Sex dating in mountainair new mexico

Rated 3.95/5 based on 982 customer reviews

Nelson Welch, an expert for the prosecution, testified although Ms. Newell, even though the court had ordered the prosecution to disclose, inter alia, police reports in this case. Based on his finding of shotgun pellets and wadding in the vicinity of both of Ms. Gauthier concluded she had been shot with a shotgun, although he could not determine whether the same shotgun inflicted both of her wounds. Pitchford's statement, which he was “sure” he had read in preparation for trial. Harris testified he was never informed “Randy” Newell was actually Samuel J. Smith's primary basis for requesting relief from his two 1978 first degree murder convictions in New Mexico state court, and his corresponding consecutive life sentences, is the prosecution improperly withheld material exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Mc Donnell for about a year and a half at the time of her disappearance. He also did not recall ever seeing a transcription of the tape recorded statement given to Sheriff Chavez. As to the former, if Harris had been apprised of the existence of these statements, specifically the statement by Mr. Hector then sought a state petition for a writ of habeas corpus by filing a civil action on May 29, 1984, against the warden, the person with “custody” over Mr. The State responded to the court's order to show cause by filing a motion to preclude an evidentiary hearing and to dismiss the petition.

sex dating in mountainair new mexico-60

Pitchford himself and she told him, inter alia, that “Randall Newell was also known as Samuel J. The Indictment Although there was arguably some evidence tending to show “Randy” Newell may have been involved in the Talton-Mc Donnell homicides, there was also evidence tending to show Mr. The prosecution exercised its prosecutorial discretion and elected to seek an indictment from the grand jury in Bernalillo County, New Mexico, against Mr. On August 19, 1977, the grand jury returned an eight-count indictment charging William J. She remembered a pair of women's underwear was seized from Mr. She recalled it being stained on the right front side with several spots she thought were blood. Ferrara testified she did not believe the stains were menstrual blood, primarily because they were situated on the right front portion of the underwear, rather than in the area where menstrual blood would ordinarily be found. Talton's pelvis was on her right side, the same side as the stains found on the underwear.

When it was subsequently learned the women were from Albuquerque, in Bernalillo County, the Albuquerque Police Department also became involved. Ferrara's pretrial notes regarding “Randy” Newell specifically noted he had given a tape recorded statement to Sheriff Chavez, as well as statements to Detective Borunda, and to someone in the Medical Examiner's Office. Newell's statement to Sergeant Gonzales was referenced in a supplemental report prepared by Sergeant Gonzales on September 15, 1977. The letter further indicated Sheriff Chavez had taken a tape recorded statement from “Randy” Newell. Smith has in fact made the requisite showing of an entitlement to a certificate of probable cause to appeal.

Because the women's bodies were found within the geographical limits of Torrance County, the initial investigation was undertaken by the Torrance County Sheriff's Department and the New Mexico State Police. The prosecution had knowledge of these statements, as Ms. Lucero of the district attorney's open file policy.

He testified this information would have made a “tremendous” difference in his trial preparation strategy. While he was living in New Mexico, he used the name “Randy,” his brother's name, in an effort to conceal his real identity. Newell used the name “Randy” as an alias because he was a fugitive for whom an arrest warrant had been issued on August 14, 1974, by the authorities in Sedgwick County, Kansas. Newell's failure to complete a drug addiction program and for his unauthorized leave from the treatment facility. In the present case, we believe the briefs demonstrate Mr. The disclosure principles of Brady are not rooted in the discovery rules of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

In hindsight, however, she acknowledged she did in fact possess such authority, although she still did not think “that was her role in this whole case, to have that done.” There was additional testimony that at the time of trial, scientific testing was available to differentiate between menstrual and nonmenstrual blood. Harris testified he was never informed of the existence of these clothes, and if he had been so advised, he would certainly have investigated this issue in more detail by interviewing Officer Ferguson and others who had seen the clothes as well as contacting an independent expert if necessary. “This oft-quoted language established the prosecutor's broad duty to disclose exculpatory material to the defense.” Buchanan, 891 F.2d at 1440.

Leave a Reply