Last week, after 31 hours of deliberations and 12 days of testimony, the jury of seven women and five men told the judge they could not make a decision in the trial. It was the second trial for Widmer. He was convicted in his first trial of drowning his wife Sarah Widmer in the bathtub of their home. That verdict was overturned after jury misconduct was found.
Bronson has been asked several times — as is normal in any criminal trial — to find that the prosecution’s evidence isn’t sufficient to warrant a guilty verdict. Last year after the first trial, former defense counsel Charlie Rittgers in a motion for acquittal or a new trial, cited no signs of a struggle, no defensive wounds, a perfect French manicure on Sarah Widmer and no damage to walls or cabinets or sloshed water that would ensue from a struggle.
In his order denying the motion, Bronson said in part, “The court is charged with assessing the evidence in a light most favorable to the state. A jury is charged with assessing the evidence and is free to believe or disbelieve all or any part of the testimony of witnesses. Thus, the court must assess the reasonable inferences and contentions of the state, not possible rebuttals to them.”
There is a chance Bronson might acquit Widmer, but most legal experts say that is a long shot. Former Widmer defense attorney Rob Dziech said he believes the jurors in the second trial improperly held the defense responsible to prove their client innocent.
Jury members are given instructions at the beginning of every murder trial that state it is their duty to decide whether the state has proved a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s not up to the defense.
One juror, a former paramedic who asked to remain anonymous, said last week that while the jury did not take an official final tally, there were two women who would not budge off their position. They couldn’t get past the fact that witnesses described Widmer as a “gentle soul” and the 4-month-old marriage was “perfect.”
“There was no smoking gun that said, ‘Yes, Ryan did it,’ ” she said. “And they could not get past that.”
The juror’s comments didn’t surprise Dziech.
“Juries do it all the time because they don’t understand reasonable doubt. It’s one of the hardest concepts to get through to people,” Dziech said. “I think both basically said it was a 24 year old who shouldn’t be dead. Basically what they said to the defense was prove to me why she’s dead.”
Thaddeus Hoffmeister, a jury expert and law professor at the University of Dayton, said it was clear to him, from the juror’s comments, that the jury put emphasis on the wrong side.
“The juror was saying some people just didn’t get it,” he said. “I’d like to shake her and say you don’t get it. You don’t get the standard they are applying. There’s no smoking gun and all that, and what does that add up to? Reasonable doubt.”
David Fornshell, who is considering running for Prosecutor Rachel Hutzel’s seat, said he predicts Hutzel will try for a third time, but wonders if either side might ask for a venue change.
“It wasn’t the prosecutor’s fault the first conviction was thrown out,” he said. “The second trial was a hung jury 10 to 2 in favor of conviction, and the prosecutor is convinced that he did it. They are probably saying we won the first one and almost won the second one, so cut us some slack. I think they are going to do it one more time.”
About the Author