The Adobe Flash Player is required to view this multimedia interactive. Get it here.

2nd juror in Widmer bathtub murder case influenced by ‘experiments’

Goodcents opens in West Chester Twp.
2/12/12
'Powerball' numbers from $325M jackpot
2/12/12
Hamilton grad featured in racial legacies series
2/12/12
Education strong determinant with work success
2/12/12
Middletown Y director called ‘very solid leader’
2/11/12
> More headlines

Samantha Grier/Ryan Widmer is led out of the courtroom after being convicted in the murder of his wife on April 2, 2009.

Staff photo by Samantha Grier Samantha Grier/Ryan Widmer is led out of the courtroom after being convicted in the murder of his wife on April 2, 2009.

By Denise G. Callahan, Staff Writer Updated 7:01 PM Monday, June 22, 2009

Convicted bathtub killer Ryan Widmer’s quest for a new trial continues with two jurors now saying drying “experiments” influenced their decisions.

Defense attorney Charlie Rittgers filed documents on Monday, June 22, asking Warren County Judge Neal Bronson to conclude the protracted proceedings in the case and grant Widmer a new trial in the death of his wife Sarah.

Rittgers’ filings could be the last in the flurry motions that has weighed down the case since the jury, after deliberating 22 hours, returned a guilty verdict on April 2 in the death of the Edgewood High School graduate.

“According to custom and practice, and a defendant’s right to have the final word on his own motion,” Rittgers wrote. “Any further pleadings on this matter should not be accepted by this court.”

Rittgers added, however, if Bronson allows the prosecutors to respond, he needs another opportunity as well. Warren County Prosecutor Rachel Hutzel’s office on Monday had no comment.

Rittgers response included a new affidavit from juror Jon Campbell that states that other jurors’ experiments into how long it takes one to dry after bathing, influenced his decision. Out of the nine jurors who have sworn out affidavits, now there are two who said the experiments mattered to them.

Rittgers maintains Widmer’s right to a fair trial was denied him, because Rittgers couldn’t cross examine the experimenters.

Although he said he believes Widmer is guilty, Campbell wrote “These experiments that I have discussed affected my decision and impacted my decision to vote guilty.”

The crux of the nine-day trial — where Widmer was found guilty of killing his wife in the bathtub of their Hamilton Twp. home in August — was that the drowning scene was virtually dry.

Campbell was the juror who came forward after the trial to alert Rittgers to the “experiments” jurors performed at home during the deliberations.

Based on Campbell’s revelation, and an interview this publication conducted with another juror, Rittgers asked Bronson to either acquit his client or grant a new trial.

Bronson denied the defense’s request for an acquittal, but said he would consider sworn juror statements from the defense and prosecution as he ponders whether Widmer deserves a new trial.

Bronson has not set a date for his decision.

Unlike Rittgers’ juror affidavits, the juror affidavits the prosecution secured denied that the so-called experimenting jurors swayed them at all. Hutzel maintains the jurors weren’t experimenting, they were merely discussing personal experiences.

Stephanie Sackman is the other juror who said the experiments influenced her, according to an affidavit Rittgers filed earlier in the case. Rittgers asked Bronson to disregard the other juror affidavits, because according to him only Sackman’s counts.

“The state’s response is more remarkable for what it does not say than what it says,” he wrote. “First and most notably the state fails to contest — or even challenge — the affidavit submitted by a juror who testified that the results of the experiments and the discussion surrounding them influenced her decision to vote guilty... At least two jurors’ votes were influenced by the improper experiments. The state’s protests about ‘harmless error’ ring hollow against that backdrop.”

Share this article