KU team reverses murder verdict / LJWorld.com

Archive for Thursday, June 29, 2006

Students working on Defender Project say case was mishandled

June 29, 2006

A Dodge City woman convicted of killing her baby is getting a new trial, thanks to Kansas University's Defender Project.

The team of students and attorneys helped to reverse the second-degree murder conviction of Alma Monreal, a Dodge City woman convicted in the 2001 death of her child. She was 18 at the time.

The team brought the matter back to the courts after reviewing how Monreal's case was originally handled.

"This is, without a doubt, the worst case we have ever seen," Project director Jean Phillips said.

The Paul E. Wilson Defender Project aids state inmates believed to have been wronged. Students receive course credit for their work. They've worked on custody and divorce cases and on projects to get nonsmoking cells for inmates.

Each year, the office receives more than 200 letters from the state's inmates requesting help.

Monreal was serving a 13-year sentence at Topeka Correctional Facility when she contacted the Defender Project.

The Defender Project would not provide details about the message.

Photo by Mike Yoder

A group from the Kansas University Law School's Defender Project is coming off a victory in the case of a young woman who faced a second-degree murder charge in the death of her newborn baby. The team got the woman a retrial. On the winning team, from left, include Alice White, lead attorney, Erika Rasmussen, former student intern, and Jean Phillips, director of the Defender Project.

When Erika Rasmussen, the student intern at the time, reviewed Monreal's case file, she saw numerous red flags, she said.

"In my humble law student opinion at that time, to me it didn't seem like she had much of an attorney," said Rasmussen, a recent graduate.

Rasmussen alerted supervising attorney Elizabeth Cateforis, who also identified the problems with Monreal's case. Once the team started work on the case, Katie Gates, a student intern, tracked down experts and people to testify at the trial. She also questioned one expert on the stand.

Monreal's first defense attorney, Barry Gunderson, could not be reached for comment.

According to Phillips, Gunderson failed his client on several counts. For example, at trial he made no opening statement, asked 11 questions and gave a closing statement of less than a minute, she said.

Kansas University Paul E. Wilson Defender Project

"I can't think of many murder trials where 11 questions would be sufficient to discharge you of your duties as defense attorney," said Richard Ney, a Wichita lawyer who testified for the Defense Project. "There was just a myriad of things that should have been done but weren't in this case."

Monreal was 18 when she gave birth to a baby she had kept secret from others. She gave birth alone in the bathtub of her apartment. It's unclear when the baby died, Phillips said.

"She kept it and would rock it," she said. "She'd rock it before she went to work and would come home and rock it again."

Monreal, who is not a U.S. citizen, worked at a fast-food restaurant.

"There was a lot of sort of psychological issues going on," Phillips said. "We don't think she understood the distinction between life and death. We also don't think there was ever any attempt to kill this child."

Phillips said a full psychological evaluation was never conducted at the time of the first trial. She said there were also concerns about the autopsy, police interrogation of Monreal and other areas in which she believes the defense attorney was negligent.

"It's one of the more egregious cases we've seen," said Alice White, lead attorney on the case.

Monreal, who remains in Ford County Jail in Dodge City, will likely be tried again in September, though a trial date has not been set, White said.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

29 June 2006
at 6:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…

“Monreal's first defense attorney, Barry Gunderson, could not be reached for comment.”

I don't think I'd be picking up the phone, either.
29 June 2006
at 7:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

I did noticed that not once did the KU team nor the undocumented worker mother herself protest Monreal was innocent of the charges, just that she was not properly convicted. Nor was their even a hint of what the evidence was nor why Monreal was charged in the first place. I did notice they had fought to get smoking cells for convicts and I expect next they will get the fireworks ban lifted in prison.
29 June 2006
at 7:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

DownHomeDude (Anonymous) says…

The prosecutors and judges that work in

the so-called system disgust me! How

these people ever get in office is

beyond me. I thought Judge Paula

Martin and District Attorney Charles

Branson were idiots but these people

who let this women be wrongfully

convicted and incarcerated are truly

pathetic. Whenever I vote, I always

vote on whether or not to retain these

people when most people abstain from

voting for or against these canidates.

Unless, they are someone that I really

have good feelings about, I usually

vote “No” on retaining them because I

don't feel as though they are the right

people for the job. Sadly enough, the

court system is more about politics and

money than it is about morality or

justice!

DHD
29 June 2006
at 8:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Fatty_McButterpants (Anonymous) says…

Sigmund: try reading more carefully. They worked to get non-smoking cells for inmates, not vice-versa.
29 June 2006
at 8:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

Uh oh. More creative posting. Macon and Marion Sydney are bound to be jealous.
29 June 2006
at 9:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jackie (Anonymous) says…

In regards to the Project working to get inmates a non-smoking cell, I think it is a valid pursuit. In America, we tend to believe that prisoners enjoy many amenities that they do not deserve because, after all, they are prisoners. What we neglect to remind ourselves of is the audacity of our justice system in taking away an individuals liberty for the most minor of crimes. There is an ashaming amount of Americans in prison for non-violent crimes, one of the highest rates in the world, and we can thank mindless politicians and the prison industrial complex for all of this. I say if you are in prison for driving on a suspended drivers licence or any other non-violent/personal crime, then you deserve to breathe clean air while you wait out the governments violation of your constitutional protection from cruel punishment.
29 June 2006
at 9:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

this is a sad case and I hope that no matter the out come that this woman has very close follow up after her new trial. At least to me, It seems like she has many problems that should be moniterd. And if she were to get out should not be on her own in any way, not trying to be mean just some of what was said suggest unstable mental issues.

29 June 2006
at 9:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unite2revolt (Anonymous) says…

I wonder if she was ever given the option to notify her country that she was arrested on foriegn soil?
29 June 2006
at 9:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

craigers (Anonymous) says…

w
h
a
t

d
o

y
o
u

m
e
a
n

T
O
B
?
29 June 2006
at 10:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

flames_over_the_wasteland (Anonymous) says…

I propose that macon teach a class on free-verse poetry writing. Write poems, not posts!
29 June 2006
at 11:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dozer (Anonymous) says…

Down Home Dude - do you actually know anything about the law? You are good at calling judges and prosecutors incompetent, saying our system is broken, yet you offer no proof.

In fact, this case shows the system is not broken. There was a conviction, the defendant appealed, the courts said there should be a new trial. That is why we have the appeal system, to ensure a fair trial.

Pretty good evidence that the system works.
29 June 2006
at 11:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

A package of Bull Durham you can buy in a store for .83 sells for $100.00 in any Kansas prison.
29 June 2006
at 12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

smiles (Anonymous) says…

I am recommending this article to inmate!!
29 June 2006
at 2:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

switzerland (Anonymous) says…

Dozer~ The appeals system is not to ensure a fair trial. We have the appeals system because so many trials are not fair. It does nothing to ensure a fair trial. I agree with you that the system is not broken, but at the same time there is a lot of unfairness that goes on in the system that most people tend to ignore.