Attorneys in Ross case given more time

Second District Judge Mark Monson agreed to allow more time for attorneys to file motions and responses with the murder trial of Richard Ross, which includes the possibility of the death penalty.

Nez Perce County Chief Deputy Prosecutor April Smith didn’t object to the request from public defender Jay Logsdon asking for more time on the motions Wednesday at the Nez Perce County Courthouse, where Logsdon appeared by Zoom.

Logsdon and Ross’ defense team have filed 20 motions, with most of them objecting to the death penalty. Additional motions and responses from attorneys will be due Aug. 14 and were previously due July 10.

Monson granted a motion to challenge the death penalty May 3 because of objections over Idaho’s new law on firing squads. The Idaho Legislature this year changed the death penalty laws so that if lethal injection isn’t available the method of execution will be a firing squad. The Nez Perce County Prosecutor’s Office filed a notice in District Court seeking the death penalty in February 2022.

Ross is charged with the first-degree murders of 76-year-old Edwina “Eddy” Devin and her 57-year-old son, Michael Devin. The investigation shows Ross allegedly either smothered, strangled or inflicted violence on Eddy Devin at her Grangeville home the night of Sept. 30, 2021, then smothered or inflicted violence on Michael Devin early the next morning in Lewiston before burning his remains in Devin’s truck on Nez Perce Drive, according to the probable cause affidavit.

A motion was filed June 1 written by Logsdon objecting to the death penalty regarding the use of a firing squad as a means of execution, which was 144 pages long and had 13 exhibits. He wrote that execution by lethal injection or gunshot would violate the cruel and unusual punishment law under the 8th and 14th amendments. He argued in the motion that death by a firing squad subjects the person to unnecessary pain and “even in the best circumstances, meaning accurate shots fired and hitting the intended target area, death is not immediate. Awareness continues and pain exists.”

Initially, the defense objected to the death penalty because lethal injection drugs had a risk of causing pain and suffering. However, the defense altered its argument after the Idaho law on the death penalty included the firing squad method if drugs for lethal objection couldn’t be obtained by the Idaho Department of Correction.

“Thus, one condemned to die in Idaho has no real way to know how they will be killed at least until the death warrant is issued. Still, as things stand, Idaho has no viable method for killing (Ross),” Logsdon wrote in the motion.

Logsdon also filed five motions that were thought to have been filed in September 2022, but there was no record of them in the court filing system or at the Public Defender’s Office in Kootenai County. Those motions were then filed May 23, in addition to the 15 motions previously filed, along with motions filed May 24 in response to the prosecution’s arguments. The Nez Perce County Prosecutor’s Office filed 17 motions in response to the defense’s motions since May 26, most responding to the death penalty.

Prosecutors argued that the death penalty is upheld in this case by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, citing aggravating factors in the case. One of the aggravating factors that the defense objected to was “utter disregard for human life,” which the prosecution argued was upheld by the courts, according to court documents.

The motions filed by the prosecution also argued that the Idaho death penalty statute doesn’t violate equal protection of the law or due process, meaning that Ross was treated the same as any other defendant and the proper procedures were followed during court proceedings.

The defense argued that Ross was denied a preliminary hearing and a grand jury. However, the prosecution stated that a grand jury wasn’t necessary in Idaho for the first-degree murder charge. As the case moved through the court system Ross declined to participate in a competency evaluation hearing and waived his right to a preliminary hearing. The defense argued those decisions had been made without proper legal advice, according to court documents.

In a motion written by Smith, she objected to the defense’s arguments against the death penalty on “moral hazardous grounds.” In the response she wrote “this brief is simply a general statement by defense generally in opposition to the death penalty, but does not provide any facts or legal basis for his “moral hazard” argument,” according to court documents.

The defense also filed a motion objecting to the death penalty on the grounds of international law that was 471 pages long and had 23 exhibits, including documents from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Human Rights Committee and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Other arguments by the defense regardedg the trial and sentencing. The defense filed a motion for a change of venue stating that other options for an impartial jury, such as enlarging the jury pool, wouldn’t work because Nez Perce County and Idaho County don’t have large enough populations. The defense argued that a change of venue was necessary for a fair trial because of media coverage as well as allegations that Ross confessed to the crimes and the “salacious nature of the alleged crimes, and the severity of the charge (Ross) faces,” according to court documents.

The defense also asked for a different jury to serve at the trial and for the penalty phase to avoid bias when the jury decided on a penalty. However, the prosecution said that Idaho law and the Idaho Supreme Court requires the use of the same jury for both the trial and sentencing, according to court documents.

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