COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A Cleveland man who killed 11 women and hid the remains in and around his home deserves a new trial because a judge wrongly closed a portion of jury selection and a hearing where attorneys argued about his police interrogation, the serial killer’s lawyers told the Ohio Supreme Court.

Anthony Sowell was convicted and sentenced to death in 2011. 

His attorneys say the judge in the case improperly closed a July 2010 hearing in which lawyers argued over an hours-long video of Sowell’s interview with police. They also said in court filings last week that the judge shouldn’t have put the individual questioning of potential jurors off limits to the public as the trial got underway in June of the following year, because do so violated constitutional requirements of trials open to the public.

The judge’s actions followed Sowell’s unsuccessful attempts to have the trial moved because of intense publicity.

Prosecutors say Sowell should get a new evidence suppression hearing, but not a new trial. 

The evidence against Sowell, 55, now on Ohio’s death row, was overwhelming. But asking for a new trial or new hearing is more than a legal exercise, public defender Jeff Gamso said Tuesday.

“The cases that are the most difficult, the cases where the defendant is most reviled, the cases where we as a society are seemingly most happy with the outcome, the cases where things seem not to matter, those are the cases where we must be especially scrupulous,” Gamso said.

At the time of trial, prosecutors were so concerned about closing the individual questioning of jurors they sought a mistrial, a request denied by the judge.

Prosecutors now argue, however, that Sowell’s constitutional rights were not violated, because his attorneys did not object to closing the questioning.

“There is simply nothing in this record that suggests that Sowell — before, during, or after his trial — has ever been unhappy with the trial court’s decision to close the courtroom,” Cuyahoga County prosecutors wrote.

Sowell’s new attorneys disagree, saying an objection was noted. 

Both sides agree the earlier hearing, over suppressing the contents of Sowell’s 11  1/2-hour interrogation video, should not have been closed to the public. 

A decision from the Ohio Supreme Court is not expected for several months and will likely be preceded by in-person arguments by attorneys for both sides.

———

Andrew Welsh-Huggins can be reached on Twitter at https://twitter.com/awhcolumbus.