Judge orders disclosure in murder case

Public Defender must make evidence available to County Attorney

Robert L. Reed

Robert L. Reed

KINGMAN - Judge Steven Conn ordered the County Public Defender's Office to make copies of police reports and other evidence it held available to the County Attorney's Office in a second-degree murder case Sept. 17.

Robert L. Reed, 63, of Kingman is charged with the March 17, 2007, shooting death of Gary Shain.

Wednesday's ruling came after Conn heard arguments from both sides about police reports the Public Defender's Office had subpoenaed from California.

Public Defender David Corbett argued that the office was not required to disclose the reports or the information in the reports until the trial.

Corbett said he did not consider the information as tangible, physical evidence, but as witness statements collected by California. And under Arizona law, his office did not have to disclose the information until it was used against witnesses at the trial.

County Attorney Ros Saciuk said during a trial it would be difficult to make an argument against the evidence if he didn't know what the evidence was.

Conn asked why Saciuk had not simply subpoenaed the reports like Corbett had.

Saciuk said he had been told by the PDO that he would be getting a list of the reports and would be able to get copies of the reports. And then, suddenly, he was told he wasn't getting the information and he needed to file a motion to get the information.

Conn seemed to be irritated with the number of motions made by both sides in the case.

Saciuk and Corbett appeared before Conn last month involving a motion to compel the CAO to disclose DNA information in the case.

Conn said he felt the reports fell into the document designation under state law and therefore were tangible physical evidence that should have been disclosed to Saciuk. He ordered Corbett to disclose a list of the reports to Saciuk before Sept. 24 and make copies of any reports Saciuk requested.

Conn also heard arguments on a motion to suppress statements about two incidents involving a witness that happened before the death of Shain.

Corbett argued that the incidents were not relevant to the case and would perjure his client before a jury.

Saciuk argued that second incident, which happened the same day as the shooting, showed Reed's state of mind and that he had a propensity for violence when drunk.

In the second incident, Reed and the witness were drinking with Shain. At one point Reed allegedly accused the witness of being unfaithful to her husband and made threatening gestures toward her. The witness ran and hid.

According to Corbett, Reed never took physical action against the witness.

Conn ordered that the first incident did not have any reliance to the case and could not be used. The second incident could be to tell the story of what happened the day of the murder; however, Reed's alleged allegation against the witness could not be used.

The next hearing in the case is set for Sept. 29.