ST. LOUIS — Allowing 18-year-old Janae Edmondson to face the jury in her wheelchair with what's left of her legs exposed to them made the trial a "gorefest," that the judge agreed ahead of time it would not become.
That's among the arguments defense attorney Daniel Diemer has included in his motion for acquittal or for a new trial for his client Daniel Riley.
It comes nearly a month after a jury found Riley guilty on several counts in a downtown crash that left Edmondson, a Tennessee teen, without her legs.
On March 7, Riley was found guilty on all but one misdemeanor assault charge for causing the crash that critically injured Janae Edmondson. The jury deliberated for just over three hours before delivering its verdict and recommending he serve almost 19 years in prison.
Diemer argued in a motion filed Monday that the cumulative effects of "improper rulings by the court" denied Riley's right to a fair trial in the case.
Edmondson's mother Francine sent a statement to 5 On Your Side, which read: "We are grateful and confident the jury made the right decision based on facts and we are proud our daughter ad the courage and strength to stand before everyone and tell her story."
Meanwhile, the Edmondsons had a small victory in their civil case against the City of St. Louis, in which they allege the city failed to properly maintain signage and safety at the intersection where Janae was struck.
On Monday, Judge Joseph Whyte denied the city's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, finding Edmondson has presented enough evidence to file suit. He denied Edmondson's motion for sanctions against the city for not providing evidence, and granted her motion to compel the city to produce the requested documentation within 15 days.
Her attorney, Kevin Carnie of the Simon Law Firm, sent a statement to 5 On Your Side, which read: "The City has tried to delay this case at every step. This order will put an end to that and it will put us back on track to getting this case to trial next March. We look forward to holding the city accountable for its role in this tragedy."
5 On Your Side legal analyst and retired federal Judge Nannette Baker said Diemer's motion is "routine," for cases resulting in guilty verdicts from juries.
"I know that when people hear that a verdict has been rendered, they think the case is over," she said. "But there are many other procedures that the defendant has the right to follow after they have been found guilty."
She added: "This is all to give the defendant grounds to bring up on appeal. And so they're going to put in every error that they believe that the court may have committed in order to preserve their grounds for appeal."
Baker said she thought the motion was well-written in that it included all of the errors the defense believes the judge made during the trial, but she doesn't think any of the arguments are particularly strong.
She believed Judge Michael Noble upheld his determination not to allow the trial to become a "gorefest," by withholding some of the more graphic crime scene photos from the jury. And, she said, if the defense had an objection to evidence of any kind coming into the trial, the defense must object to it.
In his motion, Diemer argued the court was wrong when it allowed prosecutors to present evidence for crimes he was not on trial for, namely evidence that fentanyl and codeine were in his blood following the crash.
"While evidence of another crime may be admissible to demonstrative motive ... the possession of any illegal drugs by in gestation does not prove motive as reckless conduct," the court document says.
Diemer said the court went against its previous ruling that the trial would not become a "gorefest" by "torturing" the jury with "drawn-out" testimony from Edmondson and her parents. In addition, Edmondson was positioned a few feet away from the jury box for over 45 minutes with her "scarred and disfigured legs prominently on display."
He said the defendant was unable to adequately lay out his defense during opening statements because the court prevented the use of statements from a witness who had died before the trial.
Diemer also argued the court limited the scope of the quality of the police investigation and prevented cross-examination about the condition of Elizabeth Smith, the other driver in the crash. He said the defense was prevented from exploring the fact that not all drivers had been tested for impairment and alleged Smith had been out barhopping on Mardi Gras before the crash.
"A lack of any alternative police investigation into the culpability of Elizabeth Smith deprived the defendant of his rights to a fair trial by a fair evaluation of the lack of objectivity and completeness of the scene investigation," Diemer wrote.
Diemer also mentioned that the court ruled against the defendant's request for a continuance to be able to effectively cross-examine the toxicologist when the prosecutors delivered the full toxicology report the night before jury selection.
The court had denied the defendant's request for a change of venue. Diemer said that though the preselection questionnaire ruled out potential jurors who knew the facts and circumstances in the Janae Edmondson crash, some jurors had previous knowledge about Riley and other crimes he had committed due to news coverage.
"A change of venue would have eliminated the contamination of the news coverage to which the jury pool was subject," Diemer wrote.
The court also ruled against the defense presenting evidence regarding the yield sign being replaced with a stop sign a few weeks after the crash.
"The court denied the defense (an) opportunity to demonstrate the dangerous nature of the intersection that the defendant did not know and subsequently obligated the City of St. Louis to replace it with the more correct measure of a stop sign."
Edmondson and her family were in St. Louis for the entire trial and asked the jury for the maximum prison sentence they could provide, which was slightly more than 20 years.
Judge Michael Noble is the only one who can decide whether Riley should serve the jury's recommended sentence concurrently or consecutively and he cannot sentence Riley to more than what the jury recommended. That sentencing hearing is scheduled for April 18.
Noble is also the judge who presided over the trial and overruled many of Diemer's objections.
Read Riley's full motion for judgment of acquittal or new trial:
To watch 5 On Your Side broadcasts or reports 24/7, 5 On Your Side is always streaming on 5+. Download for free on Roku, Amazon Fire TV or the Apple TV App Store.