May 15, 2015 at 4:56 p.m.
Wolf homicide trial to remain in Rhinelander
Wolf homicide trial to remain in Rhinelander
Branch II Judge Michael Bloom on Friday did not rule for or against the motion brought by Maggie Hogan, public defender for Wolf, who is charged in connection with the June 2003 death of Kenneth Wells. Instead, Bloom opted to allow the matter to move forward and gauge during jury selection whether the potential jury pool has been "tainted" by news coverage.
Hogan filed the motion on March 13 after a local television station aired a portion of a video reenactment of the killing featuring Latoya Wolf, a co-defendant in the case and Shannon Wolf's primary accuser. In filing the motion, Hogan said the video, which was aired a total of five times between March 10 and 11, would cause prejudice against her client. She claimed that prejudice will make it difficult to seat a jury of area residents who have not formed an opinion on the case.
At Friday's hearing, Oneida County District Attorney Michael Schiek once again argued that coverage of the proceedings against both Wolfs, both of whom are charged with first-degree intentional homicide (as a party to a crime), has not been inflammatory.
"I don't know if the traditional media has inflamed anything that has been reported, and I certainly have no control over what they show on the news, how they decide to write it and report it," Schiek said.
As for social media, as he did during an earlier motion hearing, he likened that to "the old coffee shop gossip talk around town" from the days before computers. Although social media allows people to converse, share opinions, and even debate "facts" in a case such as this, he said that isn't any different than what has gone on as long as Rhinelander has existed.
"It is another way for people to talk," he said.
Bloom said that the situation in this case is that Wolf is charged with one of the most serious crimes possible in Wisconsin, one that carries a potential sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.
"The underlying allegation is that he struck the alleged victim, Mr. Wells, on the head with a rock. And, to some extent, with the participation of his ex-wife, Latoya Wolf, placed his head in a bag, some rope was used, and Mr. Wells' body was placed in the Wisconsin River, and was subsequently found deceased," Bloom said. "The nature of the accusation against Mr. Wolf is of a relatively brutal act, in and of itself."
Bloom said there is a difference between the objective recitation of facts and the conveying of information or other material that inflames "or otherwise sensationalizes or editorializes" the facts of the case.
"Prejudice is where the circumstances create a reasonable likelihood or probability that the fact finder - the jury - will make a decision based on the wrong reasons, rather than finding what the facts are based on the available evidence," Bloom said.
The judge said some of the websites Hogan cited in her motion simply contain links to the criminal complaint in the case or to news coverage by area television stations and newspapers. He added he wasn't able to access all of the websites Hogan had listed. The motion included screen shots of a "conversation" on one of the websites that involved "commentary" by citizens "who on the face of things connected to the (alleged) victim in this case" expressing their views.
"But the bulk of the website information suggests that is not the type of information that is available to the general public," Bloom said. "In other words, the entire pool of potential jurors in Oneida County, in the same respect as the news coverage, broadcasts by Channel 12 or news articles published in one of the local newspapers, such as The Northwoods River News or The Lakeland Times or The News Review in Three Lakes which is a newspaper that is commonly read by the general public."
Bloom said social media presents a more complex problem than the example Schiek cited.
"However, it is not a type of publicity that permeates the jury pool as a whole, in the same manner as a broadcast on a local television station, such as Channel 12 or Channel 7 or Channel 9, nor in one of the local newspapers published here in Oneida County," he added.
He also said many news outlets allow readers and viewers to post comments on stories on their websites.
"And any news story, on almost any topic, will draw commentary from citizens," Bloom said. "And sometimes, it is of an inflammatory nature, but individual citizen commentary on a particular topic is of a different sort than news coverage that is put out by television stations or a newspaper. And the record in this case, in my judgment, does not make the individual comments by citizens online, the record does not establish that form of 'publicity' in this case is a significant factor relative to the entire jury pool."
Bloom said that concentrating on the coverage of Channel 12, which was the primary focus of Hogan's motion, had to be judged against what has been spelled out in various Court of Appeals and Supreme Court rulings on change of venue. In every case Bloom cited, pre-trial publicity was found not to be a cause for a change of venue.
"An informed jury is not necessarily a prejudicial one," he quoted from one ruling.
On the matter of Wolf's prior criminal history, Bloom said rulings have also come down stating that reporting on that is not grounds for a change of venue, neither is the length of time between when a crime was committed and when the prosecution began.
He said the media coverage of this case has not been "editorializing or rabble-rousing," but has stuck to the facts.
Bloom also read from a portion of the Mark Twain book "Roughing It" that focused on jury selection, and how well-to-do people who had talked about the case were excused from a jury in a murder case while uneducated, poor people were selected.
"It was a jury of two desperadoes, two low beer house politicians, three barkeepers, two ranchmen who could not read and three dull, stupid human donkeys," Bloom quoted from the passage. "One could say that some of Mr. Twain's language was designed to inflame, or at least provoke. But the point that is made is, and it is consistent with the idea that the collective wisdom of 12 citizens is a more effective mechanism for getting at the truth than the opinion of a single judge or the impressions of attorneys. It is based on the fact that citizens will come to the table in good faith and serve in good faith as jurors."
He said while Twain's reference to social-economic status is not something that should be taken into consideration when seating a jury, the rest of his words are very apt.
"Despite the violent nature of the homicide that Mr. Wolf is accused to have committed, the reporting up to this point has been an objective recitation of the facts," Bloom said. "The video recording that was played at the preliminary hearing, and portions of which have been broadcast by Channel 12, depict a witness describing what happened in this case. Any juror who serves on the jury, will doubtlessly see the same video recording. The simple display of that evidence does not editorialize or rabble-rouse or inflame, in my judgment."
Bloom also ruled that Schiek has not played a part in the coverage of the case.
Due to all these factors, he said he believes a jury will not come to a decision "for the wrong reasons."
He then announced he would not formally rule on the motion, but would take it under advisement. This allows Hogan the opportunity to revisit the matter during jury selection if she becomes reasonably certain that the coverage has made it impossible to find 12 people who have not formed an opinion in the case due to the news coverage.
Earlier this week, Hogan filed additional motions in the case. Bloom set a June 10 date for a hearing those motions. At the suggestion of Schiek, Bloom also indicated the parties should attempt to schedule the trial during the June hearing.
Jamie Taylor may be reached at [email protected].
Comments:
You must login to comment.