YOUNGSTOWN Convicted of 3 murder counts, man seeks appeal

By BOB JACKSON
VINDICATOR COURTHOUSE REPORTER
YOUNGSTOWN -- Anthony Anderson, serving three life sentences for killing a pregnant woman and her young son, wants a new trial.
His lawyer, Gary Van Brocklin, says jurors in Anderson's October 2000 trial in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court should not have been allowed to view a videotaped statement by co-defendant Kevin Calwise.
Anderson, 26, of Kenneth Street, was convicted by a jury on three counts of aggravated murder and single counts of attempted aggravated murder and aggravated robbery. He has no chance for parole.
In a hearing Wednesday, Van Brocklin asked the 7th District Court of Appeals to overturn Anderson's conviction and grant him a new trial.
About the case
Anderson and Calwise, 25, were convicted of robbing a Lansdowne Boulevard home in November 1998. While there, they shot and killed 21-year-old LaShawnda Aziz and her 4-year-old son, DeShun Moreland. Aziz was pregnant and her death resulted in the termination of her pregnancy, which is the reason for the third aggravated-murder charge.
Aziz's daughter, Brea Aziz, was shot in the face but survived. She was 3 at the time.
Van Brocklin said it was one of the most brutal murders he has seen in his 28 years as a lawyer.
"But sometimes tough cases make bad law," he said.
Prosecutors called Calwise as a witness during Anderson's trial, but he refused to testify, invoking his right against self-incrimination.
Prosecutors then showed the jury a videotaped statement Calwise made to police in which he admitted shooting Moreland, but said Anderson shot the others.
Lawyer's argument
Van Brocklin argued that under Ohio law, such a statement should not have been allowed because it deprived Anderson's trial lawyers the ability to cross-examine Calwise. He also said the trustworthiness of the statement is questionable because Calwise most likely did it to curry favor with prosecutors.
Assistant Prosecutor Jay Macejko said Ohio law allows admission of videotaped statements in certain situations, and argued that this case was one of them.
"Calwise's statement was not the back-breaker that [Van Brocklin] would have you believe," Macejko said, noting that prosecutors presented other evidence at trial that would have been strong enough to convict Anderson.
A panel of three appellate judges heard the arguments and will issue a decision at a later date.
bjackson@vindy.com