Filed in Warren County Common Pleas Court on: 0811912019 12:39 PM

STATE OF OHIO, WARREN COUNTY
COMMON PLEAS COURT
CRIMINAL DIVISION

STATE OF OHIO,
Plaintiff, CASE NO. 17CR33 292

V. (JUDGE ODA)

BROOKE SKYLAR RICHARDSON
. ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING
Defendant MOTION TO RELEASE GRAND
JURY TESTIMONY FOR IN
CAMERA REVIEW AND MOTION
TO DISMISS INDICTMENT

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Release Grand Jury Testimony for In
Camera Review and Motion to Dismiss Indictment. The State has opposed the motion.

A defendant may raise by motion any defense, objection, evidentiary issue or request
that is capable of determination without the trial on the general issue, including a
defense and/ or objection based on the institution of the prosecution. Crim.R. 
However, these motions must be made in a timely manner. Crim.R. requires these
motions be made within thirty-five days from the date of the arraignment, or seven days
before trial, whichever is earlier. The arraignment in this matter was on August 7, 2017.

The Defendant provides no explanation in her motion why she has waited until less than
six weeks before trial to present this pretrial motion particularly in light of the fact
that this is the second time the matter has been set for trial. The Court ?nds the Motion
to Dismiss is untimely and is hereby DENIED.

Even assuming the Court were to consider the motion as timely ?led, the Court finds
that it is not well-taken. In Holt v. United States, 218 US. 245, the United States
Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether an indictment should be quashed
because it was supported, in part, by incompetent evidence. The court refused to hold
that such an indictment should be quashed, stating:

If indictments were to be held open to challenge on the ground that there was
inadequate or incompetent evidence before the grand jury, the resulting delay
would be great indeed. The result of such a rule would be that before trial on the
merits a defendant could always insist on a kind of preliminary trial to determine
the competency and adequacy of the evidence before the grand jury. This is not
required by the Fifth Amendment. An indictment returned by a legally

Filed in Warren County Common Pleas Court on: 0811912019 12:39 PM

constituted and unbiased grand jury, like an information drawn by the
prosecutor, if valid on its face, is enough to call for trial of the charge on the
merits.

See also State v. Davis (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 361, 528 925.

The Court is not going to extrapolate from emails exchanged between these experts that
Dr. Murray is recanting her prior opinion. Even assuming this were the case, the
Defendant does not allege that the prosecuting attorney intentionally presented false
information to the grand jury. At best, the evidence in support of the motion shows that
the expert?s opinion may have shifted based on subsequent review. This is not suf?cient
to revisit the indictment, nor to release the grand jury testimony.

The Motion to Release Grand Jury Testimony for In Camera Review is DENIED.
The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

7,47%!

Donald E. Oda Judge
Warren County Common Pleas Court

 

C: Charles M. Rittgers, Esq.
Charles H. Rittgers, Esq.
Steve Knippen, Asst. Prosecutor
Julie Kraft, Asst. Prosecutor