside a bar from the center of Youngstown in September 2002.

Cartwright-Jones also argued that Crump’s conviction for conspiracy was a mistake because the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove the participation of CRump, including not demonstrating that CRump committed a “manifest act” of conspiracy.

Woods replied that although there was no direct evidence that Crump conspired with Bryant or McCoy, there was wide circumstantial evidence. The location data of the cell phones presented in the test showed the movements of Crump and Bryant cell phones just before the shootings, at the time of the shootings and just after the shootings, says the presentation of the forest.

The data showed the two phones in “proximity” with each other, which means that the two were together, so there were no telephone conversations between Crump and Bryant near the time of the shootings, Woods argued. On the contrary, text messages show that McCoy and Bryant sent text messages just before the shootings to facilitate theft.

“Bryant received (a) Communication of ‘Go ahead’ and transmitted it to (CRump), and (CRump) began theft for himself,” Woods argued. “These constitute the substantial open act alleged in the accusation” for complicity, one of Bryant’s convictions, argues the presentation of Woods.

Woods also responded to several other alleged mistakes made in the case of CRump, such as the judge that allows evidence to be presented at the trial on the covers of the bullet shell recovered in a house in Ravenwood Avenue in Youngstown that prosecutors linked to CRump. He also responded to Crump’s accusation that his sentences are “against the manifest weight of evidence” due to a testimony of poorly reliable witnesses. Another was that the judge did not adequately considered the attenuating factors presented with respect to CRump’s education before sentencing him.

Ohio’s office is processing the appeal in the case of CRump because Mahoning County prosecutor Lynn Maro, and the prosecutor John Juhasz formed Bryant’s defense team. That took place before Maro assumed the position on January 6 when the County and Juhasz prosecutor was hired by Maro to work at the County Prosecutor’s office.

It was “ethically appropriate” for them notifying a conflict of interest in the appeal of CRump due to the information they learned while representing Bryant, said his presentation.