- 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 Salem
Page: 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