COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) – A motion for a new trial in the case against a former Columbus police officer found guilty in the 2020 murder of Andre Hill was heard on Monday morning.

In February Adam Coy’s defense council filed a motion for a new trial, which was heard in Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. Attorneys said the prosecution withheld key evidence they believe would have changed their approach during trial as well as changed the outcome of the trial itself and exonerating their client.

In a hearing for oral arguments only, defense council argued that Jamie Borden, a certified court expert on, among other aspects, controversial use of force, police performance dynamics, and forensic video examination, provided an affidavit to the state that Coy’s actions, “appeared to be in response to a deadly threat.”

It was argued that had the state turned over this evidence, it would not only have directly conflicted with other expert testimony, but offered a new defense theory for Coy, and thus possibly affect the jury’s decision. This, the defense says, qualifies as a Brady Violation, in which the state fails to provide evidence that is favorable to the defense.

“It must have a reasonable probability that the result of the trial will be changed; there’s nothing here to show this again,” prosecutor Paula Sawyer said. “It’s speculative only we have no idea what an objective expert review by Jamie Borden will produce as far as testimony.”

It was also argued that an email timeline showing a discovery cover sheet, submitted by the Ohio Attorney State General’s Office, noted that on March 17, 2021 there was no potential exculpatory evidence from the state.

Defense council stated, however, that on March 9, 2021, it received an email from the state, citing that it intended to use professor Seth Stoughton as its expert witness, meaning the state had already spoken to Borden. The affidavit submitted by Borden supports the defense’s claim.

Kaitlyn Stephens – Defense Attorney 10;06;41;27 “We must not permit, your honor, the government to cherry pick which opinions, which information it turns over,” defense attorney Kaitlyn Stephens said. “We must not permit the government to only provide defendants with opinions that fit their narrative. We must not allow the government while only providing opinions that support their narrative to bury the other opinions of those of which do not support their narrative.”

The state countered that Borden’s opinion was based on a “surface review” of material available to him at the time, not a full analysis, and that any testimony provided would be speculation, since the state did not in fact hire him as an expert witness.

The hearing stems from a November motion which claimed Deputy Chief Counsel Anthony Pierson and Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Renee Hamlin did not disclose an expert witness to the defense, violating Coy’s right to a fair trial.

Coy was scheduled to be sentenced on Nov. 25, but that hearing was postponed after the motion was filed for a new trial. Coy is facing a mandatory sentence of 15 years to life in prison.

On Nov. 5, Coy, 48, was convicted of murder, reckless homicide and felonious assault for shooting Andre Hill, an unarmed 47-year-old, in 2020. The decision was made after a two-week trial after approximately 12 hours of deliberations.

Hill was killed on Dec. 22, 2020, at about 1:50 a.m., when Coy shot him four times while responding to a nonemergency suspicious vehicle call on Columbus’ northwest side.

Coy fired at Hill after he began exiting a garage at Coy’s request, with a lit phone screen held up in his left hand and his right hand at his side, not clearly visible due to a parked car. Coy testified he believed Hill had a silver revolver in his right hand, which ended up being a set of keys.

Defense attorney Kaitlyn Stephens suggested the state intentionally withheld evidence, while lead counsel Mark Collins said they did not know why the evidence was withheld, and that it should not have been.

Judge Stephen McIntosh, who presided over the oral arguments Monday, said he would review all statements and return a written opinion on the motion in about 30 days on whether or not to grant a new trial. A court date has not yet been scheduled.