Brady Violations

Commander Nofziger- Defiance Co. MAN Unit (p.4-17)

     Confirmed that despite his office being served the subpoena, he "provide(d) the

         materials to Gwen for review prior to sending it to our office?"(pg 9 line 9-13) 

     Confirmed that the MAN Unit report was provided to the prosector p.11-12​

​

Officer Ben Williams- Drug Agent for Defiance Co. Man Unit (2015) (p.18-32),

     Confirmed he met with Defiance Co Prosecutor, Rolando Valle and Rolando Valle's

         attorney Steve Sondergaard to help Defiance Co. drug investigation 

     Officer Williams stated "he (Rolando) was asked what other further information you had

         that might benefit or help law enforcement with any other open cases and that's when

         he had brought up the Parsons case" pg 23 lines 15-18

                 Rolando's DEAL!

     Validated the MAN report he drafted p. 21

    Testified that "for an instance like this .... I would then forward it on... the drug task force

         had a representative from Henry County Sheriff's Office p. 24,

     Legitimizes audio of Rolando's interview p. 26-29​

​

Sheriff Michael Bodenbender Start p. 33-46

     He legitimizes Call for Service report p. 34

     Confirms no mention of MAN Unit in police report & Nick Pieracini was the Henry County

          MAN unit representative p. 36

     He confirms that he was not aware of anything regarding Rolando Valle and connection

           with the MAN Unit p 37 line 12 

     Sheriff Bodenbender answers "That's correct" p 37 line 14 (should be this line)

           The transcript is inacccurate and instead states "No further questions from defense."             Error or convenient error? Andrea Burgel was asked to correct and provide a

           complete and accurate representation of the audio recording on 10/23/2023 but still

           has not corrected the record.

     Prosecutor Gwen Howe-Gebers advances as part of the record States Exhibit 1,

            however it is not in the record & is neither stamped with date / time filed nor signed                (States Exhibit 1). It is the only document that has Lorin Zaner spelled incorrectly,

            as "Loren", all other documents that Hawken Flanagan produced had Lorin's name

            spelled correctly! Who wrote this NEVER seen before document that Gwen Howe-                Gebers advanced at this hearing?

            The document states:

            "With Charles Nash, Daniel Plotts, Jeremiah Lamb, Nick Badenhop, Rolando Valle, and Kyle Kern have

                 been provided to counsel for Defendant. In addition, recordings of phone calls in which Aisya Kanard was a 

                 participant have been provided to counsel for Defendant, as well as the cell phone extraction reports for cell 

                 phones belonging to Cullen Parsons and Aisya Kanard. These extraction reports contained written

                 messages attributed to Cullen Parsons and Aisya Kanard." p.39

                     

                        **"have been provided to counsel for Defendant, as well as the cell phone extraction reports for cell                                    phones belonging to Cullen Parsons and Aisya Kanard

                            Defense has NEVER seen the extraction of Aisya Kanard's phone eventhough it was taken from her

                            via subpoena on 12/1/2015 and is documented in the trial transcipt that we have never gotten any of

                            the results from her phone

                                    "Submitting Aisya's phone to BCI, but we never received those reports" pg 236 line 10-11

​

      She continues to reference this "report" on p.40 to which Defense Counsel objects to &          bring up concerns with this never seen before document.

         MS. HOWE-GEBERS: I don’t have a copy with me.

           MR. STEPHENSON: Can we at least review yours? Let me start off with, I do have a question, we have some               follow up. Sheriff, do you still have a copy of...

           MR. STAHL: Your Honor we’re going to object to this, this is not a stamped copy, I will note it is not signed and               second it is not in the State Court records, with was submitted to the habeas court and as I’ve looked at it right             now, it is not in there. I don’t know where that came from but we don’t believe it is a full and accurate copy.

     During this testimony Howe-Gebers confirms that the recordings are two seperate and

     different interviews (Rolando MAN Unit interview and Deputy Sanholtz interview), but

     won't acknowledge the content of the interviews on. p. 45. Stating the following:

          MS. HOWE-GEBERS: I’m willing to stipulate that the recordings are different, not any content contained.​

            Sheriff Bodenber states "I've never heard that" p.42 line 20-21 referring to the interview of Rolando Valle from

            Ross Sanholtz at CCNO (Defense Exhibit E). 

 ​

Jamie Jones- CCNO Representative, Records Clerk in 2015 (p.47-54)

     She states that she is familiar with how the records are generated at CCNO p.49 

     Our defense (Mr. Aird) clarifies how the reports are to be read and confirms Rolando             Valle's time was spent in the DM Unit p. 52

     Jamie confirms Rolando was in the DM Unit and only the DM Unit from 8/18/2015 21:46        - 10/1/2015 14:00 (p. 52 line 18-21) 

      Rolando Valle cell records Defense Exhibit F  ​​

​

Joseph Hawken Flanagan- Henry County Interim Prosecutor (2015) p.55

     Our defense questions the original prosecutor and confirms that the MAN Unit report &         interview is new evidence p. 62.             

           MR. STEPHENS: Is it correct that you had not seen that at the time of the original Cullen Parsons trial?

              MR. FLANAGAN: I don’t recall seeing this, I mean it was a long time ago, I mean, I don’t recall.

              MR. STEPHENSON: Do you acknowledge, had you seen it you would have had an obligation to turn it over                  to the defense?

             MR. FLANAGAN: Yes​

     On p.64 Flanagan claims no knowledge of who Valle had originally spoken to and he

     assumed it was a CCNO guard stating:

           FLANAGAN: I would have been, nothing more than what I just said, that he had provided or told the, I think at                the time I probably assumed it was a corrections officer that he had relayed the he had information about the                  case.

              MR. STEPHENSON: Okay and you would acknowledge that had you been aware of the content of that                          conversation you would have had an ethical obligation and an obligation under Criminal Rule 16 to turn that                  information over to the defense, right?

              MR. FLANAGAN: Sure, yeah.​

      On p. 65 we mention the Motion to Disclose filed on 2/4/2016 before the trial, stating:  

            MR. STEPHENSON: Oh okay, okay, do you recall a motion from defense attorney Zaner in the Cullen Parsons              case asking for any specific information you had regarding any statements made by Mr. Valle to law                              enforcement or any deals cut by Mr. Valle with law enforcement?

            MR. FLANAGAN: I don’t have any recollection of that yes or no, I mean, he could have sent it or not.​

     Again on p.67 we bring up the Motion to Disclose & Flanagan mentions that Valle's               testimony was essentially worthless, stating:

         MR. STAHL: Certainly Your Honor, so there was a motion filed in the Court, it is stamped February 4, 2016, it                  is a motion filed by Lorin Zaner, defense attorney in the case, that motion is a Motion to Disclose Information                  Regarding Cooperative Witnesses and Informants. The content of the motion in which, again, this Court                          stamped motion is part of the record here, the content of the motion is specifically about Rolando Valle and                    any sort of negotiations he entered into with the sheriff department, Henry County Prosecutors Office,                            specifically and including prior statements. It doesn’t look like there was any response to that in the record and              my understanding from your testimony is you don’t recall that?

            MR. FLANAGAN: I just don’t know that I would refer to him as a cooperating witness, I mean, he, there was                  not any kind of a discussions of that nature, he wasn’t treated as an informant or some sort of, I guess,                          cooperating witness. I think, I mean, my recollection is that we barely even got him to the court room to testify              and his testimony was pretty worthless, honestly, so, if that was a motion seeking information on any deals or                things of that nature, I mean there wouldn’t have been a response.​

     On p. 70 it finally comes out that Cullen & Valle were NOT IN THE SAME UNIT

           MR. FLANAGAN: I mean, if they, I am not sure I understand what you are saying, would it be important if they               couldn’t have physically had a conversation?

           MR. STAHL: Correct.

           MR. FLANAGAN: Sure.

           MR. STAHL: And then I would say it is safe to say that you did not have possession of records, cell assignment             records from CCNO that would indicate that at the time that Rolando Valle said that this statement took place,               which he told Officer Saneholtz, Deputy Saneholtz and Deputy Saneholtz testified that this took place a week               prior to this September 18 conversation, it would be significant that Mr. Valle was in the DM unit and Mr.                         Parsons was I believe in a separate unit, the B unit, I believe it was.That would be a significant part of the                     conversation would it not? Subject as you know, as far credibility.

           MR. FLANAGAN: I mean, I guess that is, I don’t know if that’s a rhetorical question or not, I mean, is it                           important if they were not physically able to have the conversation he said they had, sure

​

On p.71 Flanagan is questioned about Valle's inconsistencies in his testimony:

          MR. STAHL: Alright, if you would have had information to that effect about a witness, this witness or any                         witness, as you’re preparing to call witnesses as a prosecutor, as you’re preparing a case, and you have                         conflicting testimony like that, aside from the Brady issues, aside from any concerns about turning anything                   over to the defense, you’re particular ethical view of eliciting testimony from a witness when there is such a                     concern, would you go forward with it?

             MR. FLANAGAN: So I didn’t have any conflicting testimony from Mr. Valle until the trial and as far as the cell

             block information, I mean, I DIDN'T HAVE THAT, so I don’t, I don’t know if anyone was even aware of that

             issue, so I don’t know. There was no,as far as I was aware, there was no inconsistent or problematic

             information from Mr. Valle until he took the stand and was not providing answers that were consistent with my

             understanding of his expected testimony.

​

 On p. 72-74  Ms. Howe-Gebers advances an unsigned report and has Hawnken Flanagan certify

           the document (States Exhibit 1): 

              MS Howe-Gebers questions ...   

              so in providing discovery to Mr. Zaner, in your file,and I’ve marked as State’s Exhibit 1 (lines 3-4)

              at the very top it says copy (line 7)

              and at the bottom is that your name? (line 10)

              on the last page of that exhibit it is a response to discovery, is that correct? (lines 21-22)

              the original would have gone to Mr. Zaner, correct? 

              with your signature (lines 12-13) 

              you indicate  that recorded statements attributed to, and I'll just read one of them, Rolando Valle, was

              provided to defense counsel correct?  (line 19-21)

              that statement from Deputy Saneholtz and others would have been given to Mr. Zaner correct (lines 25 - pg

              74 line 1)

              Hawken Flanagan confirms and agrees with all the above questions despite the copy not being signed by

              himself and not being stamped as filed by the court.

​

​

Confirms Rolando Valle CONTRADICTING Testimony p. 74

             MS. HOWE-GEBERS: Okay. And again, the information that you had received after Deputy Saneholtz

             interviewed him was different at the time he testified, is that correct?

             MR. FLANAGAN: That’s correct, his testimony was not in line with the information gathered by Deputy

             Saneholtz, that’s my recollection.

​

Hawken Flanagan confirms he was NOT aware of interview with the MAN Unit p.76

            MR. STAHL: And nothing with the MAN Unit specifically, correct?

            MR. FLANAGAN: Can you say that again, I’m sorry.

            MR. STAHL: You weren’t aware that there was an interview with the MAN Unit and the Defiance County

            Prosecutor, correct?

            MR. FLANAGAN: I am now, yeah.

            MR. STAHL: You were not at the time of the trial aware of that correct?

            MR. FLANAGAN: So, I mean, no, I mean, I guess he had drug charges so it wouldn’t surprise me that he

           spoke with them but as far as the, as far as the information about Mr. Parsons no I wasn’t aware of the content             of that conversation or anything like that.

HANDSHAKE DEAL p.77

          MR. STAHL: And I guess what I’m getting at is, you know, if you get information for something that is going to                involve a case in Defiance County you would pass it along to their office, they would pass it along to your office            and you know, we’re not necessarily talking about everything is documented in writing and everything, there is              a lot of handshake deals that go on with this and here you should look at this sort of thing? Would that be a fair

          way of describing the interactions?

          MR. FLANAGAN: That, that’s, I think a fair way to describe the interaction of any prosecutor’s office with another

          prosecutor’s office.

​

The hearing resulted in: 

confirmation that the MAN Unit report had never been seen by Hawken Flanagan and was new evidence 

confirmation the cell records of Rolando Valle had never been seen by Hawken Flanagan and was new evidence 

confirmation that Rolando Valle was providing testimony to "help his cause" and get a DEAL!

​

Judge Amy Rosebrock found that this was not sufficient for a new trial! On 9/3/2024 the Third District Court of Appeals returned the judgement to her stating:

Crim.R. 33(B); Motion for Leave to File a Motion for a New Trial. The trial court did not apply the proper legal standard and procedure in deciding appellant-defendant's motion for leave to file an untimely motion for a new trial based on alleged newly discovered evidence, as set forth in Criminal Rule 33. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded for the trial court to consider anew the motion for leave under the proper standard.

​

This appeal is stayed for the moment because we are appealing her additional decision regarding the cell records of Rolando Valle.  Judge Amy Rosebrock also stated that the cell records of Rolando Valle were inconsequential and would not have impacted the outcome of the trial.  We are currently awaiting the decision on oral arguments held on September 9, 2025. 

​

​