Attorneys gathered in Jefferson County Juvenile Court on Friday to address issues surrounding the upcoming trial of two Steubenville High School student-athletes charged with rape.

Regarding whether to keep the trial open or closed to the public, the only written motion that was ever entered for a motion for closure was filed by defense attorney Walter Madison -- and he withdrew that motion Friday.

Prosecutors from the Ohio Attorney General's Office didn't file a written response, but said in open court they would like the trial closed to the public and the media. Prosecutors said their position since the original probable-cause hearing has changed, and they want the trial closed.

Judge Thomas Lipps also listened to attorneys representing different media outlets who argued why they feel the trial should be open to the public.

Attorney Justin Wiater with Fitzsimmons Law Firm is representing the teenage girl who is the alleged victim on a civil basis. Wiater said he asked the judge to allow them to file a motion if necessary to argue their point to close the trial. However, he said he didn't know if he had standing to file that motion.

The judge is expected to make a ruling next week about whether to keep the trial open or closed to the public.


Both defense attorneys also moved for a change of venue. The defendants' attorneys argued that threats to witnesses are their main concern about changing the location of the trial.

Defense attorney Adam Nemann said that he would prefer a court with more law enforcement presence in addition to several entryways for witnesses to enter without fear of protesters wearing masks and threatening them.

Madison also brought up threats made to the sheriff, police chief and the school in his argument to change the trial's location.

Both of the defendants' attorneys also filed motions to continue the trial, arguing that they continue to receive new information that would be admissible in court.

When asked what new discovery was presented to Madison, whether it be new witnesses or new evidence, he responded, "All of the above. I can't speak too intelligently on it because I was handed it an hour or so before we began today's proceedings. So the fact that I get it at the final pre-trial, it's pretty relevant to our case. It begs reason to take pause and consider what we're doing here with the trial date just a couple of weeks away."

State prosecutors made reference to one new item of discovery, a cellphone that they said would be processed by next week.

They also argued that the information being brought up currently would not change the facts in the case.

The special prosecutors, meantime, want to restrict references to the nature of the girl under Ohio's rape shield law.

Madison also filed a motion asking the teen girl to be referred to during the trial as "the accuser" rather than "the victim" or "alleged victim."

Madison is also asking for a private investigator to further review evidence of the case, and interview additional witnesses if need be.

Madison claims that the detective initially handling the investigation did not have "adequate means" to investigate.

He wants the state to pay for that private investigator.


Madison finally asked for some clarification from the state on whether three teen witnesses for the prosecution were given any kind of deal in exchange for their testimony.

"If this is an immunity agreement, then they can't plead the Fifth. If it isn't, they may plead the Fifth. Either way, that affects my strategy and what it is I want to do. The state needs to clarify what those agreements are," said Madison.

Stay with NEWS9, WTOV9.com and WTOV9 Mobile for continuing coverage.

-PREVIOUS COVERAGE: Jefferson Co. Aug. 2012 juvenile rape investigation