Update: A verdict was reached in Osborn’s trial Friday, Oct. 6. Follow this link for more recent information.
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) – What happens next to a Dublin woman accused of killing her husband is now in the hands of a jury.
Holli Osborn is accused of killing her husband Dr. Christopher Osborn back in 2018. He was found shot three times in the head while lying in bed in the couple’s Dublin home.
Holli Osborn did not testify in her own trial and the defense did not call any witnesses to the stand.
Closing arguments in the case were held Wednesday when both sides highlighted gunpowder residue and DNA testing evidence.
A Franklin County jury is sifting through the testimony of 15 witnesses after approximately a week of testimony in the trial.
“Their relationship was described as up and down; they would love each other, then they would fight, makeup, rinse, repeat,” prosecutor Daniel Lenert said during closing arguments.
Evidence highlighted in closing arguments by the state and defense included text messages regarding the victim’s infidelity, DNA evidence, as well as Osborn’s positive gunshot residue tests.
“He analyzed all the samples of gunshot residue taken from the defendant and found gunshot residue on every single one of them,” Lenert said. “Both of her hands had the cut off — 10 particles. They don’t go up higher than that. She even had GSR on eyebrows.”
Osborn’s defense team argued that residue could have been transferred while she was at Dublin police department or in a cruiser.
“These are individuals that are going through this station and Holli Osborn has been exposed to that and what is the only way we can eliminate this from being an issue?,” defense attorney Kevin Gall asked. “We bag her hands, but we didn’t.”
Both sides also took time to focus on DNA evidence.
Only Holli Osborn’s DNA was found on a Smith and Wesson gun found next to the bed where the victim lay dead.
“There’s two major things DNA can’t tell us: How DNA got there and when DNA got there,” Gall said. “That is not arguing either way that is highlighting things the state cannot prove to you.”
“The fact that this is single source means to her one of two things: Either the defendant was the only person to have ever touched that firearm or she’s the only person to touch it since it had been cleaned,” Lenert said.