Convicted child killer on death row seeks to get conviction tossed out

Convicted child killer on death row seeks to get conviction tossed out


(Ohio Department of Corrections/WKRC)
(Ohio Department of Corrections/WKRC)
Facebook Share IconTwitter Share IconEmail Share Icon

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WKRC) - After three decades, it still doesn't make sense to Robert Garrett.

"Why? What did she do? She was 10 years old."

His daughter, Amber, was stabbed to death and dumped in the woods in West Harrison, Indiana in 1991.

Now, the man who's been on death row since 1993, convicted of killing Amber, wants that conviction thrown out.

Jeffrey Wogenstahl is taking the issue of jurisdiction to the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing the state didn't sufficiently prove the murder took place in Ohio.

"This is a unique case and a unique jurisdictional issue," says Jeffrey Wogenstahl's attorney, Kimberly Rigby. "And because of that, this issue was missed. It was missed by the trial court. It was missed by trial council. It was missed by direct appeal council, as we're arguing here. It was missed by us, when we originally filed the motion to reopen in 2015 before this court. However, that does not take away from the merits and magnitude of this jurisdictional issue in this case."

"This case is not about an unconstitutional, or mandatory or conclusive presumption. This case is about finality," says Philip Cummings, who's representing the state of Ohio. "Jurisdiction has been determined. It's been determined by this court to have been properly exercised here."

"I think Mr. Wogenstahl is saying that the statute creates a mandatory, conclusive presumption and that's unconstitutional," argues Cummings. "Because that deprives the defendant of due process, because it relieves the state of the burden of proving jurisdiction, but that's a flawed premise."

Former Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters is now one of the justices on Ohio's Supreme Court.

Deters recused himself from these proceedings, because he prosecuted Jeffrey Wogenstahl.

It's not clear when justices will rule on this issue.

Loading ...