COLUMBUS, Ohio (Court TV) — Attorneys appeared before Ohio’s highest court on Wednesday in a battle over expert testimony and procedure in a young woman’s murder trial.
Sydney Powell was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison for murdering her mother, Brenda. (Ohio Dept. of Corrections)
Sydney Powell was a college student when she murdered her mother, Brenda Powell, in 2020. She stood trial in 2023 and was convicted of murder, felonious assault and tampering with evidence. She was later sentenced to an indefinite term of 15 years to life. Sydney never denied the attack on her mother; rather, she argued she was insane at the time of the crime. In what became a battle of the experts, both prosecutors and Sydney’s defense called doctors to testify about her mental state.
Ohio’s Ninth District Court of Appeals granted Sydney a new trial, finding that the trial judge had erred by not allowing the defense to present a sur-rebuttal at the close of the case. The State of Ohio then appealed that decision.
C. Richley Raley, representing the State, argued that the Ninth District’s decision set a dangerous precedent that created an “unconditional right to sur-rebuttal,” fundamentally changing the structure of trials.
MORE | Sydney Powell sat with back to her family at sentencing
In Ohio, trials begin with opening statements. Then the State presents its case-in-chief, the defense may present its case, and the prosecution may present a rebuttal case to respond to evidence raised by the defense. Raley warned that the opinion created an unconditional right to recall expert witnesses.
Justice Patrick Fischer noted such a situation “could go on forever.”
Sydney’s attorney, Daniel Eisenbrei, said the issue is far more localized and agreed there should be no absolute right to a sur-rebuttal. Instead, Eisenbrei argued the trial judge abused her discretion in the singular instance of not allowing the sur-rebuttal.
Approaching the podium to deliver his three-minute rebuttal, Raley remarked, “I don’t believe we have a sur-rebuttal in this case.” He asked the justices to reinstate Sydney’s conviction.
The justices said they would take the issue under advisement and a ruling would be forthcoming, though no timetable was disclosed.
