of 15
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
1/36
PAGE 1 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON
FOR THE COUNTY OF CLACKAMAS
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JASON JAY JAYNES,
Defendant.
))
)
))
)
))
Case No. CR1400775
DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OFMOTION TO DISMISS
(MOTION NO. 101)
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JASON JAY JAYNES,
Defendant.
)))
)
)
))
)
Case No. CR1201793
DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO DISMISS
(MOTION NO. 101)
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
2/36
PAGE 2 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I. INTRODUCTION
Defense counsel’s opening memorandum (hereinafter the “Memorandum”) sets forth
the law concerning governmental conduct that influences the testimony of a potential
defense witness, and explains why the State’s conduct in this case went far beyond the line
necessary to establish a constitutional violation.
In its Memorandum in Opposition (hereinafter the “Opposition”), the State argues
essentially as follows:
Instead of the legal rules set forth in the Memorandum, this Court should use
the rules that apply when the State seeks to use a defendant’s allegedly
involuntary confession against him, or those applicable to the allegedly
coerced testimony of a prosecution witness;
The State’s treatment of Nick Smith was entirely appropriate, both because
the investigators had powerful reasons to believe that Nick was lying to them,
and because they at no point exerted any inappropriate influence on him; and
Finally, even if the initial treatment of Nick by the Canby detectives was
overly aggressive, from that point onward the other investigators treated Nick
politely, respectfully, and without pressure—so much so that any lingering
effects from the Canby detectives’ earlier conduct completely disappeared.
On each one of these points, the State is flatly wrong.
First , there is no legal basis for the State’s proposed shift to a different legal
framework. The present motion is not based on some novel, untested legal theory requiring
this Court to cast about for the closest legal analog. On the contrary, as outlined in the
Memorandum, there is a large, well-established body of case law applicable to the precise
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
3/36
PAGE 3 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
situation before the Court. That, and not the State’s proposed alternative, is the legal
framework governing this motion.
Second , the State’s herculean efforts to find something supporting the conclusion that
Nick was initially lying came up completely empty. Every time Nick was asked a question
by the Canby detectives, he answered promptly, forthrightly, and accurately. As set forth
below, the State’s attempted portrayal of Nick’s initial answers as evasive or deceptive
appears to be based largely, as it was back in 2011, on a series of facially obvious mistakes
in interpreting Nick’s time records.
Third , far from being curative, the post-Canby portion of the Nick Smith
interrogation itself went far beyond what the constitutional boundaries allow. As set forth
below, the second wave of detectives not only failed to retract or withdraw any of the Canby
detectives’ earlier threats, lies, or accusations, but themselves subjected Nick to a grossly
excessive process—including sixteen hours of interrogation, over two consecutive days, on
the basic question of whether Mr. Jaynes had ever left the area during his May 28 shift. The
fact that this is presented as the good part of the State’s investigation shows how truly
excessive the admittedly “aggressive” part was.
In the end, the State’s Response does nothing to improve the picture before the
Court. If anything, that picture is now worse. The investigators’ now-conceded lies to Nick
Smith, coupled with the additional evidence discussed below, demonstrate that the complete
story is even more troubling than it initially appeared. And the most disturbing aspect of all
of this may be CCDA’s vigorous endorsement of the tactics used in this case—an
endorsement that will send an unambiguous message to officers working on present and
future cases in this county.
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
4/36
PAGE 4 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
II. ANALYSIS
A. The State’s Response Largely Ignores the Applicable Legal Standard.
1. The State Focuses on the Wrong Legal Rules.
The State focuses virtually all of its legal argument on the following: (1) the
voluntariness analysis that applies when the State seeks to use a defendant’s own statements
against him; and (2) the analysis that applies when a defendant alleges that a prosecution
witness’s testimony is the product of governmental coercion.1
But the State’s extensive discussion of these rules entirely misses the point. As set
forth in the Memorandum, the present motion is based on the State’s interference with a
witness who would otherwise have provided testimony favorable to the defense. For
convenience, this will be referred to herein as a “ Morrison motion,” after one of the leading
cases on this issue. A Morrison motion is governed by a legal framework entirely different
from those discussed at length by the State.
Accordingly, the vast majority of the State’s legal contentions and characterizations
are simply irrelevant. The issue before this Court is not , for example, “whether, because of
investigators’ conduct, Nick Smith’s trial testimony will be involuntary, rendering the trial
so fundamentally unfair as to violate the defendant’s right to due process.”2 Whether or not
that would the appropriate analysis in a voluntariness or coercion motion, it has no bearing
on a Morrison motion.
Instead, as set forth in Defendant’s opening memorandum, and as uniformly
recognized by appellate courts in Oregon and elsewhere, the key questions relevant to a
Morrison motion are: (1) whether the State treated the witness with “strict neutrality”; and
1 See, e.g., State’s Mem in Opp to Def’s Mot to Dismiss (“Opp”) at 25-42.
2 Opp at 38.
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
5/36
PAGE 5 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
(2) if not, whether the State’s influence had “some effect” on the content or manner of the
testimony the defendant will be able to present at trial.3
2. The State’s Sole Effort to Distinguish the Governing Case Law Is
Entirely Without Legal or Logical Support.
With respect to the legal framework that does apply to Morrison motions, the State
makes only one attempt to distinguish this case from the broad body of case law cited in the
Memorandum. According to the State, that case law applies only to improper influence that
occurs “during, or immediately preceding, trial,”4 and “does not extend to police interviews
and interrogations of witnesses conducted years earlier.”5
This argument is entirely without legal support. The State cites no case from the
correct line of authority that even implicitly supports its proposed distinction, and in fact the
applicable case law directly contradicts the State’s position.
In United States v. Heller ,6 for example, the improper influence by law enforcement
agents took place several years before the defendant was even indicted , much less brought to
trial.7 The Eleventh Circuit had little difficulty unanimously reversing the defendant’s
3 See Mem at 30-42. The separate issues referenced by the State are not presently beforethis Court because Mr. Jaynes’s motion is based on a legally distinct theory and seeks relief
that is in multiple ways distinct from that typically sought in motions brought under the
theories discussed in the Opposition. Should the present motion be denied in part or in full,Mr. Jaynes reserves the right to file a separate motion on that independent basis at a later
date.
4 Opp at 32.
5 Opp at 34.
6 830 F2d 150 (11th Cir 1987).
7 See id. at 153 (describing the interactions in July of 1979). The case was indicted in 1982,
as indicated by the district court case number, No. 82-00327-CR-DAVIS, and by mediaaccounts. See, e.g., Robert D. Hershey Jr., A ‘$500,000 Apology’ From the I.R.S., N.Y.Times, Feb. 9, 1994, available at http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/09/business/a-500000-apology-from-the-irs.html.
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
6/36
PAGE 6 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
conviction on Morrison grounds, and did not even consider the time lapse worthy of
mention.
Indeed, when the appellate court issued its opinion on September 29, 1987—more
than eight years after the improper influence at issue—it noted that even as of that time,
“[t]he conditions under which [the defendant] may be retried, i.e., the steps necessary to
alleviate the effects of the government’s misconduct, is a difficult problem which will have
to be addressed on remand.”8 As noted in Mr. Jaynes’s opening memorandum, this
“difficult problem” appears to have proven insurmountable, as the government ultimately
acknowledged that it could not proceed on remand and dismissed the case.9
The State’s attempted creation of a de facto statute of limitations for improper
influence claims finds no more support in logic than it does in the case law. As set forth in
the Memorandum, a criminal defendant is guaranteed the opportunity, “at least on a par with
that of the prosecution,”10 to “present [his] version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to
the jury so it may decide where the truth lies.”11
This has consistently been held to include the freedom from any improper
governmental influence that could affect the content, tone, or persuasiveness of the witness’s
testimony.12 In other words, when a defendant has a witness available to testify in his favor,
8 Heller , 830 F2d at 154 n 6.
9 See Mem at 54.
10 United States v. Morrison, 535 F2d 223, 226 (3d Cir 1976) (quoting Western, TheCompulsory Process Clause, 73 Mich L Rev 71 (1974)).
11 Washington v. Texas, 388 US 14, 19 (1967).
12
See, e.g., State v. Huffman, 65 Or App 594, 602 (1983) (describing the standard as beingwhether there is “some effect on the witness’ [sic] testimony, at least when governmentconduct alleged to have interfered with the defendant’s ability freely to present witnesses in
his favor is not outrageous”); State v. Pena, 175 NW2d 767, 768 (Mich 1970) (in reversingconviction based on governmental influence on potential defense witnesses, noting that
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
7/36
PAGE 7 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
that defendant has the constitutionally guaranteed right to the full persuasive value of that
witness’s testimony—whatever that may be for any particular witness—with the State’s
lawful response being limited to the traditional tools of cross-examination and the
presentation of contradictory evidence.13
For the State’s present position to be correct, it would have to be the case that after
some passage of time following improper influence, the effect of that influence necessarily
dissipates to the point that the content, tone and persuasiveness of the witness’s testimony
are restored to where they were originally.
There may be situations in which the passage of time, along with other
circumstances, sufficiently purges the taint of improper governmental influence. If so, this
would be a highly fact-specific inquiry, and would depend on what happened in the
intervening time. Even in the coercion/involuntariness line of cases relied upon by the
State—which, again, do not govern this Morrison motion—courts, contrary to the State’s
suggestion, have not held that the passage of time per se removes the taint of any improper
government conduct. Instead, the focus is on “the passage of time between [the improper
conduct] and [the witness’s] trial testimony, and whether intervening circumstances
sufficiently insulated his testimony from the effect of the prior coercion.”14
“[t]he manner of testifying is often more persuasive than the testimony itself”); UnitedStates v. Thomas, 488 F2d 334, 336 (6th Cir 1973) (noting the “obvious and considerabledifference between the free and open testimony anticipated of a voluntary witness and the
perhaps guarded testimony of a reluctant witness who is willing to appear only at the
command of the court”).
13 See, e.g., Pena, 175 NW2d at 768 (“A prosecutor may impeach a witness in court but hemay not intimidate him—in or out of court.”).
14 Williams v. Woodford , 384 F3d 567, 595 (9th Cir 2002) (emphasis added).
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
8/36
PAGE 8 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
In the legally distinct Morrison context, the possibility of a purported “cure” may or
may not be a basis to defeat a defendant’s motion. Courts in that line of cases have been
reluctant to find that prosecutors’ or trial courts’ curative measures were sufficient, possibly
because of a recognition that a quite different dynamic exists in this context.15 Regardless,
even assuming that curative efforts or circumstances may sometimes suffice to defeat a
Morrison motion, nothing of the sort took place here, and in fact what did happen made the
situation even worse—as set forth in detail infra at Part II.B.8.
B. The Factual Picture Is Now Even Worse Than It Initially Appeared.
1. The State Concedes that the Canby Detectives Repeatedly Lied to NickSmith.
At the outset, it is worth noting a pertinent fact that has always been suspected but is
now conceded. As the transcripts submitted with Mr. Jaynes’s motion demonstrate, in their
second interview of Nick Smith the Canby detectives told Nick not only that Mr. Jaynes was
in custody but also that he was directly contradicting Nick’s account, and used this as part of
their tactic to pressure Nick into confirming their theory:
MEAD: Here’s the thing. He’s in custody, he has not
been let loose, he’s singin’ like a bird and he’stelling us you’re leaving stuff out. Now here’sthe difference, you better start telling the truth
or you’re gonna get wrapped up in this where if
you’re just a witness and you just saw a coupleof things, I want to know what those are. I
don’t want any more crap or lies.16
15
See, e.g., United States v. Thomas, 488 F2d 334 (6th Cir 1973) (reversing despite curativeefforts including a governmental assurance that the witness at issue would not be prosecuted, and the witness’s expressed willingness to testify pursuant to a subpoena).
16 Aff of Kevin Sali in Supp of Def’s Mot to Dismiss (“Sali Aff”), Ex 1 at 25.
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
9/36
PAGE 9 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The “in custody” part of this statement was, of course, false. As to Mr. Jaynes’s
supposedly contradicting Nick’s account and telling the detectives Nick was “leaving stuff
out”—this has always seemed suspicious, as these alleged statements appeared nowhere in
the reports or transcripts of the interrogations of Mr. Jaynes. The State now concedes that
these too were lies.17
Because of these lies and the other tactics used, after the Canby detectives had
finished with Nick he was under the following impressions:
That the detectives investigating this murder case clearly believed he was
lying;
That he risked becoming “wrapped up in this”—that is, entangled as not a
witness, but (in the State’s own words) “implicated in a murder”18 —if he
continued saying Mr. Jaynes had never left during his May 28 shift; and
That Mr. Jaynes had been arrested for the murder and was giving
investigators information that contradicted Nick’s account.
2. The Supposedly “Good” Portion of the Nick Smith Interrogation WasNot, in Fact, Very Good.
In its Opposition, the State admits that the Canby detectives’ tactics were “overly
aggressive,”19 but holds up the subsequent interrogations by Detectives Sudaisar, Edwards
and Miller as having been “nice, polite and respectful,” and otherwise entirely proper.20 In
fact, the State’s position appears to be not only that these latter detectives’ approach was
appropriate, but that their combination of “time, peace, patience, a distraction-free
17 See Opp at 19.
18 Id. at 30.
19 Id. at 48.
20 Id. at 43-44, 48.
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
10/36
PAGE 10 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
environment and respect”21 was sufficient to extinguish any lingering effects from the earlier
phase so that Nick felt entirely free to give whatever account he believed to be true.
Does the State’s characterization match the evidence?
a. As of June 6, 2011, Detective Sudaisar and Others Were AlreadyWorking with the Canby Detectives in a Closely CoordinatedInvestigation of Mr. Jaynes’s May 28 Whereabouts.
To begin with, it’s simply inaccurate to attempt to distance the supposedly “good”
set of detectives from the efforts of the admittedly “aggressive” Canby interrogators. In
fact, the various detectives involved in this case were working together in a closely
coordinated investigation of Mr. Jaynes’s May 28 whereabouts.
On June 6, Mead and Scharmota’s first discussion with Nick Smith was from 6:10 to
6:36 pm.22 At this very time, Detective Sudaisar was in the midst of interrogating Mr.
Jaynes. When Mr. Jaynes repeatedly told Sudaisar he was at work on May 28, 2011,
Sudaisar shut him down, telling him to “forget about the alibi.”23
This statement was made at approximately 6:37 pm. At this time, Sudaisar had no
evidence whatsoever contradicting what Mr. Jaynes was telling him about his work
schedule. Indeed, at this precise time his colleagues were gathering evidence fully
supporting what Mr. Jaynes was saying. This included Chevron records showing Mr.
Jaynes’s shift that day, and Nick (so far) confirming that Mr. Jaynes had been at work and
had not left during his shift.
21 Id. at 44.
22
See Sali Aff, Ex 1 at 1, 22.23 This June 6 interrogation of Mr. Jaynes is memorialized in a recording. With respect to
all references in this Reply to that interrogation, at the hearing defense counsel will either play the recording or ask the respective witnesses to confirm the pertinent statements.
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
11/36
PAGE 11 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The detectives appear to have been giving each other detailed updates and
coordinating their efforts. For example, Detective Sudaisar was joined by Lake Oswego
Detective Lee Ferguson for the June 6 interrogation of Mr. Jaynes, which lasted from 4:15
pm to approximately 8 pm. The recording of that interview depicts Ferguson taking a phone
call at approximately 7:03 pm—about half an hour after the first Nick Smith session had
ended. During that call Ferguson makes the following statements:
Right. Yeah, what—yeah. What he told us—what he told us sofar was that he only got one ten-minute break that day, and he
went to McDonald’s and had a chicken sandwich on his ten-
minute break, didn’t take a lunch break, nothing. They don’tgive them lunch breaks, or that he didn’t take one that day.
And so, that’s what he told us, but he’s beginning—we’re beginning to pick up the pace a little bit here. And he’s—yeah,
he’s hopefully getting to where he’s to that point.
(Pause)
Okay. That was that—is that that Nick guy, or whatever his
name is?
(Pause)
Right. Okay.
(Pause)
Right, okay. All right.
And so—but—so I mean, it’s interesting that he said the samething that he did, because he said ten-minute break at
McDonald’s. I mean that’s—yeah, so—
. . . .
No, that’s wonderful information. Okay. Thanks, Sir.
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
12/36
PAGE 12 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
In short, there is no evidence that the Canby detectives were somehow “going rogue”
in a separate investigation unknown to and unmonitored by the other detectives. This was a
closely coordinated effort from the outset, and everyone—including the “good” detectives—
appears to have known exactly what was going on at all material times.
b. During the “Good” Part of the Investigation, the Detectives Do
Nothing to Alter the Impressions Created by the Canby
Detectives, Then Interrogate Nick Smith for 16 Hours Over Two
Consecutive Days.
When the second set of interrogations began on June 9, none of these three
investigators ever made any effort to retract or undo the Canby detectives’ threats,
accusations or lies. Accordingly, throughout the entire series of interrogations Nick never
had any reason to reconsider any impressions created by the Canby detectives regarding the
State’s view of his account or the consequences that could flow from sticking to that
account.
And these later interrogations were themselves far beyond the legal boundaries
described in Mr. Jaynes’s opening memorandum.
The day on which Nick Smith finally changed his account and told the detectives
that Jason had left during his May 28 shift was June 9, 2011. On that day, Detectives
Sudaisar and Edwards picked him up at a Portland location at 1:37 pm.24 They took him to
the Portland Police Bureau Central Precinct, interviewing him during the ride.25 They
arrived at PPB, where Detective Miller began an unrecorded pre-polygraph interview
sometime between 3 and 4 pm.26 This interview apparently lasted several hours, and was
24 See Sali Aff, Ex 1 at 102.
25 See id. at 41-74.
26 Id. at 76, 103.
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
13/36
PAGE 13 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
followed by the highly questionable polygraph examination described in the Memorandum
(more about that infra). Then another unrecorded interview lasting several more hours, until
10:38 pm, with the detectives then dropping him off at home around 11 pm.27
That means that the detectives’ June 9 interrogations of Nick Smith, which
culminated in the changed account that is the subject of this motion, lasted more than nine
hours.
Nine hours.
And they still weren’t done. They brought him back for a follow-up the next day,
this time spending at least seven more hours with him.28 That’s sixteen hours of
interrogation over two days.
Nick wasn’t being asked to dredge up long-suppressed memories from some time in
his past, or to re-create from memory a complex series of murky, nuanced events. He was
being asked whether his sole co-worker had recently left work for about an hour during a
shift with no explanation, leaving him to man the station by himself. There’s a
straightforward answer to that question, and Nick gave it—repeatedly.
c.
The Governing Law Did Not Permit the Detectives to Do What
They Did—Even If They Thought Nick Was Lying.
Of course, the “good” detectives clearly thought Nick was lying. Did that give them
license to keep asking, and asking, and asking—for nine hours the first day, then another
seven the next?
27
Id. at 109.28 See id. at 113 (report stating that Edwards and Sudaisar picked Nick up “at about 1:00 pm”); id. at 99 (report stating that Detective Miller’s “contact with SMITH” ended at“approximately 2015 hours”).
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
14/36
PAGE 14 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Under the law, no. As set forth in the Memorandum, the Oregon and United States
Constitutions require “strict neutrality” in the questioning of witnesses such as Nick Smith,
and government agents may not communicate to such a witness that one account is
preferable to another. And of course, that’s what happened here. There can be no question
that the waves of investigators, both individually and collectively, made it absolutely clear to
Nick that he was expected to agree that Mr. Jaynes had left during his shift.
If from the outset the investigators had really wanted Nick’s own answer to this
question, they could have asked him. After getting his response, they could have confirmed
how certain he was. If they had a “substantial basis” to believe he was lying—which, as
discussed infra, they did not—they could possibly have added a modest exhortation to be
truthful.29 But that’s it. At that point, if the State didn’t like the account he was giving or
the testimony they anticipated from him at trial, their lawful remedies were limited to cross-
examination and the presentation of contradictory evidence.
Of course, they went further. There can be no serious dispute that as the
interrogation stretched well into night of June 9, 2011, the investigators were not in any
sense seeking information from Nick, but instead were seeking to get him to confirm an
account that they clearly preferred.
Again, this Court need not decide where in these sixteen hours the Morrison line was
crossed. That line had been crossed back on June 6 during the interviews with the Canby
detectives, and no subsequent events or communications cured the constitutional violations
that were already established at that point. The June 9 and 10 interrogations, far from curing
the initial harm as the State suggests, in fact entrenched and added to it.
29 See Mem at 35.
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
15/36
PAGE 15 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3. The Polygraph Portion of the Story Is Even Worse Than It InitiallyAppeared.
As this Court knows, part of the Nick Smith story involves two highly questionable
polygraph examinations, and the State’s improper use of the purported results of those
examinations to influence Nick’s account. Mr. Jaynes’s opening memorandum set out some
of the issues with those polygraph examinations, and with the State’s bizarre delays and
about-faces in producing the corresponding records.
In its Opposition, the State makes no effort to defend the polygraph exams or the
detectives’ improper use of the purported results. This would in itself be sufficient to
remove any doubt regarding the impropriety of that portion of the investigation. And in fact,
the overall picture is significantly worse than described in the Memorandum—as to both the
examinations themselves and the State’s delays in coming forward with the associated
records.
With respect to the examinations themselves, since submitting the initial motion and
memorandum defense counsel has retained a second expert witness—Dr. David Raskin, a
prominent national expert in polygraphy and related fields—to review Detective Miller’s
work.
30
As set forth in his October 29, 2015 affidavit, Dr. Raskin was completely unable to
find any basis for Detective Miller’s alleged conclusion that Nick failed his first polygraph
exam.31
Recall: this was the conclusion that, Detective Miller told Nick, “indicated to [her]
he was not being truthful about JAYNES being at the Chevron gas station during his entire
30
The first expert consulted by the defense was former Oregon State Police polygrapherSteven Hebner, whom the defense also intends to call at the hearing on this motion.
31 See Aff of David C. Raskin in Supp of Def’s Mot to Dismiss (Mot No. 101) (“RaskinAff”) at 4-6.
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
16/36
PAGE 16 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
shift on the night of May 28th.”32 As set forth in the Memorandum, after expressing this
purported result to him, she continued to use it to convey to him her belief that he was lying.
She told him she “believed he was not being truthful, and did not believe he was still trying
to, ‘piece this together,’ but rather trying to stall in order to decide what he was going to tell
[her] in regard to failing the test.”33 She added that she “believed he was doubting himself
because he was not being truthful about knowing that JAYNES had left the Chevron station
at some point during his shift on the 28th.”34 And it was only after this series of statements,
backed by the supposed polygraph results, that Nick finally relented and started telling the
detectives that Mr. Jaynes had in fact “‘disappeared’ for some length of time during his shift
on the 28th.”35
But now two highly qualified polygraph experts have looked at the data that
Detective Miller (eventually) turned over, and both are completely unable to discern any
basis for her conclusion that Nick was being deceptive. On the contrary, according to Dr.
Raskin the available data indicated a “definite truthful outcome” on the initial exam with the
critical question of whether Mr. Jaynes had ever left the property during his May 28 shift,
and according to both experts (as will be demonstrated at the hearing) nothing in the
disclosed files shows any basis for Detective Miller’s supposed contrary result.
And on top of that, the story of the polygraph records is even stranger than defense
counsel initially realized. The opening memorandum sets forth the convoluted path by
which Detective Miller finally, after initially claiming that no data files were available,
32 Sali Aff, Ex 1 at 83.
33 Id. at 84.
34 Id.
35 Id.
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
17/36
PAGE 17 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
produced them to CCDA for disclosure to the defense.36 Upon further review of the record
of this case before the undersigned counsel was appointed, counsel has learned that at first
the State’s position was that even Detective Miller’s reports of the Nick Smith polygraphs
were nowhere to be found, with the State locating and producing them only after repeated
requests from co-defendant Lynn Benton’s defense team.
The pertinent chronology is as follows:
June 9, 2011: Detective Miller conducts a polygraph examination on Nick
Smith. She repeatedly cites her purported conclusion—that Nick’s
“responses were consistent with deception”—in telling Nick she believes he
is lying. After this discussion, Nick for the first time changes his previously
steadfast account and says that Mr. Jaynes did leave the area during his May
28 shift.
October 8, 2013: Having seen passing references to Nick Smith’s polygraph
examinations in the discovery, but not having been provided any of Detective
Miller’s reports or other documentation, Benton’s counsel writes to the State
asking for those materials.37
36 See Mem at 26-27.
37 Second Aff of Kevin Sali in Supp of Def’s Mot to Dismiss (Mot No. 101) (“Second Sali
Aff”), Ex 1 (Dec. 23, 2015 Request for Discovery Sanctions—Exclusion of State Witness
Nick Smith, from State of Oregon v. Lynn Edward Benton, Clackamas County Case No.CR1201792) at 2. The citations herein are to the document filed by the Benton defense
team. The supporting materials cited and/or referenced in that document will be provided tothis Court when available.
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
18/36
PAGE 18 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
November 8, 2013: A CCDA prosecutor responds in writing that “[w]e have
spoken with Detective Carol Miller who did the polygraphs in this
investigation, and everything in her possession has been discovered.”38
April 30, 2014: The State reports that Detective Sudaisar has spoken with
Detective Miller, and “no other reports/notes etc exist.”39
May 7, 2014: CCDA finally discloses that, in fact, there exist two reports by
Detective Miller documenting the Nick Smith polygraphs.40 These are
produced to the defense the next day.
July 8, 2015: Mr. Jaynes’s counsel asks CCDA for the underlying data from
the Nick Smith polygraph examinations. Having received no response,
counsel repeats this request three weeks later.41
August 4, 2015: CCDA reports that “[a]ccording to Detective Miller, [her
narrative] reports [we]re the only documents she ha[d] retained regarding this
case.”42 Defense counsel immediately responds, asking CCDA for the
detailed information underlying its stated position.43
September 16, 2015: CCDA reports that Detective Miller did in fact retain
the underlying files.44 CCDA produces these to defense counsel, who
promptly provides them to two independent polygraph experts. Both experts
38 Id. at 2.
39 Id. at 3.
40 Id .
41 Sali Aff, Exs 3-4.
42 Sali Aff, Ex 4 at 2.
43 Id. at 1.
44 Sali Aff, Ex 1 at 146-47.
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
19/36
PAGE 19 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
are unable to find any basis for Detective Miller’s purported conclusion that
Nick failed his exams.
What is going on here? Has this Court ever seen a stranger sequence of events
involving what would ordinarily be the routine production of a standard set of highly
relevant materials? A set that every police officer in the state would know beyond any doubt
must be maintained and preserved ?
Is it possible that Detective Miller, and/or someone else on the State’s side, realized
that there were problems with the Nick Smith polygraphs and the investigators’ use of them?
As bizarre as that might seem, is there a more convincing explanation for the laborious,
tortuous route through which these clearly pertinent documents finally came to the surface—
particularly given the fact that once they emerged, they cast a serious cloud over this portion
of the investigation? If this isn’t enough to raise an inference that something was amiss,
what would be?
It’s worth considering how this story might look if the subject was a civilian under
investigation for, for example, environmental violations or white-collar offenses. Imagine
that investigators ask the subject to produce a set of records required by law to be
maintained, and the subject responds that they don’t exist. After being repeatedly pressed,
the subject admits that, okay, the documents do exist, and produces them. He’s asked for
the underlying data that went into them—data that is also required by law to be kept. He
initially says that data is gone—then, again only after being repeatedly pressed, produces
that data as well. The investigators present that data to government experts—laboratory
analysts, for example, or forensic accountants—who are completely unable to recreate the
subject’s supposed conclusions, or to discern how he could possibly have thought that the
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
20/36
PAGE 20 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
data supported those conclusions. What would a prosecuting entity such as CCDA do with
that story? How would a court view it?
However intriguing such questions may be, their resolutions are not ultimately
necessary to the determination of this motion. As set forth in the Memorandum, the
polygraph portion of the story is not essential to this Morrison motion. The constitutional
line was crossed long before Nick Smith ever met Detective Miller, and the violations were
never cured. Moreover, to the extent the Court considers the polygraph portion of the story,
defense counsel need not prove that any of the detectives actually knew that the purported
polygraph result was unreliable or that their use of it to influence Nick was improper. Even
merely negligent government conduct can support a Morrison motion.45
Still, it is at least safe to say that no part of the polygraph story inspires any
confidence in the tactics leading to the change in Nick Smith’s account, and that story
provides ample reason to question whether something more than mere negligence was
implicated. This Court may properly take this into account in assessing the overall
evidentiary picture.
4. There Was Never Any “Substantial Basis” to Believe That Nick SmithWas Lying.
As set forth in the Memorandum, one question in the Morrison analysis is whether
the investigators had a “substantial basis” for concluding that a witness was lying.46
“Substantial” is interpreted strictly in this context, requiring something akin to “a direct
45 See State v. Mays, 269 Or App 599, 619 n 13 (2015) (noting the Ninth Circuit’s holding
that in this context a violation may be based on “the suggestion, procurement, or negligenceof the government” (quoting United States v. Bohn, 622 F3d 1129 (9th Cir 2010)), butleaving this question open).
46 See Mem at 35.
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
21/36
PAGE 21 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
conflict between the witness’s proposed testimony and [his] own prior testimony”;47 it is not
enough that, for example, one witness’s account differs from another’s.48 Additionally,
even a “substantial basis” to conclude that a witness is lying allows at most a modestly
enhanced warning, and investigators must still avoid improperly influencing the witness’s
account.49
A significant portion of the State’s Opposition consists of a determined effort to
prove why the investigators had a legitimate basis for believing that Nick Smith was initially
lying. This effort falls completely flat.
a. The Other Evidence Developed in the Case Did Not EstablishThat Mr. Jaynes Was Physically Absent from Work.
The State devotes much of its Opposition to laying out the evidence it had gathered
prior to and during the series of Nick Smith interrogations. Most of this evidence relates to
Susan Campbell and (to a lesser degree) Lynn Benton. For purposes of this motion, defense
counsel does not dispute that as of June 6-10, 2011, the State (obviously) had good reason to
believe that Ms. Campbell was guilty. Also for purposes of this motion, defense counsel
does not dispute that available evidence gave the State reason to suspect Lynn Benton’s
involvement.
As to Mr. Jaynes, the evidence relied upon by the State is more equivocal. The State
describes evidence allegedly indicating that Mr. Jaynes knew in advance about a plot,
47 United States v. Vavages, 151 F3d 1185, 1190 (9th Cir 1998).
48 See id. (“That [the witness’s] testimony would have contradicted the testimony of thegovernment's own witnesses does not form a sufficient basis for the prosecutor's warning.”).
49 See, e.g., State v. Gutierrez, 333 P3d 247, 248-51, 255-56 (NM 2014) (criticizing
officials’ conduct in pressuring witness even though that witness’s account differed starklyfrom her prior grand jury testimony); Berg v. Morris, 483 F Supp 179 (ED Cal 1980)(finding due process violation based on improper influence even though witness wastestifying directly contrary to prior in-court testimony).
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
22/36
PAGE 22 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
involving his mother and Benton, to murder Ms. Higbee;50 that, according to Ms. Campbell,
Mr. Jaynes had helped her obtain the gun used in the murder (this was later contradicted by
a separate witness, although in fairness that evidence does not appear to have been known to
the State at the time);51 that he behaved suspiciously after the time of the murder, including
possible efforts to hide evidence; that he lied to investigators in multiple respects; and that
he knew significantly more about Ms. Higbee’s death and his mother’s involvement in it
than he was letting on.
But even accepting all of that as true, and even assuming for purposes of this motion
that the evidence available to the State was sufficient to create serious suspicion that Mr.
Jaynes had some connection to the murder (or to subsequent efforts to evade detection), it in
no way established that Mr. Jaynes was the actual killer physically present at the crime
scene.
And it was that issue—Mr. Jaynes’s potential presence at the scene at the time of the
murder, which by necessity meant his absence from work at that same time—that brought
Nick Smith into this case. Investigators suspected, albeit without any particularly
compelling evidence, that a second person had assisted Ms. Campbell with the murder and
that Mr. Jaynes was that person. Having learned that Mr. Jaynes was at work that day, the
obvious step was to find out if he ever left during any time corresponding to the murder.
They asked Nick, Mr. Jaynes’s sole co-worker, who said he hadn’t. No evidence gathered
50 The State’s discussion of this issue includes references to a text message sent by Mr.
Jaynes to his fiancée Heather Smith. This text message has been described, quoted and
characterized in several different ways by several different people throughout the course ofthis case. For the record, according to the discovery the text was sent on April 26, 2011, and
read: “I could make 5 grand but i would have to off someone.”51 According to the discovery, Ms. Campbell later indicated that she had in fact obtained that
weapon through a man named John Ragsdale, who on February 17, 2012 confirmed this.See Second Sali Aff, Ex 2 at 1-6.
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
23/36
PAGE 23 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
by the State up to that point provided any “substantial basis” to believe that Nick was
lying.52
b.
Nick Smith’s Supposedly “Deceptive” Behavior Was Nothing ofthe Sort.
Nor did any such “substantial basis” emerge during the initial contacts with Nick.
The State strives mightily to characterize Nick’s initial responses to the Canby detectives as
showing deception and evasiveness. This characterization is ludicrous.
The first part of Nick’s alleged “deception,” according to the State, was his supposed
evasiveness in answering questions about his work history with Mr. Jaynes. According to
the State, Nick first fails to mention Mr. Jaynes when asked who he has worked with, then
attempts to minimize the number of shifts they have shared.53 Back in 2011, the Canby
detectives seized on these points to suggest to Nick that he was being deceptive; now, more
than four years later, the State persists in this claim. Does it have any merit?
Contrary to the description in the State’s Opposition, the actual question that
Detective Mead asked Nick at the outset of the interview was: “who did you work with
52 It is worth noting that, to the extent that the State’s evidence circa June 2011 was derivedfrom Susan Campbell, the State by that time was already on notice regarding issues with her
reliability. The full scope of the problems with Ms. Campbell and her testimony may not
yet have been known. Still, the State had the clear evidence of her own participation in themurder, hours of rambling statements from her, and a June 2, 2011, letter from her attorney
telling the State that she had “substantial medical and psychiatric issues.” See Second SaliAff, Ex 2 at 7-8. Accordingly, even if Ms. Campbell had provided direct evidence contraryto Nick Smith’s account (which she had not), and even if the contrary account of another
witness could constitute a “substantial basis” for Morrison purposes (which it does not),evidence derived solely from Ms. Campbell would have to be viewed with enhancedscrutiny.
53 See Opp at 14.
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
24/36
PAGE 24 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
most of the time on your shift?”54 At that time, Nick had worked at the station for about nine
months,55 and based on Chevron records appears to have shared a total of three shifts with
Mr. Jaynes.56 Accordingly, when asked whom he had worked with “most of the time,” he
did not include Mr. Jaynes. Given that this omission was substantively, mathematically, and
in every other conceivable way absolutely accurate, it was hardly a legitimate basis for
suspicion.
To the extent that the detectives genuinely considered Nick’s answers suspicious, it
was apparently the result of their own erroneous reading of the Chevron documents. This is
clear from Scharmota’s subsequent statement, later in the interview, that “looking at [Mr.
Jaynes’s] schedule you’ve been working with him every Friday, Saturday and Sunday night
for the last 3 weeks,” which “concerns [him] a little bit” because “[i]t’s like you were trying
to hold something back here.”57 The State’s Opposition cites this as additional evidence of
evasiveness and deception, noting that “Smith acts surprised at this fact.”58
If in fact Nick was “surprised,” there was a good reason. Scharmota was simply
wrong. As noted above, based on Chevron records Nick and Mr. Jaynes appear to have
shared three shifts as of the time of that interview.
If this seems like an excessive amount of time spent discussing work schedules at the
Gladstone Chevron in 2011, counsel apologizes. That said, the State has seized upon Nick’s
54 Sali Aff, Ex 1 at 1 (emphasis added).
55 See id.
56 According to Chevron records, Nick and Mr. Jaynes worked the p.m. shift together on
May 27, 28, and 29, 2011. On two other occasions their shifts briefly overlapped—once for
about a half-hour during Mr. Jaynes’s “training” shift on May 10, and then for about fifteen
minutes on May 22. See Sali Aff, Ex 1 129-138; Second Sali Aff, Ex 2 at 9-12.
57 Sali Aff, Ex 1 at 15.
58 Opp at 17.
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
25/36
PAGE 25 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
alleged incompleteness in answering scheduling-related questions as supporting the Canby
detectives’ belief that Nick was being deceptive. This Court need not rule on the highly
debatable point of whether actually inaccurate answers to such questions might constitute a
“substantial basis” for suspecting deception, because Nick answered every question entirely
accurately. Indeed, far from being a basis to suspect deception, these completely unfounded
accusations of deception may well have added to the overall impropriety of these detectives’
conduct.
Remarkably, this appears to be the best the State can do in its effort to paint Nick as
having initially been deceptive and evasive. Its remaining stabs at this issue are even less
convincing. For example, the State’s Response emphasizes that only in the second interview
did Nick “tell[] the detectives that [Mr. Jaynes] ha[d] admitted to smoking pot.”59 Although
this information is hardly earth-shattering and was not remotely responsive to any question
the detectives had asked, the State now somberly notes that “this is information Smith has
not before disclosed because, ‘It didn’t seem relevant at the time.’”60
In short, neither Nick Smith’s answers to the detectives’ questions nor anything else
in the course of the investigation gave the State a “substantial basis” to believe that Nick
was lying. Counsel respectfully asks this Court so to find after the hearing on this motion.
5. The State’s Purported Explanations for Why Nick Smith SupposedlyLied in His Initial Interrogations Make No Sense.
Late in the evening of June 9, 2011, well into a nine-hour, virtually unbroken string
of interrogations, Nick—after having finally given up and agreeing that Mr. Jaynes had left
59 Opp at 19.
60 Id.
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
26/36
PAGE 26 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
during his shift—was then asked why he initially told the Canby detectives Mr. Jaynes
hadn’t left.
Relying on various citations from the detectives’ reports of these unrecorded
discussions, the State advances two, at least partially inconsistent, explanations for Nick’s
initial account. One is that Nick “simply want[ed] to make sure he ha[d] all of the facts
straight before telling the investigators what he kn[ew] because he d[id] not want to make a
mistake and give false information”;61 in other words, he was “sorting out what exactly
happened that night,”62 and “ha[d] to put all the puzzle pieces together to see the whole
picture before he w[ould] tell somebody what he s[aw] and that is why he did not offer these
details until now.”63
The other is that Nick “did not like Det. Mead’s aggressiveness and
intentionally provided false information to him as a result.”64
But this makes no sense. The first critical question and answer shows up ten pages
into the transcript of the first interview on June 6:
MEAD: So 100% he did not leave Saturday.
SMITH: He did not leave during his shift at all.65
That’s not evidence of a mind “sorting out what exactly happened that night,” and
it’s not the answer of someone trying to “put all the puzzle pieces together.” It’s a clear,
straightforward answer to a clear, straightforward question.
And as of this point, the Canby detectives had done nothing remotely aggressive
with Nick. On the contrary, as the State itself emphasizes, so far they were treating him
61 Id. at 45.
62 Id. at 25.
63 Id. at 27-28.
64 Id. at 43; see also id. at 27-31 (setting forth this theory).
65 Sali Aff, Ex 1 at 10.
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
27/36
PAGE 27 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
“kindly.”66 It was only after Nick repeatedly stated that Jason had been at work all day that
the detectives became “aggressive”—increasingly so. (Indeed, that is in large part the basis
for the present motion—the State violated its duty of “strict neutrality” by dramatically
changing its approach to this witness who was not supporting its case theory.)
Accordingly, neither of the State’s two theories—that Nick was withholding
information while he tried to piece the story together in his head, or that he was lying to the
Canby detectives as a reaction to their aggressiveness—stands up to even minimal scrutiny.
Nor, of course, does anything in the State’s Opposition explain Nick’s steadfast repetitions
of his original account to the “good” detectives on June 9, or what the State itself admits was
his positively enthusiastic attitude towards the initial polygraph examination at a time when
he was still maintaining his original account :
As for the polygraph examination he was about to take, was he
intimidated? Frightened? Anxious? No. Smith tells thedetectives, “I’m excited to do it because I’ve never done it. I
like new things.” In fact, he is surprised the other officers
didn’t just ask him to do a polygraph test right after theirmeeting.67
Admittedly, the State cites Nick himself as the source of its two theories, claiming
that he offered both to the detectives somewhere during the unrecorded evening portion of
the series of interrogations. Assuming that Nick made the statements attributed to him, any
fault lies not with him but with his interrogators. After finally agreeing with the account the
detectives clearly wanted him to give, Nick obviously needed some explanation for why he
had stuck so steadfastly and for so long with the polar opposite story. These explanations,
66 Opp at 14.
67 Id. at 23.
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
28/36
PAGE 28 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
despite their obvious flaws, may have seemed as good as any—particularly if assisted by
suggestions offered by the detectives during this marathon unrecorded session.
6.
In Any Event, the Question Is Not Which Time Nick Was Telling theTruth, But Whether the State Treated Him with “Strict Neutrality.”
As set forth above, the State’s effort to recast this sordid story is meritless. The
evidence—particularly in light of Nick’s recently signed statement (discussed infra), and the
lack of any credible basis at any point to believe he was lying—compels the conclusion that
he was trying to tell the truth initially, and only changed his account in response to the
influence exerted on him in various forms during his numerous rounds of interrogation.
But even if this Court were to conclude otherwise—for example, that Nick’s initial
statements were false and his later ones true, or that the evidence does not resolve the issue
either way—that would not affect the ultimate constitutional analysis. The constitutional
rule is directed at all governmental efforts to influence a witness’s account, regardless of
which version of the witness’s account the court ultimately believes to have been true—
because “it is the jury’s function—not the prosecutor’s [or detective’s]—to determine the
credibility of witnesses.”68
That rule provides that, if the State finds a particular witness’s
account suspicious or unhelpful, like any other litigant its remedies are limited to
impeachment and the presentation of countering evidence.69 When it goes further and
attempts to reshape the witness’s account—whether to what it genuinely believes to be true,
or to something more helpful to its case—the line is crossed.
68 State v. Wiegers, 373 NW2d 1, 11 (SD 1985).
69 See, e.g., Pena, 175 NW2d at 768 (“A prosecutor may impeach a witness in court but hemay not intimidate him—in or out of court.”).
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
29/36
PAGE 29 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
What if, instead of a live human witness, Mr. Jaynes’s alibi evidence had been a
surveillance video from Chevron showing him at work throughout his shift? Would it have
been appropriate for the State to destroy that video, or to edit Mr. Jaynes out of it?
According to the State, at least since June 6, 2011, it has been clear that Mr. Jaynes
murdered Debbie Higbee. So he obviously couldn’t have been at the Chevron station during
the time of the murder, and any evidence suggesting that he was must therefore be
unreliable. After all, video footage can be falsified or tampered with, and that must be what
happened here. And letting that video footage get out could muddy the waters of this
otherwise open-and-shut case. A juror seeing that footage might not agree with the State’s
characterization of Mr. Jaynes’s April 26 text message, and might even question the
“heroic” testimony of jailhouse informant Craig Smith.70
Notwithstanding these pragmatic concerns, no one would suggest that it would be
lawful for the State to alter or destroy that video. Was it any more lawful for the State to
repeatedly threaten, lie to, and accuse Nick Smith, and then interrogate him for sixteen hours
until they finally agreed on an account they could go forward with?
It wasn’t—not under the constitutional standards. The Oregon Supreme Court has
explicitly recognized that witness accounts, like physical evidence, are susceptible to
contamination through sources such as investigator influence.71 And the consistent theme of
the Morrison line of cases is that the State has no more license to interfere with witness
accounts than it does to alter any other type of evidence.
70 See Opp at 1.
71 See State v. Lawson, 352 Or 724, 748 (2012).
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
30/36
PAGE 30 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
7. There Can Be No Dispute That the State’s Unlawful Conduct Had“Some Effect” on the Testimony that the Defense Will Be Able to Presentat Trial.
The State’s Opposition suggests that it is still an open question whether in fact the
State’s conduct has had any effect on Nick Smith’s value to Mr. Jaynes as an alibi witness.
It is not.
First, in its analysis of this part of the legal framework the State yet again misstates
the legal standard. Although the State poses the question as whether Nick Smith will be
“unavailable for trial,”72 courts in Oregon and elsewhere have unequivocally held that that is
not the proper question. Instead, the relevant question is whether the State’s improper
conduct had “some effect” on the testimony the defendant will be able to present at trial.73
As multiple courts have recognized, this includes an analysis of not only the content, but
also the tone and manner, of the witness’s testimony.74
Based on the sequence of events detailed in the Memorandum, there can be no
serious dispute that the State’s conduct has had a material adverse effect on the evidence Mr.
Jaynes will be able to present at trial. Nick Smith, after the State’s unlawful tactics,
presented a new account that was not only stripped of all exculpatory value but indeed had
become powerfully incriminating. He gave this account not only to the investigators, but
also, under oath, to two separate grand juries—thus subjecting himself to a non-
immunizable risk of perjury charges should he ever return to his initial account.75 No one
72 Opp at 1.
73 See Mem at 36-38.
74 See supra note 12.
75 See ORS 136.619(1) (even an immunized witness “may nevertheless be prosecuted or
subjected to penalty for any perjury, false swearing or contempt”).
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
31/36
PAGE 31 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
can seriously contend that he could simply “shake this off” and present the untainted,
confident testimony he was clearly prepared to give before the State stepped in.
And lest there remain any doubt, along with this Reply defense counsel is submitting
a report, signed by Nick Smith himself, memorializing his most recent statements to defense
investigator Pamela Rogers. In this statement, Nick confirms, among other things, that
while being interviewed he “wanted to tell the truth and thought he was telling the truth the
entire time.”76 He also confirms that he “has no idea why he didn’t pass” his polygraph
examination.77 Notably, this interview took place the same day the State finally produced
the polygraph data, such that at this time Mr. Jaynes’s defense team did not yet know the full
scope of the problems with Detective Miller’s examinations.
Finally—and importantly, for purposes of this aspect of the Morrison motion—Nick
stated that “he honestly doesn’t remember whether Jason ever left the Chevron station, nor
does he recall what he told the officers at the end of the day.”78 This stated lack of memory
is entirely consistent with the scientific evidence on how an interrogator’s conduct can
genuinely affect a witness’s actual memory,79 and demonstrates beyond any remaining
doubt that any testimony Mr. Jaynes might be able to present at his trial will be dramatically
different than what Nick would have offered absent the State’s improper conduct.
76 See Aff of Pamela Rogers in Supp of Def’s Mot to Dismiss (Mot No. 101), Ex 1 at 2.
77 Id.
78 Id.
79 See Sali Aff, Ex 7.
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
32/36
PAGE 32 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
8. Nothing in the Intervening Years Has Cured the Taint from the State’s
Constitutional Violations.
As noted above, the State contends that whatever may have happened back in 2011,
there are no lingering effects from that period and Mr. Jaynes’s right to the full benefit of
Nick Smith’s testimony has been fully restored. On this point too, the State is wrong.
Indeed, on the contrary, the State’s conduct in the months and years following the initial
influence made the situation worse, not better.
After the initial contacts in June of 2011, neither the investigators nor the CCDA
prosecutors took any steps whatsoever to undo the damage caused by those contacts. No
one, for example, acknowledged to Nick that any of his initial treatment was improper and
would not be repeated. No one took any steps to assure him that the State only wanted his
honest, truthful account regardless of whether it matched the State’s case theory. And no
one ever admitted to Nick that the Canby detectives had been lying to him when, in an
attempt to challenge Nick’s account, they told him Mr. Jaynes was contradicting his story.
To recap, from the summer of 2011 onward, Nick believed—correctly—that the
State, far from exhibiting “strict neutrality,” was deeply desirous of his saying that Mr.
Jaynes had left his shift on May 28, 2011. He clearly understood—with substantial
justification—that sticking to an account inconsistent with the State’s theory could cause
significant adverse consequences to him. He believed—incorrectly, because of the Canby
detectives’ now-admitted lies—that the State had substantial grounds to believe that he was
lying because his statements differed materially from Mr. Jaynes’s alleged admissions.
Finally, he believed—incorrectly—that the detectives had additional grounds to believe he
had initially been lying based on what they claimed was a reliable polygraph result.
This was the state of things as of November 2012. At that time the State, far from
taking any corrective measures, took a step that irrevocably extinguished the possibility of
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
33/36
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
34/36
PAGE 34 – DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS(MOTION NO. 101)
Kevin Sali LLC5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 329-3598
Fax (503) 765-5377
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
III. CONCLUSION
“Bullshit. Don’t. Forget about the alibi.”
Detective Scott Sudaisar, to Jason Jaynes, June 6, 2011.
“Now, let’s talk about Nick Smith. Nick Smith initially was uncooperative. Or—and fromthe police perspective, uncooperative.”
CCDA prosecutor, in court, April 1, 2015.81
These two quotes succinctly sum up the State’s attitude towards Jason Jaynes’s
crucial alibi witness. By June 6, 2011, little more than a week into its investigation, the
State had decided that Jason Jaynes had murdered Debbie Higbee. Nick Smith’s insistent
account that Mr. Jaynes was at work at the time was not only brushed aside, but actively
broken down and reshaped to conform to the State’s theory. As far as the State was
concerned, Nick—who submitted to one interrogation after another, for a total of more than
sixteen hours over three separate days—was nonetheless “uncooperative” until he finally
gave in and agreed with his interrogators’ view of what had taken place.
The State’s insistence in holding fast to its initial theory in the face of contrary
evidence was striking. That said, by itself that insistence may not have crossed
constitutional lines as long as the full evidentiary mosaic remained uncorrupted and Mr.
Jaynes was able to exercise his vital right to present this powerfully exculpatory evidence at
trial.
But, as the record already makes clear and as the evidence presented at the hearing
will make still more so, the State did not stop there. Instead, State agents repeatedly exerted
their influence to get Nick Smith to change his account, and in the end they succeeded. In
doing so, they violated the Oregon and United States Constitutions.
81 Sali Aff, Ex 7 at 69.
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
35/36
8/20/2019 Benton Murder Case Reply
36/36