1979 killing back in court

HELENA – A judge considering the case of a man seeking to prove his innocence after three decades in prison will have to evaluate very different legal arguments as he makes a decision.

Barry Beach’s circuitous route through the legal system over three decades likely won’t be ending soon, as attorneys on each side have two months to articulate arguments over how exactly the judge is supposed to deal with the case that has made for gripping headlines and stirred emotions for years.

District Judge E. Wayne Phillips made it clear at the close of a hearing earlier this week he needs more time to consider how precisely to proceed after the Montana Supreme Court remanded the case to him with lengthy instructions that left lawyers involved arguing over the intention.

Beach wants Phillips to overturn his conviction, and 100-year sentence, for the 1979 murder of a 17-year-old Poplar girl.

Over the course of a three-day hearing in Lewistown earlier this week, his attorneys brought forward witnesses who said that over the years a group of women with ties to the local police department have taken credit for killing Kim Nees in a jealousy-fueled fight that spun out of control.

Prosecutors have long rebutted the theory and pointed out credibility issues with the new witnesses. Prosecutors have argued that the right man is behind bars, pointing to a lengthy and detailed confession that Beach gave to out-of-state police after he was picked up on another crime – a confession Beach said was coerced.

Now the big dispute remains over how the judge should treat the new evidence.

Peter Camiel, a Seattle lawyer representing Beach, said the judge has agreed the evidence presented at trial meets the standard for being considered new. He argues all that is left is for the judge to apply a final factor from the Supreme Court instructions to find that a jury acting reasonably would have reached a different outcome if it had seen the evidence.

Beach’s supporters are optimistic the testimony that several women have taken credit for the crime will be sufficient to clear that hurdle – especially since none of the women was ever called to the stand to dispute the allegation. Even though the women have denied it in the past, no denials were entered into evidence in front of this court, Camiel said.

The judge is asking for legal opinions on how to evaluate those Supreme Court instructions, and on whether he needs to hold a second hearing investigating Beach’s claims of constitutional errors with his original trial.

Camiel said he believes those arguments would only build on their new evidence to persuade the judge to vacate Beach’s sentence and force prosecutors to bring another trial.

“We are going to suggest to the judge he doesn’t need a second phase, that he should make a decision based on what he already heard,” Camiel said.

But the Montana Attorney General’s office has a different opinion about the 2009 instructions from the Montana Supreme Court.

State prosecutors argue that the directions require that Beach meet a much higher innocence standard before he can be allowed to first make constitutional claims, such as prosecutorial misconduct from the original trial. Too much time has elapsed for Beach to file those constitutional claims on a normal basis.

Under the attorney general’s office interpretation, there is no way for Beach to be set free until he convinces the judge of his actual innocence – a very high hurdle – and then goes on to prove a constitutional flaw in his original trial. Only then, state prosecutors argue, could Beach get a new trial where he could attempt to clear himself of the crime.

Briefs are due from both sides by the middle of October.