Spokane7
49°
August 11, 2010 in City
Devlin doesn’t testify; defense rests
COLVILLE – Spokane County prosecutors ended their first-degree murder case against Christopher H. Devlin without calling the only person they believe witnessed the killing.
Defense attorneys Mark Vovos and Roger Hunko implored Superior Court Judge Jerome Leveque to allow them to tell jurors that prosecutors Larry Steinmetz and Dale Nagy agreed to give Carl A. Hoskins a deal in exchange for testimony – that as it turns out never came.
“He’s the only guy who saw anything, supposedly,” Vovos said. “If they didn’t believe him, why would they give him the 27 months?”
Steinmetz refused to comment about why he didn’t call Hoskins as a witness in the trial against the 57-year-old Devlin, who is charged with the May 2008, slaying of 52-year-old Daniel Heily.
Prosecutors initially sought the death penalty for Devlin because he’s accused of killing a state’s witness. At the time, Heily was scheduled to testify against Devlin for a previous felony assault charge in which Heily was the victim. But Heily didn’t show up for the May 14, 2008 trial. His bullet-riddled body was found two days later stuffed under the front seat of his pickup in Deer Park.
But Superior Court Judge Jerome Leveque took the death penalty off the table when he ruled earlier this year that Nagy and Steinmetz mismanaged the case when they did not tell defense attorneys for more than a year that they had evidence that the killing took place in Stevens County.
Because elements of the crime also allegedly took place in Spokane County, Leveque ruled that Spokane County would prosecute the case before a Stevens County jury.
Nagy talked about Hoskins, who initially was charged with first-degree murder, in his opening statement. But Steinmetz said Wednesday that he believes the state has proven its case against Devlin without the need for Hoskins to testify.
Vovos called it a strategic move, surmising that prosecutors intended to call Hoskins after Devlin took the stand in his own defense. But Devlin chose not to testify.
“It came like a bombshell that the state was not going to call their main witness,” Vovos said. “After 42 years of practice, I’ve never had anything like this happen.”
Steinmetz hinted that he did have plans to call Hoskins as a rebuttal witness.
“Mr. Devlin doesn’t want to take the stand because Mr. Hoskins would contradict what he said,” Steinmetz told Leveque.
Leveque said it was a difficult decision, but maintained his earlier ruling that the jury would not be instructed about the deal prosecutors gave Hoskins.
Hoskins was released from jail last August after having served enough time to satisfy the 27-month sentence as part of the deal. It’s not clear whether that deal remains in place now that he wasn’t called to testify.
The defense has rested after calling only a couple witnesses. Prosecutors will call a rebuttal witness before attorneys work on jury instructions. Closing arguments are expected to take place on Friday, Leveque said.
Closing Geiger: Wise or worrisome? 
bszottlinger on August 11 at 9:35 p.m.
Well it will be interesting to read the appeal in this case if the defendant is convicted. The judge takes the death penalty off the table because the prosecutors mismanaged the case by not providing discovery that Hoskins was cooperating with the prosecution and had provided the prosecution with information that the murder took place in Stevens County. So now, the case is being tried in Stevens County by Spokane County at even more expense to Spokane County. Hoskins does his 27 months because of his deal with the Spokane County Prosecutor even though it would appear he had some kind of complicity in the murder. In his opening, the Spokane County Prosecutor tells the jury they are going to hear from Hoskins, but they do not call him and now they are saying they expected the defendant to take the stand in an execution style Murder I case and were going to call Hoskins in rebuttal rather then in their case in chief. Admittedly, I do not have all the facts but I am not buying it boys. Pure speculation, but I would guess Hoskins story might have changed a bit (which should be discoverable) or the defense came up with some stuff besides the deal to impeach Hoskins.
BTW, a deal is a deal and I am sure it was in writing. The fact that the prosecution did not call Hoskins to testify does not break the deal. I am not saying it was Hoskins, but someone put a bunch of lead in Heily. It would be a shame if it were Hoskins or he was directly involved and he only had to do 27 months.
Brad Szottlinger
terrymr on August 11 at 11:23 p.m.
So the prosecutors get caught cheating and the judge says ok, we’ll keep playing even though you cheated but if you win you don’t get to kill the guy ?
If their case is so good, why the need to bend the rules to win ?
I can only assume their witness didn’t get called because a) he deal would make them look bad or b) they suddenly had doubts about what he would say.