Attorney accuses Nez Perce County prosecutor’s office of misconduct

Defense and prosecuting attorneys argued before a judge Friday in Lewiston on whether or not information about a deal with a witness should have been disclosed before a trial.

It’s now up to the judge to decide whether or not to dismiss the case.

Eric S. Taylor was indicted by a grand jury in April 2023 on charges of involuntary manslaughter and delivering fentanyl, a controlled substance, both felonies. Police conducted an investigation connecting Taylor’s delivery of fentanyl to the death of Samantha G. Russell. He pleaded guilty in February to involuntary manslaughter and possession of fentanyl just before his trial was scheduled to take place.

Taylor was scheduled to be sentenced July 12, but several motions were filed in June to stay his sentencing. Public defender Lawrence Moran also filed motions to dismiss the case with prejudice or reopen discovery, which is the process for attorneys to share evidence in a case that will be used at trial. At a hearing in July, 2nd District Judge Mark Monson addressed the concerns, and set the hearing that took place Friday at the Nez Perce County Courthouse.

Both Moran and Nez Perce County Chief Deputy Prosecutor April Smith summed up their arguments before Monson in a hearing that took a little more than an hour. The issue is related to a witness who was scheduled to testify at the Taylor’s trial. The witness had charges against her dismissed, as did one of her family members. And another family member went to a treatment court.

The defense argued that the information about the deal should have been disclosed before the trial. Moran alleged that not letting the defense know about the information was prosecutorial misconduct. Moran asked the court to sanction the prosecutor’s office with a dismissal of the case with prejudice, which would also prevent the state from future similar actions.

“We ask for dismissal as a sanction for the state’s own misconduct,” Moran said.

Smith argued before the court that the information was impeachment evidence, which is evidence used to discredit a witness’s testimony, and it doesn’t need to be disclosed before trial. She said that if the case had gone to trial, she would have told the defense about the arrangements.

“There’s a different standard for cases that have gone to trial,” she said. “What would have happened during the trial is all an assumption. Mr. Taylor pleaded guilty and the case law is still good.”

Monson said he would take the matter under advisement and scheduled sentencing or a status conference hearing for Sept. 18. He told the attorneys he would have a decision by then.

During the hearing, Monson asked Moran when he found out about the deal with the witness. Monson was the presiding judge at the trial and said he was at the courthouse in a separate courtroom discussing the plea agreement as the jury pool was waiting in another courtroom.

Moran outlined that the witness had a warrant removed and a case dismissed from Latah County on Feb. 21. The dismissal of the case stated that it was done to allow the defendant to testify in an unrelated criminal matter, which Moran alleged was the Taylor trial. A case for one of the witness’s family members was dismissed Feb. 28 and another family member was screened for drug court and his case was delayed Feb. 15. Moran highlighted the legal activity taking place in February because the trial was scheduled to take place Feb. 27.

In April, Moran’s law office, Magyar, Rauch and Associates, was appointed to a case with one of the witness’s family members. Through that case, the law office discovered in May the deals made with the prosecutor’s office. Moran read an email that was sent Feb. 8 between the witness and Smith that talked about having the witness’s case dismissed and the cases of the family members, which was provided by the witness to his office.

“I think clearly we’re talking about considerations,” Moran said. “At the very least the state is obligated to reveal those to the defense at that point.”

Smith confirmed the authenticity of the emails and the arrangement with the witness.

“This is all me, this is 100% me,” Smith said. “These were all my decisions.”

Smith said that the prosecutor’s office wasn’t purposefully withholding information about deals made with a witness but were using a standard of law that the information was impeachment evidence and would have been disclosed to the defense at trial. That didn’t happen because Taylor pleaded guilty.

Moran disagreed and said that the evidence should have been disclosed before trial. He argued that having the information could have made the difference between a conviction and acquittal by questioning the reliability of the witness and investigation.

Moran and Monson both noted that the case did go to trial as the plea agreement was made the morning of the trial as the jury was being selected. Moran said the information was not disclosed at the time. Monson also noted that if the plea wouldn’t have happened, then the case would have gone to trial, and he wondered why the defense wasn’t notified.

Smith explained that the prosecutor’s office had been working with Moran and public defender Greg Rauch the night before the trial and that morning she was “confident” Taylor was going to enter a plea. Smith said that if the witness had testified, she would have told the defense of the agreement, not withheld it, so it could be brought up under cross examination. Monson asked Smith if she ever intended to disclose the witness information and she said yes, when the trial starts, if the person testifies.

Moran alleged that Taylor’s rights were violated under the U.S. and Idaho constitution. Moran said it was in the court’s authority to dismiss the case with prejudice and suggested that as the best outcome. Moran also said another option would be the dismissal of the indictment or dismiss the evidence from the witness.

Smith agreed the court had options on how to resolve the matter and asked for it to consider revoking Taylor’s plea.

“There are multiple remedies available to the court if the court is going to sanction,” Smith said. “The appropriate remedy is to give the defendant his plea back.”

However, Moran argued that the situation couldn’t be resolved by giving Taylor his guilty plea back to restart the process. That action, Moran said, wouldn’t address the state’s alleged misconduct.

“This court must not allow the state to violate a defendant’s right and to disregard the guidance on Idaho and U.S. statutes and rules in pursuit of accountability,” Moran said. “That blame rests squarely on the state of the prosecutor’s office of Nez Perce County.”

Brewster may be contacted at kbrewster@lmtribune.com or at (208) 848-2297.