Youngstown Daily Legal News

Drawn-out murder case dismissed 25 years after original trial

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: September 27, 2013

The Eighth District Court of Appeals last week affirmed the decision of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to dismiss a murder case that was a quarter-century old.

The state appealed the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of the indictment against the defendant, Thomas Michael Keenan.

According to the extensive procedural history of the case, Keenan was originally indicted in 1988 when the body of Anthony Klann was found floating in Doan Creek near Cleveland.

Keenan was indicted along with his alleged co-conspirators, Joe D’Ambrosio and Edward Espinoza.

The men were charged with two counts of aggravated murder, one count of kidnapping and one count of aggravated burglary.

A jury returned a guilty verdict on all counts and Keenan was sentenced to death.

However, in a subsequent appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court found that prosecutorial misconduct occurred during closing arguments and Keenan’s conviction was vacated and a new trial ordered.

In 1994, Keenan was again convicted and sentenced to death and the Eighth District and Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

The appellate court’s summary of events stated that Keenan proceeded to exhaust the remedies available to him at the state level so he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

The district court decided that, at Keenan’s second trial, the state had suppressed evidence in violation of its duties under Brady v. Maryland by withholding seven specific categories of evidence.

According to the district judge, the violations in Keenan’s case were “serious and disturbing violations of the state’s constitutional obligation to produce to defendants any and all exculpatory information in their possession.”

The court came to the conclusion that there was a reasonable probability that the suppressed evidence would have produced a different verdict “sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial.”

It said the state had been “stonewalling” for nearly 20 years.

The writ of habeas corpus was granted, ordering the state to either set aside Keenan’s conviction and death sentence, or conduct yet another trial within 180 days.

The state opted for a new trial and proceeded to file notices of intent to introduce prior testimony from Keenan, his co-defendant and a deceased witness.

While the state prepared, Keenan filed a motion to dismiss the indictment.

On Sept. 6, 2012 the trial court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss with prejudice stating, “The court finds in the interest of justice and fairness, the harm done to the defendant Keenan has been so egregious that this is the extraordinary case where the court has no other option but to grant the motion to dismiss.”

Keenan was ordered to be released and the state appealed, arguing that the trial court erred when it dismissed the indictment because the district court had already sanctioned the state when it granted the writ of habeas corpus.

“The state argues that the trial court did not follow the district court’s mandate when it sanctioned the state a second time for the same discovery violation by dismissing Keenan’s indictment with prejudice as this action was neither setting aside the conviction and sentence nor conducting a new trial,” wrote Presiding Judge Larry Jones on behalf of the appellate court.

The three-judge appellate panel found no merit to the state’s argument.

“The decision to go forward with a new trial did not divest the trial court of its continuing powers of jurisdiction over any further actions of the parties,” wrote Jones. “The trial court was not sanctioning the state a second time for the same actions or refusing to follow the district court’s mandate.”

Jones said the Eighth District held, in a previous case, that when a new trial is ordered on appeal, it is to be conducted as if there had been no previous trials.

“Consequently, once the district court remanded the case and the state elected to proceed with a new trial, matters stood in the same position they did before any trial had been conducted,” wrote Jones. “It follows that the court possessed all authority to reopen discovery or entertain any pretrial motions available at law.”

Therefore, the appellate panel found that Keenan was within his rights to file a motion to dismiss and it was within the trial court’s discretion to consider that motion.

The panel also sided with the trial court when it determined that the state caused prejudice by refusing to divulge exculpatory evidence, making it impossible to restore Keenan to the position he should have been in at the time of his first trial.

“A defendant’s right to a fair trial dates back to the adoption of our nation’s most revered founding documents,” wrote Jones. “In this case, the federal court determined that a fair trial had not taken place; and in 2012, the trial court decided it could not in the future.”

Jones concluded by stating that, while the victim deserved justice, the bad-faith conduct from 1988 forward made that impossible.

Judge Sean Gallagher dissented with a separate opinion, stating that the trial court abused its discretion when it “imposed the most severe discovery sanction, dismissal of the indictment.”

He said the court could have imposed a lesser punishment, rather than dismissing the entire case.

“It is unfortunate that Keenan may be placed in the position of having to endure a third trial for acts that occurred over two decades ago, but the victim deserves a just process, as does Keenan,” wrote Gallagher.

Nevertheless, the dismissal of Keenan’s indictment was affirmed by Jones, who was joined by Judge Tim McCormack to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Keenan, 2013-Ohio-4029.

[Back]