close
close

Lawyers argue whether Sydney Powell deserves a new trial in her mother's death case

Sydney Powell's appeal on Tuesday was not about evidence presented during her murder trial, but about witness testimony that was not admitted.

Dan Eisenbrei, Powell's appeals attorney, told the 9thth According to the district court of appeals, Powell's trial attorney should have been allowed to have a witness respond to the testimony of the state's expert who found that Powell was sane when she killed her mother in March 2020.

Instead, Eisenbrei said, the trial judge prohibited this testimony.

“This gave the state the green light to have the final say in the NGRI (innocent by reason of insanity) case and to be confident that its expert would not be challenged,” Eisenbrei said during his oral argument before the Court of Appeal.

But Summit County Assistant Prosecutor Rick Raley said the judge who presided over the trial concluded that the jury had all the evidence needed to decide whether Powell “understood the wrongfulness” of her actions at the time of Brenda Powell's murder.

“The judge ruled that this was not necessary,” Raley said of the counter-deposition.

Eisenbrei and Raley, who also filed briefs with the appeals court, each had 15 minutes to present their arguments before 9th District Judges Donna Carr, Jennifer Hensal and Betty Sutton.

Powell, now 24 and incarcerated at the Ohio Reformatory for Women in Marysville, was not in court, but several of her family members and friends were present.

At the end of the hearing, Sutton said the judges would review the case and then make a ruling.

Powell's trial revolved around the question of insanity

Steve Powell, Sydney's father, and Betsy Brown, Sydney's maternal grandmother, urged prosecutors not to take Sydney's case to trial and to find a resolution.

The prosecution continued the trial and stated that it would leave the decision to the jury.

During Powell's trial, which lasted three weeks, defense expert James Reardon said Powell suffered a psychotic break when she killed her mother. He was one of three defense experts who examined Powell and diagnosed her with schizophrenia. They found that because of this disorder, she did not understand how wrong her actions were when she killed her mother.

But Sylvia O'Bradovich, a psychologist hired by the prosecution, disagreed with the three defense attorneys. She said Powell did not meet the legal definition of insanity when she beat her mother with a cast-iron frying pan and stabbed her more than 30 times.

O'Bradovich of Summit Psychological Associates said Powell does indeed have mental health issues, including borderline personality traits, malingering and an unspecified anxiety disorder.

Don Malarcik, Sydney's trial lawyer, asked jurors to weigh the opinions of three experts with a combined 50 years of experience against that of a psychologist who was testifying for the first time in a trial in which mental illness was considered a reason for the crime. He said prosecutors wanted jurors to believe that Powell had misled several medical experts and others.

Assistant District Attorney Brian Stano argued that Powell killed her mother because Brenda had just learned that Powell had been expelled from Mount Union University. Powell, he argued, did not want her secret to come to light.

More: Sydney Powell, who was convicted of murdering her mother, pleaded insanity. Review of the case

The jury had three options: guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity, or not guilty. They found Powell guilty of two counts of murder – one of intentional killing and the other of killing by causing great bodily harm – as well as aggravated assault and tampering with evidence.

Summit County District Judge Kelly McLaughlin sentenced Powell to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 15 years.

Powell appealed to the 9th District.

Powell's lawyer describes excluded witness testimony as a “fairness” problem

In his oral argument before the Court of Appeal, Eisenbrei emphasized that it was not possible for the defense to call one or more witnesses to comment on O'Bradovich's testimony.

Hensal asked if the defense could cross-examine O'Bradovich.

Eisenbrei said the defense was able to question O'Bradovich on the stand, but O'Bradovich brought up new information that had not been presented before, including questions about the accuracy of tests conducted by defense experts that found Powell insane at the time of the murder. He said that information was not included in O'Bradovich's original report.

“If there is no expert explaining to the jury the methodology – that is, why what she (O'Bradovich) is saying is incomplete – that really is a problem for the fairness of the trial,” Eisenbrei said.

Prosecutor sheds light on Powell’s actions after murder

Raley told the judges he wanted to give them more context about the murder and its aftermath.

Raley said Powell staged the crime scene to look like someone had broken in by breaking a window, lied to her father and police and pretended to be her mother in a phone call with Mount Union officials. He said this showed Powell recognized the wrongfulness of her actions “regardless of expert opinions.”

“What she did to cover it up just screams, 'I know what I did was wrong,'” Raley said.

Raley said McLaughlin felt there had been enough expert testimony and that the jury did not need to hear anything else after O'Bradovich's testimony.

“What does that mean – 'lots of testimony'?” Carr asked. “Is that important? It seems irrelevant.”

Raley said it was unusual to give the defense permission to call a rebuttal witness.

Carr, however, said it was an unusual case involving three defense experts.

Raley said there were no records showing Powell had experienced psychotic symptoms before killing her mother. He said O'Bradovich offered a “commonsense” explanation for the killing.

However, Eisenbrei said Powell's behavior after the murder was consistent with someone having a psychotic episode. He said she was alone with her mother's body for 26 minutes and took no steps to clean up the blood, wash herself or escape.

“Justice demands a new trial,” said Eisenbrei.

Powell's family optimistic about appeal, says lawyer

After the appeals, Eisenbrei said he had done his best and would now wait for the verdict.

Eisenbrei said this would likely take a while, especially because the judges would have to read through the lengthy transcript of the trial.

Jeff Laybourne, a lawyer representing the Powell family, said they were in court to show the support they have given them since the proceedings began. He said they had “full confidence” in Eisenbrei and the arguments he had made for the appeal.

“They remain optimistic about the decision,” Laybourne said.

Stephanie Warsmith can be reached at [email protected]330-996-3705 and on X (formerly Twitter): @swarsmithabj.

You may also like...