Jeffrey Wogenstahl claims his conviction represents a fundamental miscarriage of justice: he states that if the evidence now available to him had been heard at his trial “no reasonable juror would have found [him] guilty”.[i]

Such an assertion may sound extreme; but the comprehensive evidence that has now come to light fully supports Jeff’s claim.

The list of points that demonstrate a miscarriage of justice is extensive and varied, ranging from false hair comparison testimony, to perjury, to plentiful alternate suspects that were not investigated, etc. etc. And recent reports by experts on forensics, forensic pathology and eyewitness identification raise yet more questions about Jeff’s conviction.[ii]

Significantly, some of Jeff’s jurors have stated that their decision could well have been different if they had heard all the evidence that is now available. Even at the time of trial, one juror did not think the evidence in the first phase was overwhelming, but she was convinced by the [faulty] hair evidence that Jeff was guilty. When told of the recently divulged evidence she said,
“Information about Eric Horn’s drug selling would have had an effect on my decision to convict. . . Information about a strange man who stood outside Amber’s window and Amber’s journal entries about being attacked by someone a few months before her murder would have cause[d] reasonable doubt on my part.”[iii]

Another juror stated, “I suspected the older brother, Eric, was involved. He seemed weird. . . . If the defense attorneys had emphasized the problems with the mom and brother’s stories more, it may have affected my sentencing decision.”[iv]

And a third juror said that if she had known the brother was lying about selling drugs her verdict might have been different. She said that Eric Horn’s story about how Mr. Wogenstahl tricked him to get him out of the house was one of the most important pieces of evidence.[v]

As Jeff’s Merit Brief concludes,
“The jury that convicted Jeff Wogenstahl in 1993 was not given all of the evidence. In fact, some of the evidence that they were given was misleading and false. Wogenstahl deserves a new trial, in front of a new jury, that can hear all of the evidence surrounding this case and crime, not just the evidence that the State cherry-picked for them to hear.”[vi]

We Agree.

[i] Jeffrey A. Wogenstahl vs. Charlotte Jenkins, 1:17-cv-00298. Jeffrey A. Wogenstahl’s Merit Brief. In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. June 5, 2017. Page 23 (page 28 of pdf). (Office of the Ohio Assistant Public Defender). Print.

[ii] Jeffrey A. Wogenstahl vs. Charlotte Jenkins, 1:17-cv-00298. Jeffrey A. Wogenstahl’s Merit Brief. In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. June 5, 2017. Pages 23 – 27 (Pages 28 – 32 of pdf). (Office of the Ohio Assistant Public Defender). Print.

[iii] Jeffrey A. Wogenstahl vs. Charlotte Jenkins, 1:17-cv-00298. Jeffrey A. Wogenstahl’s Merit Brief. In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. June 5, 2017. Pages 26 – 27 (Pages 31 – 32 of pdf). (Office of the Ohio Assistant Public Defender). Print.

[iv] State of Ohio vs. Jeffrey Wogenstahl, 2016-0423.  Appellant Jeffrey Wogenstahl’s Motion to Remand Case to the Trial Court. In the Supreme Court of Ohio. October 7, 2016. Page 58.

[v] State of Ohio vs. Jeffrey Wogenstahl, 2016-0423.  Appellant Jeffrey Wogenstahl’s Motion to Remand Case to the Trial Court. In the Supreme Court of Ohio. October 7, 2016. Page 59.

[vi] Jeffrey A. Wogenstahl vs. Charlotte Jenkins, 1:17-cv-00298. Jeffrey A. Wogenstahl’s Merit Brief. In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. June 5, 2017. Page 27 (page 32 of pdf). (Office of the Ohio Assistant Public Defender). Print.