Login | February 08, 2025
Gunman in 1982 killing of Denison University student has appeal denied
JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: September 21, 2015
The 10th District Court of Appeals recently denied a new trial for a man found guilty of planning a gang attack that killed an 18-year-old Denison University Student.
Norman Whiteside appealed a Franklin County Court of Common Pleas decision denying his motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial.
Whiteside asserted that he was entitled to a new trial, more than 30 years after his original trial, based on newly discovered evidence.
Whiteside’s case stemmed from the shooting death of 18-year-old Laura Carter in April 1982.
Carter was riding in a car with her parents and friends on their way to dinner for Denison University’s “parents weekend” when a bullet entered the car and struck her in the chest.
The bullet caused quite a bit of internal damage and although Carter’s father rushed her to the emergency room, she died of her wound.
An investigation revealed that Carter was not the intended victim of the shooting. Instead, she was unintentionally shot during a dispute between two gangs.
One group of criminal offenders, drug-dealers and forgers was native to Columbus and known as “the home team,” according to the facts of the case.
The other was a group from Cleveland that was trying to extort money from the home team. That group was called “the visiting team.” Whiteside was reportedly a part of the home team.
After the visiting team continued to try to extort money from the home team, Whiteside said he started to think they had to do something about the rival gang and one of its members, Melvin Thomas.
Whiteside explained that because the home team was comprised of criminals, they could not go to the police. As a result, he allegedly formed the intent to kill Thomas.
Whiteside and other members of the home team then went to a local gun shop and purchased three guns.
The following morning, Thomas shot John “Bubbles” Smith, of the home team, in the leg.
In response, two home team members used one of the purchased guns to carry out an attack intended to kill Thomas.
Their shots, however, did not strike Thomas and they killed Carter during their attack.
The state explained that Whiteside had a relationship with several members of the Columbus police and sometimes gave them information.
Shortly after Carter’s death, he provided them with the murder weapon and appeared for an interview with several detectives, including Det. Robert Young.
The statements made during that interview later became the subject of contention when Whiteside insisted that he only spoke to the detectives because they promised him immunity.
Based on his statements, Whiteside was charged in federal court with firearms violations based on his role in obtaining the guns to defend the home team.
The federal court, however, found that Detective Young’s testimony was not credible and that the officers who interviewed Whiteside had promised immunity and failed to review his Miranda rights.
The court then excluded that interview from the evidence and Whiteside was acquitted in December 1982.
More than two years later, the state charged Whiteside with two counts of conspiracy to commit aggravated murder based on the incidents leading to Carter’s death.
Whiteside again moved to suppress his statements to police, but the state provided additional evidence that Whiteside had previously perjured himself.
The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas held that police had not offered Whiteside immunity and overruled his motion to suppress.
At trial, Young testified that Whiteside had masterminded the failed ambush on Thomas and distributed the murder weapon at a meeting at his home on the day of the shooting.
Whiteside argued that he had not “masterminded” an “ambush,” but otherwise he largely confirmed Young’s testimony.
He held he was present when the guns were purchased and distributed and he felt he had to kill Thomas and discussed ways of dealing with Thomas and his cohorts.
They jury found Thomas guilty as charged and he was ultimately ordered to serve seven to 25 years in prison, consecutive to time he was already serving for several forgery convictions.
After several years of unsuccessful postconviction proceedings and additional litigation, Whiteside filed a motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial in February 2014.
His motion also included a request that all Franklin County Court of Common Pleas judges be disqualified from ruling on his motion and a visiting judge be appointed.
Whiteside explained that Judge Patrick Sheeran was the prosecutor on his original case and had described Whiteside as “intelligent and is as pure evil as I’ve ever seen,” in a letter opposing his parole and recommending that Whiteside never be released. He argued that because Sheeran is now a judge in Franklin County, any of the court’s judges who are now his co-workers would be biased against him.
The judges then all recused themselves and a visiting judge reviewed the motion.
Along with his motion, Whiteside included affidavits from his sister and Michael Kelly. Both individuals explained that they were at Whiteside’s house during the home team’s meeting before the shooting and stated that Whiteside did not distribute the gun used in Carter’s death.
The visiting judge denied Whiteside’s motion and he appealed to the 10th District.
The judges reviewed the affidavits and found that both authors reported to be at Whiteside’s house while a shooting was planned.
“This is a fact that Whiteside would have known or should have known about for over 30 years, the meeting having occurred in April 1982,” Judge Jennifer Brunner wrote for the court, noting that the time for Whiteside to introduce this evidence had long since expired.
Still, Whiteside argued that Kelly had a common name and it was difficult to find him.
The judges were unmoved by that argument.
“But that, alone, is not sufficient to show that Whiteside was ‘unavoidably’ prevented from obtaining evidence from Kelly within 120 days of the trial verdict, nor would it explain the delay of more than 30 years after the expiration of the 120-day deadline to seek leave to move for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence,” Brunner stated.
The judges found that Whiteside failed to provide an adequate reason for his delay and affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny his motion.
Whiteside also argued that one of the witnesses against him gave different testimony during the trial of one of Whiteside’s co-defendants.
Again, the judges found no reason to support a 30-year delay in discovering that information and rejected the argument.
After overruling each of Whiteside’s arguments, Judges William Klatt and Timothy Horton joined Brunner to affirm the lower court’s judgment.
The case is cited State v. Whiteside, 2015-Ohio-3490.
Copyright © 2015 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved