YOUNGSTOWN — The 7th District Court of Appeals has ruled against a “reconsideration” request from the attorneys for convicted killer Bennie Adams in the 1985 killing of a YSU student, denying that the appeals panel made any errors in its decision denying Adams a new trial.

Adams, 67, is serving a sentence of 20 years to life for killing Youngstown State University student Gina Tenney, 19, in 1985. He will come up for parole again in June 2028. Tenney was Adams’ upstairs neighbor in an Ohio Avenue duplex on Youngstown’s North Side.

Mahoning County Common Pleas Court Judge Anthony Donofrio held a hearing in June 2023 to determine what jurors in Adams’ 2008 trial knew about Adams having served a prison sentence for rape prior to being charged in Tenney’s death and whether that knowledge unfairly tainted their verdict in finding Adams guilty of Tenney’s murder.

One of the jurors said after the trial other jurors seemed to know about Adams’ earlier conviction. But Judge Donofrio ruled after the 2023 hearing that there was no credible evidence of that and denied Adams a new trial.

Among the things jurors from the 2008 trial were asked in 2023 was what they remembered of pretrial publicity in the case from local news media. Judge Donofrio allowed some questioning on that topic but also said questions about pretrial publicity were unnecessary because it had already been reviewed by appeals courts.

Attorneys from the Ohio Public Defender’s Office who represented Adams in the 2023 hearing appealed Judge Donofrio’s ruling, and the appeals panel affirmed the judge’s decision.

Afterward, the public defender’s office asked the 7th District to reconsider its decision based on what the public defender’s office called “obvious error.” The public defenders office’s filing said the appeals court found the question of jurors’ exposure to news media before the 2008 trial “relevant and admissible” in regard to how or when each juror learned about Adams’ earlier rape conviction.

Nonetheless, the 7th District Court of Appeals ruling on Adams stated that “we disagree that (Adams) was generally prohibited from asking questions about pretrial media exposure.”

The public defender’s office recounted the various instances during the 2023 hearing when Judge Donofrio allowed questioning about pretrial publicity but also sustained objections from the Mahoning County Prosecutor’s Office when it objected to questions about pretrial publicity.

It quoted the judge as having said at one point after the back and forth, “Well, with regard to pretrial publicity, I don’t want any testimony with regard to that. That’s prohibited.” He also stated, “I think pretty certain that all issues regarding pretrial publicity have already been appealed and ruled on, and that’s not why we are here today.”

The 7th District Court of Appeals ruled against reconsideration of its decision earlier this month, stating that “An application for reconsideration ‘is not designed for use in instances where a party simply disagrees with the logic or conclusions of the court.'”

The ruling stated that the public defender’s office suggested that the appeals ruling was “internally conflicted since we indicated testimony about the jurors’ exposure to news sources was relevant but did not find the trial court’s limiting instruction in this regard was in error.”

The ruling states that “We explained in significant detail that the issue about which (Adams) complains,” juror exposure to pretrial media coverage, “was adequately addressed. Most of the jurors answered questions in this regard at the hearing” and also in questionnaires they filled out at the time of the 2008 trial.

The ruling concluded that the public defender’s office “simply disagrees with our decision” supporting Judge Donofrio’s ruling in the case.

“Defense counsel questioned each juror on the critical issues before it, i.e., whether the juror knew about (Adams’) rape conviction or prison term at the time of trial. None of the jurors testified they were aware of the prejudicial information before deliberating or recommending (Adams’) sentence,” the appeals panel stated.

Appeals court judges Carol A. Robb, Mark A. Hanni and Katelyn Dickey issued the ruling.

Have an interesting story? Contact Ed Runyan by email at erunyan@vindy.com. Follow us on X, formerly Twitter, @TribToday.