In a “battle” for information, a Utah death row convict files to have the AG’s Office removed from the case

Salt Lake City, Utah – Attorneys for Ralph Leroy Menzies, a death row inmate at Utah State Prison, have filed a move to have the AG’s office taken out of his competency case.

Menzies, 66, was found guilty in 1988 of kidnapping and killing Maureen Hunsaker from a petrol station in Salt Lake County, and he has been on death row ever since. A judge was supposed to approve an execution warrant earlier this year, but due to allegations of mental incompetence, the hearing was postponed.

According to court records, Menzies and his attorneys are currently attempting to have the Utah Attorney General’s Office removed on the grounds of a conflict of interest. Menzies and his group are hoping that the State will be represented in this case by a “independent prosecutor,” like the Salt Lake District Attorney’s Office, through the motion.

In a case that has already lasted more than thirty years, this move further postpones Menzies’ execution—a result that Utah Criminal Defense Attorney Clayton Simms speculates the defense may be pursuing.

He remarked, “Although it’s not stated, one of the defense attorneys’ goals is to make it more difficult and expensive to impose the death penalty.” “The government might decide that it’s not worth it and decide not to pursue the death penalty because it would be expensive to train new lawyers in the case and defend its position.”

In order to guarantee that the prosecution, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Utah Department of Corrections “made independent decisions, despite being represented by the same agency,” Menzies attorneys claim the AG’s Office set up a conflict screen to restrict communication between the three parties.

A conflict screen is a “screen that bars information from one department to another,” according to Simms.

By sharing private emails with screen attorneys representing various corporations, the AG’s Office is accused of breaking its own conflict screen “hundreds of times,” according to the attorneys. Menzies’ claim, according to the AG’s Office, was unfounded and devoid of “concrete evidence.”

Simms clarified that there will probably be a “battle” over the release of these materials because the motions are primarily about access to information, including emails and documents between the agencies.

According to Simms, the attorneys representing Menzies claim that the Attorney General’s Office has an unfair advantage because it may have access to information from the UDC and UHHS that is not available to the defense.

Simms stated, “They would lose that advantage if they removed the Attorney Generals from the case in addition to wanting the information.”

According to Simms, there isn’t always a conflict of interest that helps the prosecution since government agencies are cooperating.

“There aren’t always conflicts arising from the way government entities collaborate,” he stated. “Therefore, it is true that a government agency can function independently while still being a part of the state of Utah.”

In order to ascertain Menzies’ mental capacity, lawyers may need to go through years’ worth of jail calls and medical data, which might prolong the case for years to come.

Simms stated that even if the judge finds Menzies to be competent at this time, it is probable that his mental capacity will be questioned once more in the future.

“Is he capable, or not, will determine the power of the motion. Is he truly suffering from dementia? Execution will eventually come to an end if he truly does have dementia and has diminished mental capacity, according to Simms.