Estimated read time: 3-4 minutes
- A Utah judge is considering disqualifying the state's attorneys from prosecuting Ralph Leroy Menzies' death penalty case.
- Menzies, sentenced to death for the 1986 murder of Maurine Hunsaker, claims he developed dementia, prompting a competency hearing scheduled in November.
- His attorney, Eric Zuckerman, argues collaboration between prosecutors and attorneys for Utah agencies is unfair to Menzies.
WEST JORDAN — Weeks before an evidentiary hearing to determine if Ralph Leroy Menzies is competent enough to be executed, a judge is now considering whether prosecutors from the Attorney General's Office should be disqualified from the case.
Menzies, 66, was given the death sentence in 1988, two weeks after he was found guilty of murdering Maurine Hunsaker. The 26-year-old mother of three was working at a gas station in Kearns in 1986 when she was abducted and killed. Her body was found in Big Cottonwood Canyon two days later.
After prosecutors requested an execution warrant earlier this year, Menzies' attorneys said he had developed dementia. The execution process has been put on hold while the court considers whether Menzies is able to understand why Utah wants to execute him.
His attorney, Eric Zuckerman, argued on Wednesday that attorneys representing the Utah Department of Health and Human Services and the Utah Department of Corrections have been communicating with prosecutors and keeping the content of those conversations away from him.
He said the three agencies have "distinct legal interests" in the case, and communication between them should not be confidential due to attorney-client privilege. He said the agencies' remaining independent is "critical" to the case's fairness.
Zuckerman argued that the other attorneys were working "as an arm of the prosecution" to help overcome Menzies' claim he is not competent.
"This is a death penalty case. … They should not be able to conspire against us as co-counsel," he said.
He argued further that there are other non-written communications between the attorneys, and it would be impossible to address the scope of the collaboration.
"There's nothing that this court can do to make this right again," Zuckerman said, explaining the request to remove the office completely.
Third District Judge Matthew Bates agreed with Zuckerman that the emails between the three are not privileged and ordered the Attorney General's Office to turn over all emails between the agencies' attorneys related to the case, granting a request by Zuckerman.
He said a conflict memorandum created by the office prohibited communication between the attorneys except when clearly permissible or when there is consent. No one has claimed there was consent, Bates said, and if the material is clearly permissible, it would be information that could be shared with Menzies' attorneys. He said the attorneys "had to understand" that what they were saying to each other could not be privileged.
Assistant attorney general Andrew Hopkins argued the emails are privileged and should not be shared. He said the memorandum said they were supposed to treat the other attorneys as adversarial but that it doesn't create law.
Bates said he would consider the issue of whether the office should be disqualified over the next few weeks before making a ruling.
He scheduled a hearing on Oct. 31 to discuss a motion to allow Menzies to not attend his own competency hearing due to his health and requested witnesses from the Department of Corrections to help discuss what they could do to help Menzies attend at least part of the hearing.
The competency hearing for Menzies is scheduled for five days beginning Nov. 18, and the judge said he could reserve other dates in December if attorneys expect they will need more time.
