- 8 - stated that Mr. Dingle had not retained any records relating to petitioner’s criminal prosecution. Respondent also contacted Chief Rivers and requested that he “double check” the police evidence locker to ascertain whether the police had inadvertently retained any of petitioner’s papers. Chief Rivers confirmed that the Newport Police had delivered all of petitioner’s papers to petitioner’s corrections counselor. On September 17, 1997, petitioner filed a document which the Court treated as a motion to reopen the record. In that document petitioner stated: The Mandate of the Court of Appeals in this case is that Detective Menzies will be subpoenaed by the Court to Testify at a Trial. Bingo!!!! That is exactly what this Petitioner wanted in his first trial and was the basis for the entire appeal. There was NO other reason for the Appeal. Petitioner was [sic] Detective Menzies to appear in Person and testify under oath about what he has done with the missing two thirds of Petitioner[‘s] Papers, which happen to include the pertinent evidence that Petitioner wants presented to this Court * * * On November 5, 1997, the Court issued an order setting the case for further proceedings “in accordance with the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit”. A trial was held on January 30, 1998, to permit petitioner to introduce additional evidence relating to his tax liability for the years at issue. The Court also made Detective Menzies and Detective Steven L. Etter (Detective Etter) of the SalemPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011