Four people are dead in two separate accidents in Central Ohio. In Pataskala, investigators say a head-on collision on East Broad took three lives. One vehicle crossed the center line. Early this morning, the driver of a pick-up truck was killed when he slammed into a tree in a residential area south of Route 104 [...]
Supreme Court Considers Sixth Trial For Same Murder
Listen to the Story
The state of Ohioâ€™s attorneys ran into a tough audience Tuesday before the Ohio Supreme Court: They argued that an Austintown man should be tried for the sixth time for the same murder.
Christopher Anderson was locked up on Aug. 22, 2002, charged with strangling Amber Zurcher to death. Since then, heâ€™s been put on trial five times. Twice, the case ended in mistrials, twice in hung juries and once, his conviction was overturned on appeal.
When the state set a sixth trial date in 2011, Anderson asked the judge to throw the case out, saying the state is unconstitutionally trying him again and again on the same charges.
The judge refused, and Anderson appealed.
The arguments before the Ohio Supreme Court now hinge on two points: Whether a sixth trial is fair and constitutional, and whether the appeals judges should even be considering the case in the first place.
Ralph Rivera, representing the state, focused on the second argument. He told the justices that â€“ based on state law â€“ Anderson has no right to appeal until after he goes all the way through a sixth trial.
Rivera ran into a skeptic in, among others, Justice William Oâ€™Neill.
â€œIt just seems to me youâ€™re asking this court to authorize the state of Ohio to say, â€˜Trust us, we wonâ€™t do this unnecessarily and it can be cleaned up in the appellate process,â€™â€ said the judge.
â€œBut the reality is, you canâ€™t give this person that time back, can you?
Rivera acknowledged, â€œNo, in that sense you canâ€™t give him the time back.â€ but then he said those concerns are based on believing Andersonâ€™s â€œarguments are meritorious at the end.â€
Rivera maintained that only after a trial can Anderson argue there should not have been a trial, and that he might not win that argument.
Andersonâ€™s attorney John Juhasz says that strains constitutional protections of due process and against double jeopardy.
â€œFive times already, Christopher Anderson has suffered the anxiety, the expense, the personal strain of risking a conviction for an offence for which he says heâ€™s innocent,â€ said Juhasz.
Then his own skeptic, Chief Justice Maureen Oâ€™Connor interrupted.
â€œBut these trials were legitimately declared not to be trials because of the nature of the outcome. A hung jury, a reversal by the court of appeals with a remand for a retrial. These were all trials that were legitimately disposed of and in none of the trials was there an acquittal.â€
Several times, the justices returned to the question of how many trials is enough.
Juhasz attempted to answer, by saying itâ€™s more than one, but less than what his client is facing.
He noted that Anderson has been in jail or prison for more than 11 years.