Douglas L. Hadsell - Page 8




                                         - 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