Lost audio recording prompts new trial

Provo, Utah – The trial court personnel misplaced the audio recording of the initial court sessions, leading to the dismissal of the Provo man’s second trial, which the Utah Court of Appeals reversed.

A fresh trial for Miguel David Gedo, who was initially found guilty of two counts of misdemeanor sexual battery during a two-day jury trial in 2020, was ordered by the court in a decision announced on Thursday. In the course of two days at the end of June 2017, Gedo is accused of having “inappropriately touched a woman who worked under his supervision.”

Gedo filed a move for new counsel after the conviction, claiming that his previous attorney had not met with him “in person until one hour before trial” and had neglected to bring up important points.

This included statements made during closing arguments, the prosecution bringing specific evidence that Gedo claimed hadn’t been properly disclosed, and the seating of multiple jurors.

Once a new attorney was chosen, they asked for a transcript and audio recording of the first trial. “The loss of the trial transcript was an error on the part of the [trial] court,” court workers wrote in an email after two weeks of not being able to find the tape.

This caused Gedo to file a motion for a new trial, claiming that it was impossible to assess whether his constitutional right to a fair trial had been infringed due to the incomplete record.

Initially, the fresh trial was allowed by the court and set for April 25, 2023. Gedo submitted a move to dismiss the case just one day prior to the new date, claiming that the offenses’ statute of limitations had passed. Provo City appealed both the dismissal and the ruling for a new trial when it was decided that the lawsuit was filed too late.

Judge Ryan Harris noted that the previous proceedings suspended the statute of limitations and therefore supported Provo City in the decision to dismiss the second trial.

Provo City initially filed accusations in October 2017, however on November 21, 2019, those allegations were dismissed without prejudice. That day, the city refiled the charges.

Harris states, “In the City’s perspective.” “its refiling of the case in November 2019 was timely because at that point, only about four months (plus perhaps one day) of the two-year limitations period had run.”

Harris ruled with Gedo in the appeal of the request granting a new trial, pointing out that the trial court had acknowledged responsibility for the misplaced trial recording.

“Here, all parties agree that an error or impropriety occurred during Gedo’s trial: the court did not make (or later lost) any audio recording of the trial, and no such recording currently exists,” writes Harris. “The trial court determined that this error had a substantial adverse effect on Gedo’s rights and that Gedo was therefore entitled to a new trial in the interest of justice.”