BUCYRUS — Two motions made in the Adam Gunter rape trial were heard Wednesday in Crawford County Common Pleas Court.
Adam Gunter, 40, of Galion faces one first-degree felony charge of rape. He is accused of being engaged in sexual conduct with a four-month-old infant. Because of the age of the alleged victim Gunter faces the possibility of life without parole if convicted. Gunter’s attorney, Adam Stone, filed the motions.
Stone filed a motion for a change of venue for the trial and a motion for individualized, sequestered voir dire of prospective jurors. Crawford County Common Pleas Judge Sean Leuthold heard arguments from the defense and the state before ruling from the bench on the motions.
According to the motion filed, Stone claimed substantial probability exists that Gunter cannot obtain a fair and impartial jury because of extensive and prejudicial media coverage, social media coverage, specifically Crawford County Now, and because of heightened community emotions because of coverage of the events by media.
Stone noted that “from the moment of his initial appearance before the Crawford County Municipal Court, the intellectually disabled defendant, Adam W. Gunter has been the subject of a flood of news reports, rumor, gossip, speculation and opinion including specifically an on-going call for vigilante justice and the murder of Mr. Gunter as penance for these allegations.”
Stone went on to say intense local coverage has resulted in media commentary, internet blogs, commentary on commentaries and threats against the defendant’s life.
“The result is that any local jury pool will be adversely influenced to the extent that neither voir dire nor jury instructions will suffice to assure that Adam Gunter will receive a fair trial as guaranteed by the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution,” Stone said.
Stone cited examples of what he called emotionally charged media coverage: CCN articles on Dec. 21, 2017, Jan. 16, 2018 and Jan. 15, 2019 and various comments on Facebook in response to those articles. Stone also noted articles printed in the Galion Inquirer (copied with permission of Crawford County Now), The Bucyrus Telegraph Forum and Richland Source.
Stone told the court that he himself had been the object of threats. He told the court he was confronted while dining at a local restaurant. A man approached him and told him that he hoped his children would suffer a similar fate as Gunter had put on the baby.
“There is no presumption of innocence there,” Stone said. “I don’t care what people say to me, but I do care about how this affects my clients right to a fair trial. I call them cowards of the keyboard. They hide behind their constitutional right to free speech while denying my client his constitutional right to a fair trial.”
Crawford County Prosecutor Matt Crall told the court he has full faith in the citizens of Crawford County to be able to remain fair and impartial as jurors.
“The state condemns these acts, but there are 28,350 potential jurors in Crawford County,” Crall said. “We have mechanisms in place to vet them. I am confident that we can seat fair and impartial jurors.”
Crall also argued the burden to change a venue is very rarely met.
Leuthold commended both the defense and the state, saying their briefs were excellent and well written. He agreed with Crall that mechanisms are in place to vet out jurors that may not be able to set aside reports they have read in the media.
“Harsh things were said. These comments would concern me if I were the lawyer,” Leuthold said. “However, they are protected by their first amendment rights. Quite frankly, I think that when people read these comments they take them with a grain of salt. In fact, we’ve all been the subject of harsh comments, including me.”
Leuthold pointed out case law to back up his decision not to change the venue. He noted that pretrial publicity was not enough to change a trial venue. He spoke of a case from the 1960’s where a television station created a moving picture film with a soundtrack of the confession of a crime. The station sent the reel to three television stations which all aired it. At that time, it was deemed so prejudicial that a change of venue was granted.
Leuthold noted that technology has advanced so much that now the public sees these things all the time.
“Media has changed. Network TV reaches a lot less people. People choose who they want to receive information from. They have their favorite channels, blogs and online news sources,” Leuthold said. “None of the media here reported any inaccurate information. The shock and outrage was not to be unexpected in this situation.”
Leuthold noted area news outlets take their jobs very seriously and readers know that and believe that what they report is the truth.
“With 28,350 potential jurors available, I’d be shocked if more than 10 percent have read the articles or the comments,” Leuthold said. “News organizations carry weight, but comments do not. The venue change is denied.”
Stone then argued his second motion for individualized, sequestered voir dire of jurors. He said intense one by one voir dire would make it more likely that real prejudices could be revealed.
Crall told the court he thought this idea was a bit premature.
“We should at least try to seat a jury and see what potential problems we are dealing with and move on from there,” Crall said.
Leuthold said he could see both sides of the argument but that he was open to ideas on how to make the process work.
“The voir dire process demands fairness and I will endeavor to make it fair,” Leuthold said.
Leuthold told Stone he would be given great latitude in his inquiry of the jurors.
“I’m not sure we need to do individualized voir dire,” Leuthold said. “I think Crawford County can give him a fair shake.”
Leuthold told Stone and Crall that he was going to dedicate a full day to the jury selection process. Leuthold said he did not want the attorney to have to focus on anything but seating the right jury. He said he was going to double the panel of potential jurors so that the pool was vast from which to choose jurors. He also told the court he would have extra alternate jurors to serve as well.
After denying both motions, Leuthold assured Stone; “We will do some things to make sure this process is fair.”