ASHLAND — The Ashland County Common Pleas Court has postponed a Crestline man’s trial for the fifth time amid COVID-19 concerns and national controversy about whether or not the judge should have attempted to begin this trial in late April.
On Tuesday, April 28, Judge Ron Forsthoefel began selecting the jury for the trial of 26-year-old Seth Whited, who is charged with child endangerment and three lesser felonies, but proceedings came to a halt after Whited was taken to the hospital Tuesday. Forsthoefel postponed the case Wednesday morning and rescheduled it for May 12.
A week later, Whited’s case is being pushed back again.
On Wednesday, Forsthoefel granted a motion to continue the trial to one of three proposed dates: May 26, May 30 or June 30. He required the trial to be held on one of these three dates and included four additional components to his decision.
Most notably, a provision would require Whited, who is not in jail, to not leave his home until the trial begins.
When Whited’s trial was postponed Wednesday, April 29, the state of Ohio motioned Whited’s bond be revised to require him to stay at his house until the next trial, as to guarantee that he is quarantined.
Whited was taken to UH Samaritan Medical Center last Tuesday for what the court called a “panic attack.”
Earlier that week, Whited’s attorney reported his client was showing symptoms of COVID-19. The Crestline resident was tested at the hospital Tuesday, and though results came back negative, he was placed under a precautionary quarantine for six days.
Forsthoefel approved the motion to revise ond, and the defendant, through counsel, did not oppose the motion at that time.
The other requirements set in Forsthoefel’s response include: a meeting to reschedule the trial should take place at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday, May 12; no additional continuances will be granted; and the state of Ohio must contact all witnesses to determine conflicts with the dates.
Whited’s attorney Stone is allowed until 5 p.m. Wednesday to respond.
Whited, 26, is charged with a third-degree felony of endangering children, which relates to handling a small child in an inappropriate or cruel manner, and three fifth-degree felony counts of unauthorized use of a computer or telecommunications. Those charges accuse him of hacking into his former girlfriend’s work email account.
Whited’s attorney Adam Stone filed this most recent motion Monday, May 4, citing the “pandemic climate” as an impediment to his client’s right to a fair trial.
“This continuance is not made to cause undue delay, but to protect the defendant’s constitutional right to due process, effective assistance of counsel and a fair trial with jurors who are not anxious, stressed or otherwise distracted during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, as well as to protect the health and safety of all citizens,” Stone said in the motion.
The court’s response shows a different interpretation of the now five delays to Whited’s trial. Three motions of continuance were approved, and the trial — set first for April 28 and then for May 12 — was postponed both times.
“The Court’s previous entries in this matter reflect the concerns this Court has had as to what appears to be a series of delay tactics on the part of the defense,” the Ashland County Common Pleas Court’s response stated. “The most serious offense charged in this matter occurred in 2018. Witnesses, including experts, have been repeatedly subpoenaed to appear, only to have their appearances canceled.”
The judge also expressed concern that the state may not be able to secure witness appearances because of the amount of time that’s passed.
According to the court’s judgement entry, it appears Forsthoefel’s decision to allow this continuance relates primarily to a complaint for writ of prohibition with the Ohio Supreme Court by Attorney Stone.
“This Court does not believe forcing the Supreme Court of Ohio to render hastily drawn opinions or make snap decisions about a number of important constitutional questions unique to our current health crisis is something that should be asked of the Court through Mandamus or Writ of Prohibition,” the judgement said. “The Supreme Court Justices should have an opportunity to engage in thoughtful, reasoned, and well-researched consideration of all precedents.
“Hasty, rushed decisions can lead to unintended, negative consequences, and perhaps lead to a determination of rights that after additional thought and reflection, would become regrettable later. This Court certainly doesn’t wish to put the Justices in such a position with so little time to deliberate.”
