In a filing on Monday, former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder’s attorneys filed an appeal with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to retry, resentence, or dismiss the case against the convicted former politician.
The appeal is in response to the 20-year prison sentence Householder received last June after he was convicted of bribery related to a utility scheme.
Householder’s attorneys claim six issues with the original trial that warrant the appeal in a 105-page filing.
The first claim by Householder’s attorneys is that Householder’s 6th Amendment right was violated when a juror was dismissed without the defense first being consulted. The juror at the time had not yet submitted the results of a COVID-19 test and refused to wear a mask in the court, resulting in their dismissal. Householder’s attorneys claim that by not consulting the defense, the court violated Householder's 6th Amendment constitutional right to counsel.
The next claim is that the district court instructed the jury incorrectly during the trial. Householder’s attorneys claim that the court did not properly explain the charge of bribery and improperly categorizing the nature of an impeached witness.
Householder’s attorneys also claimed that the evidence provided during the trial was not enough to convict Householder. They claim that Householder’s dealings were not explicitly bribes and the court did not prove an exchange of favors.
Householder’s attorneys then went on to claim the district court committed evidentiary errors, saying the inclusion of a tape in which Householder is heard using explicit language. The appeal claims that the inclusion of this tape was not relevant and only was to “inflame the passions of the jury.” Householder’s attorneys then continue to claim that revealing the guilty pleas of Jeff Longstreth and Juan Cespedes to the jury was also erroneous. The appeal claims co-defendant or co-conspirator pleas are not normally admissible at trial.
The next claim is against the sentence given to Householder, stating that the maximum sentence given was unreasonable. The appeal claims that the risk of recidivism is low for Householder and points out that his conviction bars him from running for public office in Ohio ever again.
The final claim Householder’s attorneys included in the appeal was that the judge who presided over the original trial should have recused himself. Judge Timothy Black had previously run for a seat on the Ohio Supreme Court and Housholder, then Ohio Speaker of the House, opposed his run and helped to raise money for his opponent. Householder’s attorneys argued that this past opposition to Judge Black’s political career would be a conflict of interest, and pointed out several times where the defense feels like they were unfairly ruled against.
Householder’s appeal comes almost two months after his co-defendant Matt Borges’ appealed and demanded oral arguments to occur. The prosecution will have the opportunity to respond to the filing.
Learn more about the case and the trial in WOSU's podcast The Power Grab.
