AUBURN - A judge denied a motion asking for a gag order against the Cayuga County District Attorney's Office, but said he would interview jurors individually to ensure they were not biased by local news coverage of a case involving a daycare provider charged with shaking and injuring an infant.
During a Cayuga County Court hearing Thursday, Monroe County Judge Joseph Valentino asked both the defense and prosecution to limit their comments to the media in order to avoid tainting a potential jury pool. Valentino took over the case after Cayuga County Judge Thomas Leone recused himself because one of the alleged victim's parents is employed by the Auburn Police Department.
Dennis Sedor, a defense attorney for Gloria Odrzywolski, previously said comments made by District Attorney Jon Budelmann to the media about his client confessing to the crime during a police interview violated the state Bar Association's ethics laws, and violated his clients right to a fair and unbiased court proceeding. Budelmann has said he did not say anything that could be considered illegal or unethical.
Sedor had asked Valentino to issue a gag order for the district attorney.
Odrzywolski, who ran an unlicensed home daycare center, is accused of shaking a 10-month-old child, causing internal bleeding in the brain.
“I don't believe we will hear any more comments from the DA,” Sedor said Thursday. “I am confident we will hear nothing more from (Budelmann), and I am also confident that there were violations of the code of conduct.”
Budelmann originally made comments to The Citizen about an alleged confession during an April 2 interview minutes after Odrzywolski pleaded not guilty in county court to two felony counts of reckless assault and one count of acting in a manner injurious to a child, a misdemeanor.
Budelmann said both sides agreed to abide by Valentino's request to limit comments until after a possible trial.
Valentino adjourned the case until Sept. 8 to give both sides a chance to try to resolve the case without going to trial.
To ensure that a potential jury pool has not been biased by the case's media exposure if it does go to trial, Valentino told Sedor he will interview potential jurors individually and ask about their interaction with the case in the media.
If the attorneys still feel the jury is biased, Valentino said they can re-file their change of venue motion with the state's Appellate Division.
“We have reserved our rights to re-file for the change of venue,” Sedor said, “but we do not plan to do so at this point.”
Staff writer Nate Robson can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 248 or nathan.robson@lee.net
Dennis Sedor, a defense attorney for Gloria Odrzywolski, previously said comments made by District Attorney Jon Budelmann to the media about his client confessing to the crime during a police interview violated the state Bar Association's ethics laws, and violated his clients right to a fair and unbiased court proceeding. Budelmann has said he did not say anything that could be considered illegal or unethical.
Sedor had asked Valentino to issue a gag order for the district attorney.
Odrzywolski, who ran an unlicensed home daycare center, is accused of shaking a 10-month-old child, causing internal bleeding in the brain.
“I don't believe we will hear any more comments from the DA,” Sedor said Thursday. “I am confident we will hear nothing more from (Budelmann), and I am also confident that there were violations of the code of conduct.”
Budelmann originally made comments to The Citizen about an alleged confession during an April 2 interview minutes after Odrzywolski pleaded not guilty in county court to two felony counts of reckless assault and one count of acting in a manner injurious to a child, a misdemeanor.
Budelmann said both sides agreed to abide by Valentino's request to limit comments until after a possible trial.
Valentino adjourned the case until Sept. 8 to give both sides a chance to try to resolve the case without going to trial.
To ensure that a potential jury pool has not been biased by the case's media exposure if it does go to trial, Valentino told Sedor he will interview potential jurors individually and ask about their interaction with the case in the media.
If the attorneys still feel the jury is biased, Valentino said they can re-file their change of venue motion with the state's Appellate Division.
“We have reserved our rights to re-file for the change of venue,” Sedor said, “but we do not plan to do so at this point.”
Staff writer Nate Robson can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 248 or nathan.robson@lee.net
Citizen
Hot Jobs
New! Off the Menu
The Citizens' Say
Post your comment - click hereThere are 14 comment(s)
Farmer's Gal wrote on Aug 9, 2009 6:17 AM:
As it happens, I just got the questionnaire for jury duty, so maybe I will be at the trial, LOL! I am sure I would not be picked for this case, though, guess what? I'd actually be willing to hear both sides and consider all possibilities. More than can be said for many.... "
maygirl wrote on Aug 8, 2009 12:45 PM:
IF SHE, THE SO CALLED BABYSITTER HAS NOTHING TO HIDE THAN LET THE JURY HEAR HER CONFESSION , AND DECIDE IF SHE WAS SO CALLED UNDER DURESS! OBVIOUSLY THE GRAND JURY DID NOT SEE THAT DURESS! "
Farmer's Gal wrote on Aug 8, 2009 6:55 AM:
flowergirl wrote on Aug 7, 2009 11:22 PM:
Dr Boombatz wrote on Aug 7, 2009 8:15 PM:
Farmer's Gal wrote on Aug 7, 2009 5:23 PM:
Farmer's Gal wrote on Aug 7, 2009 4:48 PM:
Farmer's Gal wrote on Aug 7, 2009 4:44 PM:
My point is along the same lines as excnyer's -- the lynch mob is jumping to conclusions, following the bias of incomplete and skewed reporting (which has taken the "confession" at face value) -- none of us were there, neither when the child was injured, if it happened while in her care or if someone else is lying, nor when the woman was speaking with the police. We DON't KNOW THE FACTS.
Instead, people are judging on the ASSUMPTION that she is guilty before she has even had her day in court.
IF she truly is guilty, then she absolutely deserves the penalty. BUT -- if she is NOT guilty, think of the nightmare she is living now, with everyone assuming she did this terrible thing.
The point is -- YOU DON'T KNOW, no more than I do, but I am withholding judgment, thinking of other possible scenarios and interpretations of what has been reported, and waiting until the facts are all laid out in a court of law before a (hopefully!) impartial jury.
Until then, we have something called INNOCENT until proven guilty in this country for a reason -- and it is one of the more important reasons it is better to live here than more despotic nations -- though it wouldn't be, if it were up to the general (lynch mob) public. "
DR Boombatz wrote on Aug 7, 2009 12:22 PM:
Laughitup wrote on Aug 7, 2009 12:15 PM:
buford wrote on Aug 7, 2009 10:37 AM:
excnyer wrote on Aug 7, 2009 9:44 AM:
Farmer's Gal wrote on Aug 7, 2009 7:45 AM:
DR Boombatz wrote on Aug 7, 2009 7:25 AM: