Roberto Wynn has spent more than two years waiting to find out whether a judge would even let him try to prove his innocence. Now he has his answer. Wynn, convicted of fatally shooting Christopher Basie on April 25, 2008, has been granted the chance to seek a new trial after the key witness against him recanted her testimony.
Judge Jeffrey Saffold has given Wynn the opportunity to seek a new trial, according to News 5 Cleveland. The judge set a July 13 deadline for Wynn to file his new-trial motion, after which the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office will have 45 days to respond. Once that window closes, Saffold will either schedule an evidentiary hearing where the new evidence would be presented or rule based on the filed motions.
At the center of the case is a witness who was 12 years old when the shooting happened on Parmalee Avenue on Cleveland's East Side. In 2022, she recanted her trial testimony, writing in a signed statement that she blamed Wynn for a shooting he did not commit and that she was sure he did not have a gun.
A Case Built on a Witness Who Now Says She Was Wrong
Donald Caster, who previously represented Wynn through the Ohio Innocence Project, said the recantation gutted what had always been a thin case. Without the witness who recanted, he said, there almost certainly wouldn't have been a conviction in this case. The report notes Caster described the remaining case as resting on testimony from wildly inconsistent witnesses. Prosecutors, for their part, have said multiple witnesses identified Wynn.
Wynn is now represented by Ohio Innocence Project attorney Lauren Staley. His attorney filed a motion seeking permission to file a motion for a new trial and requesting a hearing on March 1, 2024 — meaning Wynn has waited more than two years for a judge to decide whether he could even present his new evidence, the outlet's reporting states.
A Pattern of Delay Across Cuyahoga County
Wynn's case is not an outlier. The same investigation found 28 Cuyahoga County cases in which motions for a new trial remained open longer than 120 days — the benchmark the Ohio Supreme Court has set as standard for resolving such motions. Michael Donnelly, who served 14 years on the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas bench before being elected to the Ohio Supreme Court, said the slowdowns aren't about any one judge. It's not because of an individual judge, it's a systemic problem, he said.
Donnelly, now an adjunct law professor at Cleveland State University's College of Law, created Ohio Court Watch, a project aimed at increasing transparency and oversight in the state's legal system. The site has launched a tracker following cases involving convicted people who claim innocence and are awaiting decisions on whether they can present new evidence. Donnelly has said post-conviction proceedings allow people to file motions, many of which are frivolous, but that meritorious cases opposed by the state — ones involving evidence that could actually be tested — can get lost in the backlog. He added that a person is entitled to a new trial under the law if the theory of guilt can be undermined.
Attorneys do have a remedy when judges sit on rulings too long: Donnelly said they can complain to the Ohio Court of Appeals or the Ohio Supreme Court. But he said most avoid doing so because they fear angering the judge overseeing their client's case.
Stalled Legislation Could Change the Math
A bill working through the Ohio Legislature could force judges' hands in cases like Wynn's. H.B. 177 would require judges to hold a hearing when an innocence claimant's case includes credible new evidence, and Donnelly has called it a reform of great significance. The bill, which according to the Ohio Legislature addresses post-conviction relief when new evidence would establish a strong probability of a different result at trial, was introduced in March 2025 and assigned to the Ohio House Judiciary Committee. It has yet to receive a single hearing.
Wynn's case isn't unique in Ohio courts grappling with Criminal Rule 33 motions for a new trial. In a separate case profiled by Ohio Court Watch, Cullen Parsons was convicted in 2016 of attempted murder, felonious assault and improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle and sentenced to 12 years in prison. Seven years later, in 2023, Parsons sought permission to file a new-trial motion based on newly discovered evidence — and an appellate court later found the trial court had skipped over whether that evidence was unavoidably undiscoverable before even reaching the question of its materiality.
Family Says the Wait Has Taken Its Own Toll
Wynn has maintained throughout that he is innocent of murder, and he said he appreciated the News 5 story for himself and for others who are wrongfully incarcerated. He said he was anxious, excited and nervous about the hearing to come, and that the truth and details were ready to be revealed. Wynn said he wanted his freedom back and the truth to come out, despite how difficult the process has been, and said he hoped he would eventually be set free.
His parents, Carla Butler and Ronnie Wynn, are hoping Judge Saffold will ultimately grant their son a new trial and overturn his conviction. Ronnie Wynn said the family has felt locked up emotionally right alongside his son throughout the ordeal. Carla Butler said she has come to view the long wait itself as an answer to her prayers.
A spokesperson for the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office said the office would address the case in court. An attorney conference in the case took place the same day a News 5 investigation into Wynn's case aired, according to the outlet's reporting. For now, Wynn's path forward runs through the July 13 filing deadline, the 45-day response window that follows, and whatever Judge Saffold decides once both sides have made their case.
