This document officially assigns attorney Michael Mills to represent Jonathan Eric Link during his appeal process. The state will cover the costs for this legal representation. It also explains what the lawyer is expected to do, how he will be paid, and what kind of appeals he can help with in the future. The order is signed by Judge Steven K. Dankof.
This document is a notification from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to the Montgomery County Clerk of Court. It explains how much time inmate Jonathan Link has to serve for his crime. It includes details about the crime he committed, how much time he gets credit for being in jail already, and when he can expect to be released or to meet with the parole board.
A judge has issued a formal order stating that certain grand jury transcripts from 2002 and 2025 need to be kept private and only the judge can see them. This order is part of the criminal case involving Jonathan Eric Link in Ohio.
This document is a request made to the court clerk. It lets the court know that a Notice of Appeal has been submitted and asks for all important documents, like transcripts and original papers, to be gathered and sent to the Court of Appeals. This is necessary according to Ohio rules for appeals.
Jonathan Link's lawyer has filed a request to the court asking for two things: first, that the court appoint a lawyer to help Jonathan with his appeal, and second, that Jonathan be allowed to continue his case without having to pay court fees because he doesn't have enough money. The request includes paperwork showing Jonathan's financial situation and confirms that it was filed electronically.
This document is a Notice of Appeal, which means that Jonathan Link, acting on behalf of the defendant, is letting the court know that they are challenging the decision made on January 22, 2026. They are taking this challenge to a higher court, the Montgomery County Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, to ask for a review of the case.
This document is a request made in court asking the court reporter to create and submit a written record of everything that happened in the case. This is necessary after the Notice of Appeal was filed, which means that someone is asking a higher court to review the decision made in this case.
This filing is a document called a Criminal Docket Statement for Jonathan Link's appeal against his felony murder conviction in Montgomery County, Ohio. It gives an overview of the case, listing everyone involved, the charges he faced, the sentence he received, and the current status of his appeal. It also includes important information from the court about what he has to pay and any restitution he owes. Additionally, it details his responsibilities as a violent offender and his rights regarding the appeal process.
This document is an official order telling the Sheriff of Montgomery County, Ohio, to take Jonathan Eric Link to the rehabilitation center after he has been found guilty and sentenced. It also shows that the Sheriff has received the order and has completed the transport, which is then recorded by the Clerk of Courts.
This document is an official court order about the criminal case against Jonathan Eric Link. A jury found him guilty of two murder charges, which combined into one for sentencing purposes. He has been sentenced to spend at least fifteen years in prison, potentially for life. In addition to his prison time, he will also have to meet specific conditions after his release, which include ongoing supervision and paying restitution to the victims. The order also covers other related costs and obligations and is signed by Judge Steven K. Dankof.
This document is a notice from the court saying that a sentencing has been officially recorded in the case of State of Ohio vs. Jonathan Eric Link. It also explains how and when a person can file an appeal if they want to challenge the sentence according to Ohio laws.
The State of Ohio has filed a request with the court asking it to order $808 to be paid to a fund that helps victims of crime. This money will cover funeral expenses that were paid in this case. The request also includes information about payments made to the children of the person who passed away.
The State of Ohio has filed a request asking the court to allow the release of some evidence connected to a criminal case. This evidence includes information about money that has been paid to help victims of crimes. The state is asking the court to order that $808 be paid back to the fund that supports victims of crime. The filing includes letters and documents that back up their request about these payments.
Parties shall submit their respective briefs in support of and/or in opposition to restitution
This document is a written argument from the defendant's lawyer saying that the defendant should only have to pay for the funeral costs and not any other payments to the Ohio Victim's of Crimes Fund. The lawyer uses Ohio laws and previous court cases to back up this claim.
State shall submit supporting documentation regarding restitution
The court has issued an order in the case of State of Ohio vs. Jonathan Eric Link about paying back money (restitution). This order includes dates by which the State must provide their evidence and both sides must submit their written arguments about the restitution. Importantly, the hearing to discuss this payment will be done through paperwork, so Jonathan Link does not need to be there in person.
This document is an official order from the court stating that $89.00 needs to be paid to the Ross County Sheriff's Office. This payment is for the service of contacting a witness in the case of State of Ohio vs. Jonathan Eric Link. The order is signed by Judge Steven Dankof and will be added to the case expenses.
This is a court order that says $15.00 needs to be paid to the Warren County Sheriff's Office for serving a witness in the case of State of Ohio vs Jonathan Eric Link. The order is signed by Judge Steven Dankof and this amount is considered a cost of the case.
This document is a statement from the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office showing the fees charged for services related to the court case against Jonathan Link. It details the different amounts charged and provides the case number and other important filing information.
Sentencing
Request to record/photograph court proceedings in the case of State of Ohio v. Jonathan Link before Judge Dankof.
Open court proceedings in the case of Jonathan Eric Link
Sentencing hearing for murder charges
Court-ordered deadline for filing.
This document confirms that the defendant has been informed about their right to appeal their conviction or sentence. It explains that they can get a lawyer to help them with the appeal, even if they can't afford one, and it includes important information about how to go through the appeal process and key deadlines to be aware of.
This document is from the State of Ohio and is about the legal case against Jonathan Eric Link. It asks the court to give the toughest sentence allowed by law. The memo covers the history of the case, the evidence presented, and talks about combining the two murder charges. It also shows that this document was filed electronically and sent to the defense lawyer.
The court has issued an order requiring a payment of $21.00 to the Greene County Sheriff's Office for serving a witness in the case against Jonathan Eric Link. This order was signed by Judge Steven Dankof, and this amount will be included as part of the case expenses.
A court in Montgomery County, Ohio, has issued an order that says $15 should be paid to the Warren County Sheriff's Office. This payment is for the work they did to deliver a message or notice to a witness in the case. The order is officially signed by Judge Steven Dankof and the amount is included as a part of the case costs.
Jen Balduf from the Dayton Daily News has asked the court for permission to take pictures and record what happens in the courtroom during the case against Jonathan Eric Link. This is a request made to the Court of Common Pleas in Montgomery County, Ohio, so that the public can see what is happening in the trial.
Dana Blaine, a representative from WDTN, has submitted a request to the court asking for permission to record or broadcast the open court sessions in the case of the State of Ohio versus Jonathan Link. This means that she wants to film or take pictures during the court hearings so others can see what happens in the case. The request also includes details about when these court sessions will take place.
This document is called a Sentencing Memorandum, and it has been filed by the defendant's lawyer to provide extra information for the judge before sentencing. It asks the judge to drop one of the murder charges because it is related to another charge. The memorandum also includes letters from the defendant's family that describe his good character.
This document is a record that shows all the pieces of evidence presented during the trial in the case of State of Ohio vs. Jonathan Eric Link. It lists what each piece of evidence is, gives it a specific number, and tracks who has handled it and where it was stored. It also includes important details like the verdict of the trial, the date it took place, and names of the court staff who managed the evidence.
This order, signed by Judge Steven K. Dankof, removes a previous decision made on March 6, 2025, that kept the details of the case secret from the public. Now, people will be able to see the case records again.
The court has issued an order to pay $12.00 to the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office for serving a witness in the case against Jonathan Eric Link. This order, signed by Judge Steven Dankof, means that this amount will be added to the costs of the case.
The Court of Common Pleas has issued a decision that Jonathan Eric Link must attend several court hearings. One important date to remember is his sentencing, which is set for December 23, 2025, at 8:30 am. This order is signed by Judge Steven K. Dankof, and Jonathan's lawyer is Dennis A. Lieberman.
Jury trial
Jury trial scheduled with remote testimony for witnesses
This document is an official record from a court in Ohio that shows the jury found Jonathan Eric Link guilty of two murder charges. It has been signed and confirmed by Judge Steven K. Dankof.
The Montgomery County Common Pleas Court has issued an order that says $39.00 should be paid to the Warren County Sheriff's Office for their help in serving a witness related to your case. This order is signed by Judge Steven Dankof and will be considered as part of the costs of the case.
The court has issued an order that requires paying $40.00 to the Highland County Sheriff's Office for serving papers to a witness in the case against Jonathan Eric Link. Judge Steven K. Dankof has signed this order, and the cost will be added to the case expenses.
Request to Record/Photograph Court Proceedings in the case of Jonathan Link before Judge Dankof.
Open court proceedings in the case of State of Ohio before Judge Steven K. Dankof
Trial for State v. Jonathan Eric Link begins and lasts through at least December 17, 2025.
Any and all open court proceedings in the case of State of Ohio vs. Jonathan Eric Link
Jury Trial
Trial commencing for Jonathan Eric Link.
Jury trial scheduled with remote testimony for witnesses
Jury trial
This order, made by Judge Steven K. Dankof in the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, explains the rules for how the media can cover the trial in the case of State of Ohio vs. Jonathan Eric Link. It talks about what media outlets can do, like whether they can film or take pictures during the trial, and sets limits on their behavior. It also mentions what will happen if they don't follow these rules.
This document is a request from a media person asking for permission to film or take pictures during the court hearings for the case of State of Ohio vs. Jonathan Link, which is being handled by Judge Dankof. It includes the person's name, which media outlet they work for, and information about the court session they want to cover.
A person from the media has asked for permission to take pictures and record everything that happens during the court case of State of Ohio vs. Jonathan Link, which is being handled by Judge Steven K. Dankof.
The court has issued an order that requires a payment of $155.00 to the Ross County Sheriff's Office. This payment is for their work in trying to serve a notice to a witness in the case of State of Ohio vs. Jonathan Eric Link. The judge, Steven K. Dankof, has decided that this amount should be covered as part of the case costs.
This document is a request from the defendant asking the court to share information related to the case. It confirms that the defendant has received important information from the prosecution and also acknowledges that both sides have to share relevant details with each other according to Ohio law and local court rules.
A media representative has asked the court for permission to take photos and videos during the open court sessions of a particular criminal case in Montgomery County, Ohio. This means they want to capture what happens in court for news coverage.
The court has issued an order that $27.00 needs to be paid to the Preble County Sheriff's Office. This payment is for the service they provided when they contacted a witness in the case against Jonathan Eric Link. Judge Steven K. Dankof has signed this order, and the cost will be added to the expenses of the case.
This document is a receipt that shows what evidence has been given to the court in the case of State of Ohio v. Jonathan Eric Link. It was filed in the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court. The receipt includes details about different pieces of evidence, like forms and photographs, that will be used during the hearing and trial. It also tracks who has handled this evidence to ensure everything is properly managed.
This document includes a list of points that both the State of Ohio and the defendant have agreed on for the upcoming trial. It covers things like who the people are in the case, how evidence will be managed, results from forensic tests, and certain rules that will be followed during the trial. The lawyers for both sides have signed it, and it will be shown to the jury as an agreed-upon document.
This is a court order that says $75 needs to be paid to the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office for their work in trying to serve papers to five witnesses for the court. The costs are recorded as part of the case expenses.
This is a court order from a local court in Montgomery County, Ohio. It allows the State of Ohio to take back some items that were used as evidence in a previous hearing where they tried to prevent certain evidence from being used. The order says that these items should be given back to the State's Records Manager.
The State of Ohio has asked the court to allow them to use some important evidence (Exhibit 7, which is a box of documents) during the upcoming trial against Jonathan Eric Link. They want the court to give permission for a person named Joshua Davis, who manages records for the county, to receive all the State's evidence for this case.
This order is about a request from the State asking the court to not allow any evidence about another possible suspect, Steven Moorehead, in the case against Jonathan Eric Link. The court decided that information about Mr. Moorehead isn’t important enough to be included since it doesn’t really relate to the murder of Shannon Anderson. Because of this, the court agreed with the State’s request and provided guidelines for how to handle any similar evidence about other suspects in the future.
This order deals with the State's plan to use certain evidence in the case and the defendant's request to keep that evidence out. The judge decided that the evidence is directly related to the charges against the defendant, so it doesn't fall under the rule that usually keeps this type of evidence out. Therefore, the judge denied the defendant's request to exclude it. Judge Steven K. Dankof signed the order.
The court has ordered that $103.56 be paid to the Madison County Sheriff's Office for their efforts in serving a witness in the case against Jonathan Eric Link. This amount will be added to the costs of the case.
This is a court order that instructs paying $35.00 to the Warren County Sheriff's Office. This payment is for them trying to serve papers to a witness in the case involving Jonathan Eric Link. This cost will be added to the expenses for the case.
The court has issued an order to pay $77.00 to the Greene County Sheriff's Office. This payment is for the service provided to three witnesses in the case of State of Ohio vs. Jonathan Eric Link. The order is officially signed by Judge Steven K. Dankof and will be added to the case costs.
This is a court order that says $15.78 should be paid to the Franklin County Sheriff's Office for their work in serving papers to a witness in the case of the State of Ohio against Jonathan Eric Link. This amount is considered part of the costs of the case.
The court has decided that Retired Officer Thelma Barnes can give her testimony via video because she can't come to the court in person. The defense agreed with this decision, and the court believes that allowing her to appear remotely is reasonable.
A judge from the Montgomery County Court has issued an order that denies the defendant's request to access certain evidence and transcripts from a grand jury. The judge decided that the defendant did not provide enough reasons to justify needing this information, so the request is completely rejected. Judge Steven K. Dankof is the one who signed this order.
Defendant Jonathan Eric Link has until 5:00 p.m. to respond to the State's filings.
Final pretrial conference
Final Pretrial Conference
FINAL PRETRIAL - FLASHDRIVE / MOTION IN LIMINE - ALTERNATE SUSPECT
Final pretrial conference regarding video testimony
Jonathan Link, representing the defendant, has submitted a request to the court asking to keep certain evidence from being used during the trial. This evidence, known as 404(B) evidence, is information about past behavior that the State wants to include, but Jonathan argues that it is based on guesses, could unfairly influence the jury, and doesn’t follow the rules set by Ohio law. He is asking the court to prevent this evidence from being presented, or if needed, to decide how to handle any objections when they come up during the trial.
The court has issued a payment order for $137.00 to the Warren County Sheriff's Office. This payment covers the cost of them trying to serve a witness for the court.
The judge has approved a request for the jury to visit and look at the inside and outside of a specific location, which is 4516 Far Hills Avenue. This visit will help the jurors better understand the testimony from witnesses during the trial. The costs of this visit will be treated like other expenses in the case.
This is a court order telling the county auditor to pay the Madison County Sheriff's Office for their efforts in trying to serve documents to three witnesses for the court. The amount spent will be added to the case costs.
This document is a formal response to the State's request to keep out evidence about other possible suspects in the case. The defendant's lawyer argues that not allowing this evidence would go against the defendant's rights. They believe the jury should hear about all potential suspects to make a fair decision. The response also refers to previous legal cases to support their argument and asks the court to deny the State's request.
The court has issued an order requiring that $25.78 be paid to the Franklin County Sheriff's Office. This payment is for services they provided related to a witness in the case of State of Ohio vs Jonathan Eric Link. The order was signed by Judge Steven K. Dankof and will be added to the case expenses.
The court has issued an order telling the county's finance department to pay $29.78 to the Madison County Sheriff's Office. This payment is for serving legal documents to a witness in the case against Johnathan Eric Link. The amount to be paid is considered a cost of the case, and the order has been signed by Judge Steven K. Dankof.
The State of Ohio has asked the court to let some witnesses talk to the jury through video instead of coming to court in person. This is because one important witness, Retired Officer Thelma Barnes, can't travel. The request includes reasons and rules that support using video testimony for this trial.
This order explains how the jury should be instructed about the role of grand jury activities in the case and what they should think about when looking at evidence that suggests the defendant might feel guilty. It outlines the specific wording the jury should be given about decisions made by the grand jury in the past and how they should understand evidence related to the defendant's possible suicide attempt. The order also mentions previous notices and legal guidelines that back up these instructions.
The court has decided not to allow the defendant, Jonathan Eric Link, to hire Dr. Kenneth Manges as a memory expert. The court felt there wasn't enough proof of Dr. Manges' qualifications and also had doubts about the defendant's claim that he can't afford to pay for an expert, especially since he seems to have a lot of money. The request has been denied for now, but the defendant can ask again in the future if he can show that his concerns have been resolved.
This notice is letting the lawyers know that there will be a meeting before the trial starts. They need to be ready to talk about any autopsy photos that the State plans to show during the trial. The judge wants to decide if those photos can be used in court. This notice was issued by the judge without anyone asking for it and it relates to certain rules about what evidence can be shown.
The State of Ohio has filed a document in response to the defendant's request to have a memory expert appointed. The State argues that the defendant may not actually be poor as they claim and wants the court to look into the defendant's financial situation before deciding on the request for the expert. The document also shows that it was filed electronically and that the defendant's lawyer has been notified about it.
The court has issued an order saying that Jonathan Eric Link, the defendant in this case, must respond to the State's documents by November 20, 2025. This order is connected to a specific type of evidence the State plans to use in the trial and a request to limit information about other possible suspects.
In simple terms, Jonathan Eric Link, who is representing the defendant, has submitted a request to the court. He wants the judge to tell the jury to consider a past decision from 2002 that found no charges were needed against the defendant. He is also asking the court to think about whether evidence about a supposed suicide attempt should be allowed in the trial. The goal of this request is to make sure the jury gets fair instructions and to reduce any bias they might have against the defendant.
Ordered filing deadline for Mr. Link's response.
State to produce evidence in camera by this deadline.
Deadline to file Response to Court's Intent to Instruct the Jury on Grand Jury Activity and Consciousness of Guilt.
The Montgomery County Court has agreed to give Defendant Jonathan Eric Link more time to reply to the court's notice about jury instructions. Now, he has until November 10, 2025, at 5 pm to respond. The court also states that the State's response, which is due on November 6, 2025, will be considered on time.
This order tells the State of Ohio that they need to provide recordings or written statements from Steven Moorehead to the court for a private review. This is related to a motion about evidence concerning other possible suspects in the case. The State has until 5:00 p.m. on November 10, 2025, to submit these materials. The order was issued by Judge Steven K. Dankof.
Motion to appoint Memory Expert hearing for Jonathan Eric Link
The State of Ohio issued a request to the court about a specific instruction for the jury. They are asking the court not to tell the jury about a previous decision from a Grand Jury that didn’t charge anyone. The State is worried that if the jury hears about this decision too early, it might lead them to misunderstand things in the case. They want to keep that information from the jury unless it really matters during the trial.
This is a request made by the defendant, Jonathan Link, asking the court to hire a memory expert for the trial because he cannot afford to pay for one. The request includes paperwork that explains his financial situation and suggests Dr. Kenneth J. Manges as the expert to be appointed. It also has a document confirming that everyone involved has received this request and includes Dr. Manges's resume.
The State of Ohio has submitted a request to the court asking for permission to submit its response to the jury instructions after the deadline, which was 5:00 PM on November 6, 2025. In this request, they explain why they couldn't meet the deadline and are asking the court to accept their late response.
Parties are ORDERED to file any briefing regarding proposed jury instructions.
Deadline to file a response to the Notice.
A judge from the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court has made an official order that requires Ambree Johnson, a witness who lives in another state, to come and testify in the trial of Jonathan Eric Link. The order includes details about how she will be protected, compensated, and the steps needed to make sure she shows up for the trial, which is set to begin on December 8, 2025. The order is sent to the authorities in Pennsylvania to help organize her attendance.
The defendant, represented by Jonathan Link, is asking the court for more time to respond to the judge's plan to explain certain legal matters to the jury. The reason for the request is that they need extra time to secure an expert who specializes in memory and because they have a lot of other cases to handle. They are asking to extend the deadline until November 10, 2025.
The State of Ohio has filed a request asking the court to prevent any evidence or testimony about another person, Steven Moorehead, being considered as a suspect in the case against Jonathan Eric Link. They believe this information is not helpful to the case and could confuse the jury. If the court thinks this evidence might be relevant, they want to have a meeting to discuss it further. The motion includes extra information about their investigation into Moorehead and confirms that they have sent this information to the defense lawyer electronically.
The State of Ohio is asking the court for permission to submit their response to the jury instructions after the 5:00 PM deadline on November 6, 2025. They have explained why they missed the deadline and want the court to accept their response anyway. They also provided proof that they sent this information to the defendant's lawyer electronically.
The State of Ohio has put in a request to the Court about how to guide the jury. They are asking that the jury not be told about a past decision from a Grand Jury that showed there was not enough evidence for charges to be filed unless it becomes important during the trial. The State is worried that mentioning this could confuse the jury and lead them to make wrong conclusions.
This order from Judge Steven K. Dankof means that the court has rejected the request from Jonathan Eric Link to throw out the charges against him or keep certain evidence from being used because he claimed it was protected by attorney-client privilege. The court decided that he didn’t provide enough proof to show that this privilege applied in his case, so his requests were denied.
The court is letting the lawyers know that it plans to inform the jury about two important things: what happens during a grand jury process and what "consciousness of guilt" means. This is especially relevant to the case of Jonathan Eric Link, who attempted suicide in 2001. The court also shares its plan for how to explain these topics to the jury and asks the lawyers to submit any comments or concerns they might have about these instructions by a certain deadline.
The court has decided that the evidence and statements collected from Jonathan Eric Link, without a warrant, can be used in the case. This means that Link's request to throw out that evidence has been denied. The court reviewed the situation and concluded that everything was done legally, so the evidence will stay in the case.
The court has issued an order telling the State to create and give a written record of everything that was said during the Grand Jury hearings in 2025 that are connected to this case. This record will be reviewed privately by the Court after the defense requested it.
Hearing on defense's motions
Hearing regarding handwritten notes in State's Exhibit 7
MTS HEARING
Hearing on the Motion to Suppress Evidence
Hearing regarding disclosure of records of contacts, communications, and/or meetings by State agents with Alexandrea Walker and Ambree Johnson.
Motion to Suppress hearing scheduled.
This document is an agreement between the State of Ohio and the Defense that confirms the handwritten notes in Exhibit 7 belong to the defendant, Jonathan Eric Link. This agreement is valid for this case and any future cases that might involve these notes. It also shows that the document was filed electronically and that the Defense lawyer was informed about it.
The State of Ohio has submitted a response before the hearing to address the defendant's request to keep certain evidence out of the trial. In this document, the State explains the facts and legal reasons why they believe the evidence should be allowed in court. They are asking the judge to reject the defendant's requests. Additionally, the document confirms that it has been properly filed and shared with the defendant's lawyer.
Trial
Jonathan Link, representing the Defendant, has submitted a request to the court asking for the release of grand jury transcripts from 2002 and 2025. He believes these transcripts are important because they can help evaluate how reliable the witnesses are and whether their stories are consistent. The request points out that having access to this information is necessary for a fair trial and includes references to legal rules that support this need.
The State of Ohio filed a document arguing against the request made by the defendant to make grand jury testimony public. They believe the defendant hasn't shown a good reason for why this information should be released. The State is asking the court to deny the defendant's request and includes legal reasons and background information to support their argument.
The court has issued an order telling the State to create and hand over a written record of all the Grand Jury testimony from 2002 that is relevant to this case. This is being done so the judge can review it privately after the defense asked for this information.
This is a court order telling the State of Ohio to give the defense lawyer copies of what AJ (now called AA) or AM (now called AW) said during grand jury hearings. The order is for the lawyer's eyes only and was issued because there's a specific reason for needing this information, and the State didn’t disagree with the request.
Final Pre-Trial
Document electronically filed via the Court's authorized electronic filing system.
Court appearance for defendant Jonathan Link regarding motion to dismiss and/or suppress evidence.
Jonathan Link, acting for the defendant, has filed a request asking the court to either drop the charges or not use certain evidence in the case. He claims that the State has incorrectly looked at private conversations between the defendant and their lawyer. The request is focused on some three-ring binders that contain these protected communications, and he is asking the court to take action to protect this information.
The defendant’s lawyer, Jonathan Link, has asked the court to force the State of Ohio to share certain evidence that could help the defense. Specifically, he wants the grand jury transcripts from July 27, 2002, and any records of communication with key witnesses Alexandria Walker and Ambree Johnson from 2001 to 2024. This request is based on legal rules that say the defense has the right to see evidence that could be important for the case.
This order records what happened in a meeting on September 15, 2025, regarding the criminal case of State of Ohio vs. Jonathan Eric Link. It pushes the trial dates back to December 8 and December 15, 2025. It also plans a final meeting before the trial on November 20, 2025, and sets a date for a hearing on defense requests for October 23, 2025.
This document is a request to keep certain evidence out of the trial. Jonathan Link, who is representing the defendant, is asking for all evidence collected from searches of the defendant's home and car on August 18 and October 10, 2001, to be thrown out. He believes these searches were illegal and went against the defendant's rights. He is also asking for a meeting to discuss this issue.
Jonathan Link, representing the defendant, has officially asked the court to ignore any evidence collected during searches of his home and car that happened without a warrant on August 18, 2001, and October 10, 2001. He argues that these searches were not done legally because they didn't have a proper warrant or permission to search. He is also asking the court to hold a hearing to discuss this issue.
The defendant, through their lawyer, has filed a request to ignore certain evidence gathered from searches of their home that happened without a search warrant on August 18 and October 10, 2001. The request says these searches were not legal because they didn’t have the proper approval, and they want a hearing to discuss this issue. The document also shows that all necessary parties have been notified about the filing.
Jonathan Link, representing the defendant, has asked the court to require the State of Ohio to give more detailed information about the charges in the case. He believes the current indictment doesn't provide enough specifics, and getting this additional information is important to ensure the defendant's rights are protected.
This document is a court order in the case of State of Ohio vs. Jonathan Link. It tells the State to share the names of witnesses who spoke at the Grand Jury, but only for the lawyer's eyes. Additionally, if the children of the deceased gave any testimony, the State must create transcripts of their statements for the court to review privately.
This document is called an evidence receipt, and it has been submitted to the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court for case number 2024CR03226. It serves as proof that certain evidence has been given to the court for a bond hearing. This evidence includes flash drives that hold interviews, sketches, and photos. The document also names the lawyers, the judge, and the court staff who are involved in managing this evidence.
The lawyer, Jonathan Link, has filed an updated request asking the court to make Ohio reveal the names of everyone who testified in front of the Grand Jury during the years 2001/2002 and 2025. This request is important for the defense to strengthen its case.
The court has decided that Richard Emmons can meet with Jonathan Link in person at the Montgomery County Jail. This means they can have face-to-face visits as part of the case.
Transport court hearing for defendant Jonathan Link.
This document is a bill from the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office for case number 24CR 3226. It includes different fees that are associated with the defendant, Jonathan Link.
This is a request made by Jonathan Link, who is representing the defendant, asking the court to let a private investigator named Richard Emmons meet in person with the defendant at the Montgomery County Jail. The request comes with additional information explaining why it's needed and a document confirming it has been shared with the relevant parties.
The court has issued a document that says Jonathan Eric Link, the defendant, must show up on certain dates for court, including one before the trial and the trial itself. The document provides the specific dates and times he needs to be there, and it is signed by Judge Steven K. Dankof.
A judge has issued a ruling that keeps all information about the case between the State of Ohio and Jonathan Link private. No one can see any details about the case for now, and this rule will stay in place until the court decides otherwise.
This document is a formal request from the defendant asking the prosecution to share all the evidence and information they have about the case, as required by Ohio rules. It confirms that the defendant has received the prosecution's information packet and recognizes that the defendant also needs to share any evidence they have. The attorney for the defendant signed this document and mentioned two specific discovery packets related to the case.
Jonathan Link, who is representing the defendant, has filed a request with the court asking for transcripts of two grand jury sessions related to the case. He believes these transcripts are essential for the defense team to help witnesses remember what happened, check the truthfulness of their statements, and make sure that the defendant's rights are protected, especially since a lot of time has passed and there are some differences in what witnesses are saying. The request also comes with supporting arguments and proof that it was filed properly.
Hearing for STATE OF OHIO vs. ANDREA NICKOLE WILLIAMS
Hearing for STATE OF OHIO vs. CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON
Hearing for STATE OF OHIO vs. DARIUS BROWN
Hearing for STATE OF OHIO vs. SHYMIRE T H GOINS
Hearing for STATE OF OHIO vs. JERRY MASON
Hearing for STATE OF OHIO vs. CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON
Order denying bail pursuant to R.C. 2937.222
Hearing for STATE OF OHIO vs. KRISTEN MORAN
A judge from the Montgomery County court has decided to keep certain documents related to the case of State of Ohio vs. Jonathan Eric Link private. This means that no one can see those documents right now, and they will stay sealed until the judge says otherwise.
Bond Hearing
Bond hearing for Jonathan Eric Link
This document is a formal agreement where the defendant, Jonathan Eric Link, gives up his right to have a speedy trial as guaranteed by U.S. and Ohio laws. This applies to all charges he is facing, including two murder charges. The document was officially submitted to the court and sent to the prosecutor handling the case.
State's request to hold defendant without bond
This document is a list of fees from the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office. It shows different charges related to the court case, such as costs for transporting the defendant, video services, legal processes, and booking fees. The fees are for a person named Jonatkan LiNk.
Arraignment and plea not guilty for defendants in case state of Ohio vs. Ismail Melhem and state of Ohio vs. Jonathan Eric Link.
Defendant ordered to report for taking of DNA specimen, fingerprints, and photographs
The Montgomery County Court has issued a notice that informs several defendants in different criminal cases about when they need to appear in court. This notice includes details like the case numbers, the names of the cases, which judges will be handling them, and the specific dates each defendant needs to show up. The notice was given to the defendants during a court session on January 16, 2025.
This document is about a court hearing where two people accused of crimes had a chance to speak in front of a judge. They officially told the court that they are not guilty of the charges against them. The court also decided how much money they would need to pay to be released while their case is ongoing.
This is a court decision from Montgomery County that sets the bail for Jonathan Eric Link. It explains how much money he needs to pay to be released, the rules he must follow while he's out, and it cancels any previous warrants for his arrest. The judge, Steven K. Dankof, has signed this order, which includes all the details about the bail and its conditions.
This document is a formal notice that lets everyone involved in the case know that Dennis Lieberman is the lawyer representing Jonathan Link, the Defendant. It’s part of the criminal case called State of Ohio v. Jonathan Link. The notice also shows that it was filed electronically.
State's request for high bond
This document is a formal accusation filed in the Montgomery County Court, saying that Jonathan Eric Link, also known as Eric Link, is charged with two types of murder in connection with the death of someone named S.A. The events leading to this charge happened between July 28, 2001, and August 16, 2001. The charges include one for intentionally causing someone’s death and another for causing a death as a result of committing a serious crime. This is against Ohio law.
This document is a legal order from the Common Pleas Court in Montgomery County, Ohio. It tells police to arrest Jonathan Eric Link because he has been officially charged with two counts of murder. The document contains details that identify him and gives guidance for the police on what to do. It also includes a part for officials to record when they have arrested him.
This is a court order from the Montgomery County Court in Ohio that tells the county to pay the Ross County Sheriff for helping with a case by contacting a witness for the Grand Jury. The court also instructs the county's financial officer to handle the payment and make sure the costs are taken care of.