Bulletin: Douglas Prade; Ohio; Arguments to be made Friday on whether he should get another trial in the death of his wife. Defence and prosecution submissions; "Testimony during the trial linked Prade to a bite mark found on her body. Three jurors said during interviews on national television that they would have found Prade not guilty if prosecutors didn't link the bite mark to Prade."

Attorneys will argue on Friday whether Akron police Capt. Douglas Prade should get another trial in the death of his wife.    Summit County Common Pleas Judge Christine Croce will preside over the hearing. She will ultimately decide whether to grant or reject Prade's request for a new trial. Her decision will likely result in an appeal. Prosecutors and defense attorneys in the case filed written arguments for Croce to consider before the oral arguments. Prade is being held in the Summit County Jail.  ........Here is a break-down of what each side is arguing. Defense attorney David Alden: The 1998 jury didn't have a significant amount of information that is now available, including DNA on Prade's wife, Margot Prade, that is not her husband's. Another male's DNA was found on his wife's lab coat. Testimony during the trial linked Prade to a bite mark found on her body.   Three jurors said during interviews on national television that they would have found Prade not guilty if prosecutors didn't link the bite mark to Prade "Significantly, there is no need for this Court to wonder whether the new evidence might prompt the fact-finders in a new trial to harbor reasonable doubt," Alden wrote. "Judge Hunter [a retired-Summit County judge who ordered Prade exonerated in 2013]...found not only reasonable doubt, but that Mr. Prade had proved actual innocence." Assistant Summit County Prosecutor Brad Gessner: Gessner argued in his written brief that the new evidence would not change the guilty verdict. He cited the 9th Ohio District Court of Appeals' reversal of Hunter's exoneration. The appeals court said that there was "overwhelming" circumstantial evidence supporting Prade's guilt and that there was "never a shred of evidence" that the killer's saliva ended up on the lab coat. Gessner also wrote that it is "wholly unclear" that the bite-mark testimony was the basis for the guilty verdict. Gessner compared the case to Dewey Jones, who was exonerated by DNA evidence after spending 20 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit. Gessner said that new DNA evidence ruled out Jones as the murderer. In Prade's case, the evidence never ruled Prade out as the killer.
http://www.cleveland.com/akron/index.ssf/2015/06/arguments_set_for_friday_in_ak_1.html