SEP 23, 2021
Judge denies motions relating to evidence as Steve Pankey trial nears
[...]
Wednesday’s hearing was set to be the last before the trial starts, but additional concerns raised by Anthony Viorst, who’s representing Pankey in the first-degree kidnapping and murder case related to the 1984 disappearance of 12-year-old Jonelle Matthews, required another hearing to be set next week.
Weld County District Attorney Michael Rourke said at the hearing the motions came down to preliminary rulings on evidence. Much of the evidence related to information learned during the course of pre-trial witness interviews.
[...]
The first related to a possibility of two people testifying about what their 12-year-old daughter said at the time of Jonelle’s disappearance. Rourke explained the parents would only be asked to speak if the daughter could not testify herself. Viorst said the girl came “out of nowhere” as a “brand new witness,” but Rourke said the girl was interviewed by a Greeley police officer in 1984.
[...]
In another filing, Viorst took issue with a statement by Russel Ross, the last adult known to have seen Jonelle alive and someone with whom Pankey had a labor dispute years before. ...
[...]
The details of Pankey and his ex-wife’s fallout with Pankey’s father-in-law were the subject of another motion by Viorst, who said the details — including Pankey’s outrage as he grabbed his then-wife’s arm, yelling at his father-in-law for suggesting his daughter go to a dentist for an infection — were too prejudicial for the trial. He said it would be OK to simply say there was a dispute about a dental bill.
Rourke said Viorst could object at trial if Pankey’s ex-wife’s testimony posed an issue, but argued the motion, much like the others, was asking Kerns to issue preliminary rulings about evidence that should be ruled on during the trial.
The final motion addressed Wednesday related to the operator of a salvage yard where Pankey disposed of a vehicle describing Pankey as creepy, evil and angry. Rourke said the statement wasn’t to make character judgments about Pankey, but could come up if the operator was asked why he remembered Pankey in particular.
Kerns determined he would have to deal with the issues as they came up in the trial.
[...]
After both parties agreed they were ready, Rourke brought up one final issue: Viorst requested certain redactions to a podcast interview Pankey gave. The request came after the deadline they agreed on for such redactions, Rourke said. He also noted that Pankey had reached out to the podcast for the interview.
Viorst argued the podcaster wasn’t a qualified expert, taking issue with statements including that the interviewer said he believed Pankey should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if he’s guilty. Viorst ultimately agreed to narrow down the redactions and file a request by Tuesday.
Another hearing was set for 9 a.m. Thursday, Sept. 30, to address the redactions.
[...]
