The battle of one Whitefish man to clear his name as a child molester has landed in the Montana Supreme Court.
In a recent court brief, Dale Hanson and his lawyers alleged Flathead County District Court abused its discretion multiple times, and requested the high court enter a judgment in favor of Hanson.
Convicted of sexual assault and deviate sexual conduct in 1995, Hanson has maintained his innocence for more than 20 years. He served 10 years in prison, but has refused to register as a sexual offender.
"I will never register because I am not a sex offender. Period. Would you?" Hanson said Friday.
In the filing, Hanson appealed the District Court's denial of his motion for summary judgment, its order granting the prosecutor's motion to dismiss, and the order denying his motion for a protective order.
The opening brief filed in September with the Montana Supreme Court outlined the advantages Hanson would have seen had he opted to register as a sex offender – and avoid warrants for his arrest.
"Mr. Hanson could have drawn a lighter sentence and possibly have avoided prison, if he had admitted to something he did not do and submitted to treatment for a condition that he did not have," the court document said. "Nevertheless, he maintained his innocence.
"After Mr. Hanson was transported to Montana State Prison, his classification depended upon cooperation with treatment and programming. His housing and conditions of confinement would have improved if he had enrolled in sex offender treatment.
"He refused to enroll because of the implied and actual admission that enrollment entails. As a result, he was denied parole and served his full term.
"Even today, although it has made his life unbearable, Mr. Hanson has refused to register."
Jeff Renz of the University of Montana School of Law's Criminal Defense Clinic and Larry Mansch of the Montana Innocence Project are representing Hanson.
Last fall, the petitioner's lawyers described "egregious" delays by the District Court.
In the appeal, Hanson alleged misconduct on the part of a detective for the prosecution, since deceased, other errors on the part of the state, and numerous "abuses of discretion" by the District Court.
On Friday, a representative of the court could not be reached for comment. A response from the state was not on file online Friday with the Montana Supreme Court.
***
In the appeal, Hanson asked the court to review multiple issues, including the actions of a detective he alleges tainted the case against him. According to the opening brief:
In 2011, the Criminal Defense Clinic at the Alexander Blewett III School of Law began investigating the actions of Detective Maxine Lamb, now deceased, after allegations of misconduct in the case.
Several affidavits supported Hanson's allegations that Lamb "told exculpatory witnesses to stay away from the case and away from the courthouse."
"The prosecutor did not deny the facts alleged in the petition," the brief said. "Instead, the prosecutor submitted a long, rambling response that recited testimony from the original trial and engaged in a summary discussion of the law ..."
Delays ensued, but evidence mounted that Lamb had orchestrated a verdict against Hanson.
According to a section of the brief called "undisputed facts," Lamb "never told Hanson's attorneys about (exculpatory) witnesses or their potential testimony," she took steps to keep truth from the jury, and she violated protocols when she talked with the child, the alleged victim who may have been "coached to provide false allegations."
***
In the court document, Hanson's lawyers also describe abuses of discretion by the District Court.
First, Hanson alleged that Lamb "substantially interfered with the four witnesses' desire to testify" in his trial. However, the court didn't answer the question of whether the testimony would have been material and helped his defense.
Rather, it noted he "could have" discovered the evidence against him, although even that standard isn't the right one, the brief said. That's because the difference between whether he "could have" or "should have" found evidence is significant.
"The 'reasonably should have' standard is congruent with the law that applies when an officer interferes with a witness," it said.
"The courts hold that an accused reasonably would not have discovered evidence when the officer has hidden it."
***
The court also bungled Hanson's request for summary judgment with "several errors," each one "an abuse of discretion," according to the appeal.
For one, it allowed the prosecution to request additional time, but the prosecution then engaged in "egregious" "foot dragging," the court document said.
"Between August 15, 2013, when the District Court issued an order compelling Mr. Hanson to appear for a deposition, and October 7, 2014, the prosecutor took no steps to engage in any discovery," the brief said.
"This was not because Mr. Hanson failed to appear for a deposition, but because the prosecutor did not schedule a deposition."
The District Court erred in its treatment of his motion for a protective order as well.
The state wanted to depose Hanson, and he wanted to be certain he wouldn't be arrested if he showed up. So he asked for a protective order, and he also proposed the option that he be deposed by telephone.
The court, though, "did not address the other remedies proposed by Mr. Hanson," another abuse of discretion. ..Source.. by Missoulian.com
