GALLIPOLIS — Defense counsel for Walter Stewart was afforded the opportunity Tuesday to view all physical evidence in the custody of the Gallia County Sheriff’s Office collected from the April double slaying of Rodney-area residents John Paul Holley and Carolyn Merry.

Following the inspection of physical evidence, Defense Attorney Robert Krapenc and Special Prosecutor Paul Scarsella will have reach an agreement on evidence which will be stipulated.

With no pending motions and jury instructions already underway, the case is steadily nearing the trial date of Nov. 2. Jury selection is scheduled for Friday, Oct. 30.

Stewart, 78, Wellston, is charged with two counts of capital aggravated murder in the shooting deaths of Holley, 59, and Merry, 54, which occurred at the Holley Brothers Stone Quarry on April 28. He is also charged with one count attempted murder of Merry’s brother, David B. Merry.

The shootings are thought to have stemmed from a business dispute.

According to court records, a hearing on all pending motions was held in late September. Forty motions, all filed by the defense, were addressed by Meigs County Common Pleas Court Judge Fred W. Crow III, who is presiding over this case in place of Gallia County Common Pleas Court Judge D. Dean Evans, who recused himself early on due to a potential conflict of interest.

The court denied the following motions:

• Motion to allow defense to argue last at the mitigation phase.

• Motion to dismiss death penalty specifications due to constitutional and international law violations.

• Motion to recognize mercy as a mitigating factor.

• Motion to instruct jurors that they may consider residual doubt as a mitigating factor.

• Motion for instruction that the defendant bears no burden of proof at the mitigation phase.

• Motion to prohibit the prosecutor from arguing and the court from giving instructions regarding statutory mitigating factors not raised by the defense.

• Motion to compel disclosure of the plaintiff’s jury selection data.

The court granted the following motion:

• Motion requesting daily transcripts.

The following motions were agreed to by the state and defense:

• Motion for disclosure of exculpatory and impeachment evidence.

• Motion for pre-trial disclosure of statements.

• Motion for disclosure of rebuttal witness.

• Motion for disclosure of juvenile records of plaintiff’s witnesses.

• Motion to instruct the jury on the specific mitigating factors raised by the defense.

• Motion for requested jury instructions: mitigation phase.

• Motion for preliminary jury instructions.

• Motion to compel the state to produce a list of all witnesses the prosecution intends to call at trial.

• Motion to disclose names of grand jury witnesses — The state agreed to have grand jury proceeding transcribed and to have an in-camera viewing by the court.

• Motion for closure of pre-trial hearings.

• Motion to request for notice of state’s evidence.

• Motion to extend time for filing pre-trial motions.

• Demand for discovery and for discovery regarding DNA.

• Motion to compel disclosure of aggravating factors and information relating to mitigating factors.

• Motion for an order directing that a complete copy of the prosecutor’s file be made and turned over to the court for review and to be sealed for appellate review, if necessary.

• Motion to compel law enforcement officials to turn over and advise the prosecuting attorney of all information acquired during the course of the investigation.

• Motion to properly preserve and catalog all physical evidence.

• Motion to prohibit any reference to the first phase of these proceedings as the “Guilt Phase.”

• Motion to record all sidebar proceedings.

• Motion requesting rulings on all motions no later than the commencement of voir dire. Voir dire generally refers to the process by which prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before their selection. All jurors will likely be questioned separately in this case due to it’s high publicity and other factors.

• Motion for all motions to be heard on record.

• Motion to have reasons for defense objections and reasons for overruling defense objections placed on the record.

• Motion to restrain certain parties form discussing the case with the accused.

• Motion for a stenographic record of all court proceedings in this case.

• Motion in limine regarding limited admissibility of law enforcement records.

• Motion in limine regarding using learned treatises for impeachment.

• Motion in limine regarding the inadmissibility of ‘prior consistent statements.’

• Motion for written jury instructions and an opportunity to review them before the jury is instructed.

• Motion for courtroom decorum order.

• Motion to transcribe grand jury proceedings prior to trial.

• Motion for a pre-trial copy of the transcripts of the grand jury proceedings.