JERSEYVILLE - The defense attorneys for Roger Carroll, convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and kidnapping of Bonnie Woodward, have filed a post-trial motion for appeal and requesting a new trial.
Get The Latest News!
Don't miss our top stories and need-to-know news everyday in your inbox.
Carroll was accused of luring Woodward to Jersey County where authorities say he killed Woodward with a Stoeger Cougar 9mm Luger by shooting her several times about the body before burning her corpse and concealing it.
The jury deliberated for six hours before issuing the guilty verdict. Woodward’s murder occurred on June 25, 2010. He was an early suspect in the 2010 investigation, but the case lay dormant until April 2018 after his alleged assault of his wife, Monica, and subsequent testimony by his son, Nathan.
Crystal Uhe is the Madison County first assistant state’s attorney. She was appointed special prosecutor in the Carroll case. She said the request for a new trial is common when an appeal is planned in a case.
“It is pretty standard after a jury verdict, an attorney has 30 days for filing a post-trial motion for appeal,” Uhe said. “The pandemic came down right after the verdict and we just received a post-trial motion this week. We are given two to three weeks to respond.”
Uhe said the prosecutors will respond soon to Carroll’s attorney's request and Judge Eric Pistorious will make a decision. She expects there will be a sentencing date the same day as the post-trial motion is discussed.
Clyde Kuehn and Scott Snider, Roger Carroll's lawyers, gave these reasons for a motion for a new trial.
1. The in-court positive identification of the defendant by Wanda Bausily and the circumstances attendant to it constituted plain error, requiring a new trial.
2. Apart from plain error analysis Ms. Bausily’s pretrial identification on the month prior to trial with anticipated in-court identification to follow, without immediate disclosure to the defense, was a direct violation of the defendant's right to a fair trial and to due process.
3. The court erred in barring the defendant's attorneys from reviewing notes written by Nathan Carroll that constituted written memoranda by him of that to which he was going to testify.
4. The Court erred in admitting evidence of the crimes that the defendant committed against his wife in early March of 2018.
5. Apart from the question of the relevancy of the statements made by the defendant to his wife on March 2, 2018, it was error to admit them because the defendant made them to his wife and intended them to remain confidential when he made them.
6. It was an error for the Court to accept the State’s effort to constrain appropriate cross-examination into Monica Carroll’s personal interest and bias in testifying against the defendant.
7. In constituted plain error to admit into evidence certain information concerning charred bone fragments excavated from the defendant's back yard.
8. It constituted error to permit Nathan Carroll to testify to anything about how the defendants other family members treated him after testifying against the defendant before the grand jury.
9. In constituted error to retain Det. Golike’s confrontation of the defendant on videotape about how he could explain why cadaver dogs were hitting on something human at the house.
10. The defendant did not receive the assistance of the counsel contemplated by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
More like this: