Prosecutors withheld 'discovery' documents in Masters case

By Kevin Vaughan, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Originally published 01:00 p.m., January 2, 2008
Updated 03:21 p.m., January 2, 2008

The prosecutors who took the murder case against Tim Masters to a jury improperly withheld four groups of documents from the man's defense lawyers at his 1999 trial, according to court documents filed today.

The acknowledgment of the violations came in a series of "stipulations" filed by Adams County District Attorney Don Quick, who is acting as a special prosecutor in the case — and could pave the way for Masters to receive a new trial.

The move came less than two weeks after the most recent hearing in the case, during which Assistant District Attorney Michael Goodbee said his office would acknowledge that violations of the legal rule known as "discovery" occurred in the original case.

Masters is serving a life sentence for the Feb. 11, 1987, murder of Peggy Hettrick.

Hettrick, 37, was stabbed in the back and sexually mutilated, then left in a vacant field in south Fort Collins.

Masters, a 15-year-old high school student, was the focus of the investigation from its first hours, but it wasn't until 1998 that Fort Collins police detectives obtained an arrest warrant.

He was convicted the following year, largely on the basis of a forensic psychologist's interpretations of his writing and drawing.

Masters has always maintained his innocence, and attorneys David Wymore and Maria Liu are fighting to win him a new trial. They have asserted that numerous documents that could have helped Masters win an acquittal were withheld from the lawyers who represented him at his trial.

The filing by Quick's office, which was appointed to represent the state in the case after the Larimer County District Attorney's office was found to have a conflict of interest, represents the first formal admission that documents that should have been turned over were not.

Quick's motion spelled out four kinds of records that it has concluded were improperly withheld:

The "extractions" of Dr. Reid Meloy, the forensic psychologist who testified as an expert witness at Masters' trial. The documents include 274 pages of his opinions and summaries of his work — writings that Wymore has argued could have been used to attack his credibility at the trial.

Records of an extensive surveillance operation carried out in February 1988, around the first anniversary of Hettrick's murder. During that surveillance operation, Fort Collins police investigators issued statements to reporters that sparked stories they apparently hoped would put pressure on Masters. Detectives also left a copy of the newspaper at his home so he would see one of the articles. Wymore has argued that details of the surveillance plan could have been used to persuade the jury that he did not act the way a killer might have on the anniversary of the crime.

Records of a police investigator's meeting with a plastic surgeon, who apparently concluded that it would have been almost impossible for Hettrick to have been sexually mutilated in the way that prosecutors argued she was. Wymore has argued that the doctor's conclusions could have been used to raise serious doubts about the prosecution's theory of the crime.

Records detailing a former FBI agent's theories on the crime. Roy Hazelwood, the former agent, apparently differed with a number of conclusions reached by Fort Collins police investigators. Wymore has argued that Hazelwood's conclusions would have punched serious holes in the prosecution's case against Masters.

The four-page filing makes it clear that none of the documents were turned over to the original prosecutors, Terry Gilmore and Jolene Blair, by Fort Collins police investigators. However, prosecutors have a duty to seek out all relevant documents and share them with the defense.

Gilmore and Blair are now district court judges in Fort Collins. They have repeatedly declined to comment on the controversy, but they are expected to be called as witnesses when hearings in the case resume later this month.

• January 2, 2008

  1:29 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Oh_Wise_One writes:

  Why is the RMN pimping this story so much? Is there some feelgood reason behind it? I don't remember any other inmate getting this much free publicity/sympathy. Masters scumbag lawyers have been looking for anything, smearing anyone including dead people, turning over pebbles to find some way to get this dirtbag murdering man a new trial.

• January 2, 2008

  2:11 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  RickyLee writes:

  It's the law, (un)wise one. Hopefully you won't get in the situation of being railroaded by the (in)justice system you seem
  to have complete faith in. I've been there, being the railroaded one. Fortunately I prevailed. Do you really believe this guy got a fair trial? Have you read the statements by several jurors in that trial who've said they wouldn't have voted guilty had they been presented the "whole truth"? You DO remember the part about the "whole truth", don't you? Everyone involved is supposed to adhere to that. You don't get a pass on it just because you're trying to become a judge.

  Now these two scumbag (to use YOUR term) prosecuters ARE judges.
  I wonder if anyone up there in the Fort is getting a fair trial these days.

• January 2, 2008

  2:21 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  buffsblg writes:

  not so wise one.

  This was hardly an open and shut case. The conviction was a stretch from the start based almost only on the testimony of one expert, whose information was deliberately edited. There is no physical evidence to tie Masters to the crime, no witnesses to the crime. It seems clear that the rules were deliberately ignored to get a conviction.

  The rules you so blithely ignore are in place to be sure that accused people get a fair trial and that innocent people do not die in prison. The "dead person" the lawyers are "smearing" was a demonstrated sex offender, so pardon me if I believe that respect for his memory should take precedence over getting a potentially innocent man out of prison. If this kid can be railroaded like this, no one is safe.

• January 2, 2008

  2:46 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Devil_Dog writes:

  I don't know if Masters is guilty or not, probably no one but him ever will. But by cheating to get a conviction, those so-called judges (prosecutors then) have perverted our legal system, and possibly incarcerated an innocent man. And most likely making it impossible to ever get a conviction for the true killer be it Masters, the deceased Dr., or someone roaming the streets looking for another victim. Perhaps our (LESS THAN) Honorable Judges should serve the remainder of Masters sentence should he be set free. At least that way someone who is definitely guilty of a crime involved with this case would go to jail.

• January 2, 2008

  3:07 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Oh_Wise_One writes:

  I see you uninformed commenter's have been reading the RMN for your "facts". How about this one- this guy was found guilty. You have been getting the "facts" from the Defense Lawyers now for many months and not much else. I knew Dr. Hammond and his problems started some years after Masters killed Hettrick. The smears I have read that have gone unchallenged are disgusting. The prosecution doesn't have to convict Masters again, especially in the media.
  Hammond did his crime and paid for it, now Masters can keep on doing his time.

• January 2, 2008

  3:11 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  nonayerbsns writes:

  "He was convicted the following year, largely on the basis of a forensic psychologists interpretation of his WRITING AND DRAWINGS." I wonder what this so-called 'psychologist' thinks of the great artists and artwork of all time? The schmuck should have his/her licensed revolked and all the prosecutors involved in the original case should be disbarred (if not also incarcerated.)

  Before you say i'm a 'liberal' or 'bleeding heart', I am all for the death penalty and don't believe it is meted out nearly enough. But, I believe in fair play and this case was anything BUT fair.

• January 2, 2008

  3:25 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  buffsblg writes:

  not so wise one

  This guy was "found guilty" by a jury that was deliberately not allowed to hear all the facts. It is much easier to convict anyone if you get to hide evidence that would tend to prove their innocence. Even the prosecution admits that relevant evidence was withheld. How can you support a verdict where the prosecution played hide the ball with important evidence?

  I am sorry your friend Dr.Hammond turned out to be a less than stellar citizen and it must hurt to see his private perversions put on display. I must ask how you know that his problems "started some years" after the murder. Certainly he hid his "problems" for some time.

  The reality is, the evidence against Masters was weak and now the prosecution has admitted that stuff was hidden from the defense. If you are so sure he did it, why are you afraid of a new trial?

• January 2, 2008

  6:06 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  RickyLee writes:

  ....the circumstancial evidence is in.....Oh Wise One isn't wise at all, and most likely an accomplice in the doctor's sex crimes.

  Hey, guilt be association, (un)wise one. That's as strong as the evidence against Masters, so, by YOUR standards you're guilty.

  Are you saying that the reporting of whats going on in these proceedings is false? What do you base that on? The info you so brazenly write off by putting the word "facts" in quotes is PUBLIC RECORD....what say you?

• January 2, 2008

  6:47 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  aeb1barfo writes:

  And you wonder why people have no faith in (OUT) LAW and (DIS) ORDER.

  Hey, FC....Karma can be a B*T*H sometimes.

  Wishing people guilty shouldn't make it so...

• January 2, 2008

  6:55 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Fancy_chance writes:

  Place the blame on the unscruplous prosecutors for their attempt to "railroad" a possible innocent person into being found guilty. I don't know if this person is guilty or not, but I do know that because evidence was withheld that he did not receive a fair trial as required by law. I think those prosecutors should not only be removed from the job and be barred from practicing law by the State Judiciary but should also be brought up on criminal charges. Remember just because someone is a prosecutor, judge, cop or whatever does not make them a fair or honest person. It's usually those types that are more criminal than the criminals.

• January 2, 2008

  7:19 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  BillHalfmoon writes:

  "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

  Shakespear
  Henry VI

• January 3, 2008

  2:45 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jvb writes:

  I'll send you a copy of the defenses' petition to the court; clearly, Tim Masters was a 15-year-old monster; he revealed what he would like to do to women as a misogynist. He revealed what he would do to those of African ancestry; Masters was a neo-Nazi. The female detective who helped convict him now seeks his release. She will probably have to take out a restraining order to keep Masters at bay lest he slice away her vulva and clip her nipples. jbalzano1937@yahoo.com

• January 3, 2008

  3:48 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  nonayerbsns writes:

  JVB: i have said, on countless occasions that certain heads of state should be put down like the dangerous animals they are, but that doesn't mean I am guilty of a crime.