New trial ruling provides clues on content of sealed motion

YOUNGSTOWN -- Although the defense in the Keontae Thomas rape and kidnapping case was allowed to file a motion for new trial under seal just prior to Thomas' sentencing recently, Mahoning County Common Pleas Judge Maureen Sweeney's judgment entry denying the motion provides some clues as to why Thomas was seeking a new trial.

Filing a document under seal means the document is not open to the public, only the parties in the case.

Sweeney filed a July 21 entry denying Thomas' request for new trial, request for an evidentiary hearing and request to preserve digital evidence. Sweeney sentenced Thomas three days later to 36 to 41 years in prison.

Thomas, 27, was convicted at trial of two counts of rape, two counts of kidnapping, one count of aggravated robbery and gun specifications after going to a woman's home in 2022 for sex with an escort but then holding the woman at gunpoint as he raped her two times and stole her money. The kidnapping charges were for restraining her liberty at gunpoint.

The entire episode was captured on the woman's nanny cam, which was running in her living room throughout the attack. It also showed Thomas forcing the woman into the bedroom area afterward and then leaving the home. In many instances, the man's face was clearly visible, despite him wearing a type of mask that covered his hair and neck area.

Part of the testimony in the case came from Youngstown Police Det. Michael Cox, who explained attempts he made to take still images from the video and adjust the lightness and darkness of them to try to give jurors a clearer image of the suspect. The defense also presented evidence on that issue through a witness.

On July 7, defense attorney Frank Cassese filed a motion asking for permission to file a document "under seal." The document stated the reason was that Cassese believed that the measure was necessary "to ensure the integrity of the content of the document and any proceedings that may follow."

The assistant prosecutors on the case, Caitlyn Andrews and Kyle Hilles, responded July 10 by asking the Mahoning County Clerk of Courts to file their response to the motion under seal also.

They said the reason was that the document would contain information that is not appropriate for public disclosure, including matters that could compromise the integrity of these proceedings, reveal protected or confidential information or otherwise prejudice the interests of justice if made part of the public record."

Both motions apparently were granted. But Sweeney's judgment entry regarding the motion states that she denied the request for a new trial and other related issues.

The ruling suggested that the issue cited by the defense was something a juror did in relation to an "exhibit" jurors were able to access during their deliberations on the verdict.

Defense counsel "argues that what the juror did materially altered an exhibit that was entered into evidence," Sweeney's ruling on the motion for new trial states.

Defense counsel "urges this court to bring each juror in and inquire of them what was done with the computer in the jury room during deliberations," the entry continues.

The entry suggests that the defense submitted an affidavit submitted to the court from a person regarding an act by a juror. The entry states that prosecutors believe "the affidavit should be dismissed because it is based on an assumption and not personal knowledge."

Prosecutors also "reminded this court that defense counsel admitted into evidence a video thumb drive that had been altered to be made lighter and that this was not a material alteration of the video."

That apparently is a reference to the defense witness who testified at the trial regarding the nanny cam video.

Sweeney's ruling states that the defense motion for new trial and other things "is based on (an) affidavit provided as an exhibit from a juror who deliberated in this matter. The State argues that this affidavit is inadmissible because it goes to the jury deliberations, which are sacrosanct and that the defendant has not overcome the legal presumption necessary."

The ruling added that an evidentiary rule "explicitly prohibits jurors from offering internal evidence of the jury's deliberation." It states that one of the evidentiary rules "permits the Court to inquire of jurors on extraneous prejudicial circumstance but not to any matters or statements occurring during deliberations." Sweeney then struck the affidavit from the record.

Sweeney also ruled that "even if the affidavit were to be admitted, the affidavit states in paragraph 5 'juror knew how to change the settings on the video(,) unable to lighten the content of the video.' The court finds that this was not material alteration of an exhibit since other exhibits were admitted (that) also were lightened."

She denied the defense motion.

The ruling apparently means that Sweeney denied the defense motion asking for a new trial, for an evidentiary hearing and a request to preserve digital evidence related to the dispute.

And the ruling apparently relates to a juror's attempt to make an exhibit in the trial easier to view by something he or she attempted to do to the video "with the computer in the jury room during deliberations."

The defense can raise those issues on appeal. Cassese said during Thomas' sentencing hearing that there will be an appeal filed in the case.

Attempts by The Vindicator to ask Mahoning County Prosecutor Lynn Maro and a court official the reason the filings had to be filed under seal were not successful.