YOUNGSTOWN — Attorneys for Kenneth L. Carter, 35, and Terry Hopkins, 23, have exchanged filings with prosecutors in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court leading up to Carter’s and Hopkins’ Jan. 12 murder trial.

On Nov. 25, attorneys Frank Cassese and Dave Betras filed motions to dismiss the charges against Carter and Hopkins on allegations that prosecutors failed to bring both men to trial within speedy trial deadlines.

In both cases, the defense says the speedy trial clock began in late January — Jan. 29 for Hopkins and Jan. 27 for Carter.

The men are accused in the Jan. 24 killing of Resean Graham, 42, on Greselda Avenue on the South Side. Carter is accused of murder and a gun specification, improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle and cocaine possession. Hopkins is accused of one count of murder and a gun specification.

Ohio law requires a defendant in a felony case to be brought to trial within 270 days of arrest, though there are a variety of events that can stop the speedy trial clock.

Cassese and Betras, who represent both defendants, stated that Hopkins, for instance, agreed to waive speedy trial time for a limited time of 90 days in April and another limited waiver of 175 days in May. Under Ohio law, an accused person in jail in lieu of bail solely on the pending charge gets credit of three days for every day he or she is in jail awaiting trial, the filing states. “Thus, for an incarcerated defendant, the state effectively has 90 calendar days in which to bring the matter to trial,” the filing states.

If the prosecutor fails to bring a defendant to trial before the 90 days, “the remedy for violation is discharge of the accused,” meaning dismissal of the charges, the filing states. The speedy trial clock for Hopkins resumed Nov. 4 after Hopkins waived speedy trial time twice, the filing states.

It notes that there is one issue the prosecution might raise to deny that Hopkins and Carter’s speedy-time clock has expired — a motion filed by prosecutors Oct. 1 to “immunize” Hopkins from prosecution if Hopkins cooperated with prosecutors in the prosecution of Carter. That immunization did not occur because prosecutors withdrew its motion to immunize Hopkins, according to court documents.

Hopkins’ and Carter’s attorneys argue that the delay in bringing both men to trial beginning with their arrests in January 2025 through the date of the Nov. 25 motion to dismiss negatively impacts Carter and Hopkins, adding that the “state has offered no sufficient justification for failing to bring the matter promptly to trial.”

The history of Carter’s case is similar to Hopkins’ case, and the arguments made on his behalf are nearly identical.

Prosecutors, meanwhile, filed a response to the defense motion, with Assistant Prosecutors Kyle Hilles and Melissa Dinsio stating that Carter was arrested Jan. 27, and Hopkins was arrested Jan. 29.

The prosecution filing mentions the Oct.1 attempt to “immunize” Hopkins, which resulted in attorney Mark Lavelle being appointed to represent Hopkins for the purpose of the immunization discussion. The state withdrew its immunization motion, which was “driven by Mr. Hopkins’ assertion that he had no knowledge of the killing of the victim or of Kenneth Carter’s involvement,” the prosecution filing states.

The state’s filing lists four reasons for Judge Anthony Donofrio to deny the defense motion to dismiss the charges. Among them is that the defense agreed during a Nov. 13 pretrial to schedule the trial of Carter and Hopkins for April 13. “This was by agreement of the parties and due to the defense attorney not having any availability until that date,” the prosecution filing states.

It adds that the “defendant acquiesced to a trial date months outside of what he now claims to be the speedy trial time.”

Cassese and Betras filed a response to the prosecution filing Dec. 19. It argues that one of the reasons that speedy trial time exists is to “protect both the state and defendants from (delay) tactics by either side.”

But the state’s attempt to immunize Hopkins was exactly that — an unnecessary step that caused delay, the filing argues.

It alleges that prosecutors were “aware that defendant Hopkins did not wish to cooperate. Nevertheless, the state moved forward and requested the court to order that defendant Hopkins had to cooperate.”

A pretrial hearing in the case was held Monday, but the parties did not go on the record in the courtroom regarding the motion to dismiss. Afterwards, court personnel stated that the trial date had been moved to Jan. 12 and that Donofrio would rule on the motion to dismiss the charges in the coming days.