LIMA — The attorney for a Cridersville man facing 52 criminal charges alleging a variety of sex-related crimes against two young girls is asking the court to toss out 16 of the counts against his client.
Jay Holliday, 39, is also seeking to have his jury trial separated into two parts — one for each of the alleged underaged victims in the case — on the remaining 36 counts. His attorney, John Hopkins, filed written motions with the court and gave a brief synopsis of those motions to Allen County Common Pleas Court Judge Terri Kohlrieser on Thursday.
Holliday was indicted by a grand jury in May on two counts of trafficking in persons /involuntary servitude, first-degree felonies; four counts of rape, first-degree felonies; 15 counts of sexual battery, third-degree felonies; 14 counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, second-degree felonies; and 15 counts of felonious assault, second-degree felonies.
The charges apparently stem from alleged incidents involving two young girls that reportedly occurred from March of 2018 through March of this this year in Lima.
His wife, Christy Holliday, 29, of Lima, was indicted on one count of felonious assault, a second-degree felony; one count of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, a second-degree felony; and one count of sexual battery, a felony of the third degree.
Hopkins asked for the dismissal of 16 counts based on his belief that the state will be unable to prove every element of the charges regarding the age of the alleged victims at the time of the purported incidents.
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Kenneth Sturgill assured the court that the state would meet that burden.
Hopkins also asked for the bifurcation, or separation, of the remaining counts of the indictment as they pertain to each individual alleged victim.
Sturgill objected, saying that “both victims were victimized at the same time … in some cases in the same location at the exact same time.” He asked Kohlrieser to overrule the defense’s motion.
The judge gave attorneys until mid-August to file written arguments.
The bulk of the documents in the case have been ordered sealed from the public as the case winds its way through the court system. Prosecutors had argued that allowing the details of the case to become public “could seriously jeopardize the investigation, as well as seriously prejudice all parties involved in the case,” according to court records.