waived his right to attend the jury view in open court and in the presence of counsel. Moreover, trial counsel did not object to Were’s waiver of his presence as a condition to the jury view. {¶ 98} In addition, Were cannot show that he was materially prejudiced by his absence from the jury view. His counsel were present, and there is no indication in the record that anything improper occurred at the jury view. Were told the trial court that he wanted to attend the jury view to tell his attorneys “about the situation down there,” but he did not explain how his presence at the scene would have provided his attorneys with information that they could not have gained by consulting Were before or after the visit. See State v. Cassano, 96 Ohio St.3d 94, 2002-Ohio-3751, 772 N.E.2d 81, ¶ 70 (<HOLDING>). Based on the foregoing, we reject proposition
holding that a trial courts refusal to allow the defendant to attend the jury view was not prejudicial holding that it was within the trial courts discretion to refuse any additional discovery and that the courts refusal to allow additional discovery was not an abuse of discretion holding that a trial courts refusal to withdraw a jury waiver ordinarily does not implicate the federal constitutional right to a jury trial holding that trial courts refusal to allow defendant to impeach victims testimony by crossexamining victim about possible motive to lie deprived defendant of his right to confrontation holding refusal to give pretext instruction was error but not prejudicial