Two men facing attempted murder charges in the stabbing of an acquaintance were ordered to be released from custody Thursday, due in part to issues involving the lead detective on their case who’s under criminal investigation.
Clark County Superior Judge Daniel Stahnke reached his decision after the defense attorney for Troy D. Meyers filed a motion to dismiss the case on the premise that the prosecution has not turned over exculpatory material — evidence favorable to the defense — also known as a Brady violation. The lack of information, among other issues, is causing a delay in the case.
Counsel for Meyers’ co-defendant, Michael Conley, joined in on the motion.
Stahnke did not find the prosecution committed any misconduct or a Brady violation. He denied the motion to dismiss the charges but granted the men supervised release while their case is pending.
However, it seems unlikely that Meyers, 47, will be released from the Clark County Jail, because he has two other pending cases and is serving a nearly 10-year sentence in a drug possession and distribution case, court records show. Conley, 50, was scheduled to be released Thursday.
Vancouver defense attorney Shon Bogar argued that he has yet to receive any information about the alleged misconduct and ongoing criminal investigation into longtime major crimes Detective Kevin Harper.
Harper, who has worked as a detective for the Clark County Sheriff’s Office for nearly two decades, was placed on leave Sept. 26 after allegations of misconduct surfaced. The agency has not released details about the allegations, other than to say that if they are sustained, they would constitute violations of the sheriff’s office’s policies and could result in criminal charges. The Washington State Patrol’s Criminal Investigations Division has taken the lead.
Bogar said he has no way of knowing if there is potential exculpatory evidence or Brady material related to Harper’s investigation or his work on Meyers’ and Conley’s case. He assumes there is, however. Bogar also raised issues regarding phone calls between Harper and the alleged victims in his client’s case.
He argued that the defense can’t move forward with preparations for the Jan. 9 trial, unless the prosecution provides the information about Harper.
“My personal belief is that the prosecuting attorney’s office will turn over what the police give them, but will not seek other material that they are required to turn over. There is substantial federal case law requiring the prosecution to seek out this evidence, for they are supposed to seek truth and justice,” Bogar said in an email. “My experience is they let the police decide, which I personally believe to be an abdication of their legal requirement to seek justice, and one that is going to send innocent people to prison from this county.”
Deputy Prosecutor James Smith argued that no Brady violation has been committed because there is no material to share with the defense. The State Patrol’s investigation into Harper is ongoing, and the prosecution has no control over it and will not interfere with it.
He said he recently learned that the investigation will likely not be completed until after the January trial date.
“We can’t provide what doesn’t exist,” he said. “We are working (within) the parameters.”
Smith said the defense assumes Brady material exists when at this point they can’t know for sure. He argued even if Harper is found to have committed misconduct, it may not fall under the Brady rule.
Cmdr. John Horch with the sheriff’s office apparently knows the preliminary facts that led to Harper’s suspension, Smith said, and can be questioned outside the court by the attorneys.
Stahnke granted that request by the defense and reset the men’s trial date for Feb. 21.
“The prosecution believes that we’ve been doing everything we can to fulfill our Brady obligation,” Smith said in a phone interview. “Judge Stahnke didn’t find any misconduct or mismanagement by the prosecution. We will continue to get as much information as we can and disclose it to the defense as it becomes available.”
Man stabbed
Meyers and Conley are accused of conspiring to kill Patrick Lenhart, whose girlfriend was reportedly scheduled to testify in Meyers’ separate criminal trial. She told police that Conley and another man, Andrew Garrette DeHart, had threatened her and told her she needed to recant her story about what she witnessed, according to an affidavit of probable cause.
Conley and DeHart, 36, allegedly lured Lenhart to a Vancouver residence on Oct. 8, 2015, under the pretense of a drug deal. There, DeHart tied up Lenhart and threatened to “blow off his head” with a rifle. Lenhart was stabbed multiple times, the affidavit states.
Conley allegedly drove Lenhart to a hospital and dumped him in the driveway of the emergency department. Lenhart suffered stab wounds to his head, shoulder and leg. One stab wound damaged an artery in his leg, and he nearly bled to death, court records said.
Conley was arrested the following day. Meyers was arrested on a warrant about a month later.
U.S. Marshals spotted DeHart in Seaside, Ore., on Oct. 28, 2015. He led police on a 17-mile car chase along Highway 26 that ended in a shootout with law enforcement officers. Police said he shot at officers from his truck and that they returned fire as his truck left a tunnel near Forest Grove, Ore. DeHart died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to his head.
When he died, he was facing charges including attempted first-degree murder, first-degree assault, first-degree kidnapping and tampering with a witness, court records show.
Conley and Meyers are facing attempted first-degree murder, first-degree assault, first-degree kidnapping and intimidating a witness. Meyers is also charged with tampering with a witness and possession of methamphetamine.
