That motion was filed, Talebi said, because new evidence came to light just days before King’s trial was set to start and the prosecution believed they needed more time to vet that information.
“The case remains open,” Talebi said. “We can refile the charges against either Matt King or any other individual.”
>>RELATED: Recent Mechanicsburg grad killed in crash
A Champaign County grand jury indicted King in April on charges of aggravated vehicular homicide, aggravated vehicular assault, vehicular assault and operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
The charges stemmed from a June 14, 2015, crash in which King was accused of driving under the influence, killing Mackenzee Hartley, 18, and injuring Mayci Powell, 17.
All three were ejected from the vehicle and King’s defense had focused its case on raising doubts about who was driving, according to court documents.
Skogstrom filed a motion to dismiss on July 14, claiming the case had been tainted because a Champaign County Sheriff’s Office investigator and an attorney re-interviewed two witnesses and asked them leading questions that caused them to change their stories.
“As a result of over-zealousness on the part of certain law enforcement officials, the investigation in this matter has been tainted beyond repair,” Skogstrom said. “Certain aspects of the investigation constitute such outrageous governmental conduct that it is no longer possible for this defendant to receive a fair trial.”
Part of the motion focuses on an interview conducted July 12 of witness Thane Piatt by Capt. David Rapp of the sheriff’s office and Springfield attorney Stacey Pavlatos.
Pavlatos represents Hartley’s family in a potential civil case related to her death.
During the interview, which was recorded and a transcript submitted to King’s defense the next day, Piatt said he’d heard King tell paramedics at the crash scene that he’d been driving, information Piatt hadn’t reported in his initial interview with law enforcement.
“It is clear from (Rapp’s) narrative that counsel for the Hartley family encouraged the decedent’s mother to talk to (the witness) to see if he would provide additional information,” Skogstrom states. “The result of the interview is that over a year after the accident, following some careful leading of the witness, by counsel for the decedent’s family, the witness now states that he recalls the defendant uttering a critically important statement to a first responder. Such a dramatic recollection at this late date is remarkable indeed.”
Talebi said said there was nothing improper about the interview and he believes the motion would have been dismissed if the case moved forward.
“There was absolutely no coercion that took place,” he said, praising the work Rapp and other investigators have done. It’s not unusual for witnesses to be interviewed more than once and for new information to come out, Talebi said.
There’s also no conflict of interest for a witness to be interviewed by a private attorney pursuing civil litigation.
“Witnesses are free to speak with whoever they decide to speak with,” he said.
University of Dayton Law School Professor Thaddeus Hoffmeister called the joint interview “sloppy” and said it gives the appearance of impropriety.
“That doesn’t seem appropriate to me,” he said. “I just don’t think these worlds should collide.”
The decision to dismiss the charges with the option to refile was made solely on the introduction of new evidence, Talebi said, and he informed the victim’s families of that.
“They’re lives are forever changed by this tragedy, they want the truth and they want the truth to come out,” he said.
Pavlatos said the decision to conduct the interview with Piatt together was one of convenience.
He became aware that the witness may have new information and had already arranged an interview at the crash scene. Pavlatos also informed law enforcement of the possible new evidence.
“For sake of ease, we decided that we would conduct the interview together,” he said.
The allegations of leading the witness are unfounded, according to Pavlatos.
Hoffmeister questioned whether having a sheriff’s captain present for an interview would make a witness more likely to talk to a private lawyer.
“Law enforcement have ways of making people talk,” he said.
Since a civil attorney’s objective is to get a conviction and law enforcement’s objective is supposed to be to get the truth, a joint interview is problematic, he said.
About the Author