Maddox Trial Appeal May Go To Minnesota Supreme Court
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By Shawn Hogendorf-
A three-judge panel of the state appeals court Tuesday affirmed Scott County District Court Judge Jerome B. Abrams' decision to allow limited expert testimony about acute stress disorder to offer an explanation to Maddox's behavior following the alleged murder of his estranged wife, Shakopee Valley News reporter Ruth Anne Maddox, in November 2008.
That decision, along with the appeals court's confirmation of Abrams' decisions to exclude unedited e-mails from trial for "prejudicial" reasons and his decision to reserve rulings on the admissibility of hearsay statements until evidence is flushed out during trial, may send this case to the state's high court before it is presented to a Scott County jury.
The 14-page opinion was issued nearly two years after Maddox was arrested by Prior Lake police and charged with second-degree murder by the Scott County Attorney's Office. Maddox has pleaded not guilty to the murder charge.
"This office is very aware of the desire of Ruth Anne's family to see a trial date set as expediently as possible," Scott County Attorney Pat Ciliberto said in a statement Tuesday afternoon. "However, the opinion of this office is that the decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals, as written, has a critical impact on the prosecution of this case."
The appeals court's opinion "affirmed the district court's decision to permit the defense to present expert psychiatric testimony on acute stress disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder - two mental disorders Maddox has never been diagnosed with," Ciliberto said. "The appellate court stated that although it would be improper to use an undiagnosed mental disorder to prove Maddox had a diminished mental capacity before killing Ruth Anne, evidence of both mental disorders could be used to explain why Maddox did everything he did immediately after killing Ruth Anne."
The appeals court's confirmation of Abrams' other two decisions - regarding the admissibility of unedited e-mail and hearsay evidence in the case - "limit the state's evidence of Maddox's motive to murder Ruth Anne," Ciliberto said. Therefore, the Scott County Attorney's Office is petitioning the Minnesota Supreme Court for review of the appeals court's decision.
Although prosecutors will attempt to take this decision to the state's high court, Maddox's defense attorneys have a different opinion about the appeals court's ruling.
"I believe the Court of Appeals opinion was well-written and follows the appellate court's decisions in the past," said Julie Nelson, one of Maddox's defense attorneys. "I believe it was the right decision. In terms of how the appeals court has ruled in the past, I wasn't surprised, but I am pleased.
"You never know how the appeals court will rule for certain. But based on past rulings, and the facts of the case, it was the result we were hoping for and expecting."
The next step in the appeals process is for prosecutors to attempt to get the case heard by the state Supreme Court.
For a case to go to the Supreme Court, prosecutors will have to write a petition explaining what happened in appeals court, Nelson explained. Prosecutors will be allowed no more than 10 written pages to state their reasons as to why the high court should hear the case, she said.
"The Court of Appeals was developed to lighten the caseload of the Supreme Court," Nelson said. "So, we'll see if the Supreme Court decides to hear this. If they do, we will go from there."[[In-content Ad]]A former Warsaw resident, Ruth Anne worked for the Times-Union from April 1, 1987, to July 8, 2003. During her tenure at the Times-Union, she covered general assignments, as well as police and courts under the bylines of Ruth Anne Lipka and Ruth Anne Long.
A three-judge panel of the state appeals court Tuesday affirmed Scott County District Court Judge Jerome B. Abrams' decision to allow limited expert testimony about acute stress disorder to offer an explanation to Maddox's behavior following the alleged murder of his estranged wife, Shakopee Valley News reporter Ruth Anne Maddox, in November 2008.
That decision, along with the appeals court's confirmation of Abrams' decisions to exclude unedited e-mails from trial for "prejudicial" reasons and his decision to reserve rulings on the admissibility of hearsay statements until evidence is flushed out during trial, may send this case to the state's high court before it is presented to a Scott County jury.
The 14-page opinion was issued nearly two years after Maddox was arrested by Prior Lake police and charged with second-degree murder by the Scott County Attorney's Office. Maddox has pleaded not guilty to the murder charge.
"This office is very aware of the desire of Ruth Anne's family to see a trial date set as expediently as possible," Scott County Attorney Pat Ciliberto said in a statement Tuesday afternoon. "However, the opinion of this office is that the decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals, as written, has a critical impact on the prosecution of this case."
The appeals court's opinion "affirmed the district court's decision to permit the defense to present expert psychiatric testimony on acute stress disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder - two mental disorders Maddox has never been diagnosed with," Ciliberto said. "The appellate court stated that although it would be improper to use an undiagnosed mental disorder to prove Maddox had a diminished mental capacity before killing Ruth Anne, evidence of both mental disorders could be used to explain why Maddox did everything he did immediately after killing Ruth Anne."
The appeals court's confirmation of Abrams' other two decisions - regarding the admissibility of unedited e-mail and hearsay evidence in the case - "limit the state's evidence of Maddox's motive to murder Ruth Anne," Ciliberto said. Therefore, the Scott County Attorney's Office is petitioning the Minnesota Supreme Court for review of the appeals court's decision.
Although prosecutors will attempt to take this decision to the state's high court, Maddox's defense attorneys have a different opinion about the appeals court's ruling.
"I believe the Court of Appeals opinion was well-written and follows the appellate court's decisions in the past," said Julie Nelson, one of Maddox's defense attorneys. "I believe it was the right decision. In terms of how the appeals court has ruled in the past, I wasn't surprised, but I am pleased.
"You never know how the appeals court will rule for certain. But based on past rulings, and the facts of the case, it was the result we were hoping for and expecting."
The next step in the appeals process is for prosecutors to attempt to get the case heard by the state Supreme Court.
For a case to go to the Supreme Court, prosecutors will have to write a petition explaining what happened in appeals court, Nelson explained. Prosecutors will be allowed no more than 10 written pages to state their reasons as to why the high court should hear the case, she said.
"The Court of Appeals was developed to lighten the caseload of the Supreme Court," Nelson said. "So, we'll see if the Supreme Court decides to hear this. If they do, we will go from there."[[In-content Ad]]A former Warsaw resident, Ruth Anne worked for the Times-Union from April 1, 1987, to July 8, 2003. During her tenure at the Times-Union, she covered general assignments, as well as police and courts under the bylines of Ruth Anne Lipka and Ruth Anne Long.
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092