Trending
PARKERSBURG - A Wood County Circuit Court Judge is reviewing a motion for a new trial in a case where a woman was originally found guilty of second-degree murder, but a juror was believed to have personal connections to people involved in the case after the verdict was rendered.
Wood County Circuit Court Judge is reviewing the motion as well as the state's response in the case of Barbara Cupp. A representative of his office said Tuesday the judge has not made a ruling yet and the matter had not been set for a hearing.
Cupp, 33, was originally found guilty March 27 of the March 2025 shooting death of 37-year-old Matthew Bills of Williamstown with whom she had been in a relationship. Cupp faces 10 to 40 years in prison.
At a hearing last month, defense attorney George J. Cosenza made a motion for a new trial which came as a result of juror Chadwick E. Parsons knowing a lot of the people involved in the case and whether he was friends with them or knew them more personally than he indicated when he was being interviewed as a potential juror at the beginning of the jury selection process, known as voir dire. In many cases he said they just knew people "from school" because they lived in a small town.
During testimony at the hearing, Parsons admitted he had an intimate “friends with benefits” type of relationship with Cupp’s mother for about a year that occurred years ago after a photo of them together was entered into evidence.
Waters had Cosenza and Wood County Prosecutor Pat Lefebure file motions stating why the defense should have a new trial and why the state believes the verdict should stand. The defense and the state filed their responses on July 17.
"The right to a trial by an impartial, objective jury in a criminal case is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution," Cosenza wrote in his motion. "A meaningful and effective voir dire of the jury panel is necessary to effectuate that fundamental right.
"The object of jury selection is to secure jurors who are not only free from improper prejudice and bias, but who are also free from the suspicions of improper prejudice or bias."
His motion to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial was based upon the "disqualification or incompetency of a juror."
"It is clear from the testimony elicited during the motion hearing that, during voir dire, Chadwick Parsons falsely answered questions proposed to him," Cosenza wrote.
He brought up Parsons' interactions and personal connections to people in the case, including Bills and witnesses for the state as well as socializing with them at gatherings when they were in school which witnesses testified to at the hearing.
"If the criminal justice system in this State is to be fair and equitable to all sides, it cannot sanction by any means, jurors, who are not truthful during voir dire," Cosenza wrote. "Without candid, complete and truthful answers by jurors, the court and counsel cannot make informed decisions as to whether that juror should be challenged for cause or peremptorily excused."
Cosenza wrote Parsons had "intimate knowledge" about people in the case which he should have shared during the jury selection process.
"His willful failure to do so prejudiced the defendant in a significant manner," as Parsons was one of 12 jurors who voted to find Cupp guilty, he wrote.
In his response, Lefebure said Parsons acknowledged knowing Cupp and Sams as well as other witnesses in having gone to school with them. During the voir dire process, Parsons was brought back to the judge's chamber for further questioning where he said he knew them from school, but was also represented by Cosenza in another matter, but "it would not impact his decisions in this case."
"Parson further indicated he was not friends with (Bills), just that, in a small community, similarly aged kids would congregate, and that this was 20-25 years ago," Lefebure wrote.
During the hearing Parsons said one of the witnesses was close to his sister and had spent the night at their house on a number of occasions, but they themselves were not friends.
"…he hadn't had contact with her in the last (20) or so years other than possibly running into her at a gas station or store," Lefebure wrote. "Parsons maintained during voir dire that he could always remain impartial and have no bias, either for or against the Defendant or the State, due to these relationships."
The motion to dismiss is based on testimony from witnesses about a few parties the juror attended with the defendant and the victim from 20 years ago to say that he falsely answered questions, he wrote.
"The defense wants the Court to take the leap that, since he didn't state that he was at a couple of parties (20-25) years ago, he falsely answered questions, and therefore a new trial is warranted," Lefebure wrote.
The Court provided the opportunity for Parsons to be asked further questions, but Cosenza did not.
"…even more important, (Cupp) was aware of these relationships…and did not ask Mr. Cosenza to make further inquiry," Lefebure wrote. "Ms.Cupp was hoping that her relationship with the juror would benefit her, and now that she has been convicted, she is raising the issue.
"She cannot have it both ways."
Lefebure wrote that Parsons' sexual relationship with Cupp's mother 20 years ago and Parsons sister's friendship with a witness as the basis for a new trial were not supported by case law. There were questions of if Cupp herself might have had a relationship with Parsons which Cupp denied which he felt should have prompted the defense to ask further questions of Parsons which they did not do, the prosecutor wrote.
"(Cupp) knew of these relationships and thought it would help her in this trial; why else would defense counsel not ask a single question of Mr. Parsons," he wrote. "The Defendant hasn't provided any facts in support of the motion showing that prejudice or injustice occurred as a result…they simply want the Court to infer prejudice.
"At all times, Mr. Parsons indicated that he was free of bias and that his decision was not influenced by his knowledge of any of the individuals. Accordingly, the State asks this Court to deny the motion for a new trial."
Brett Dunlap can be reached at bdunlap@newsandsentinel.com