Home Contact Register Subscribe to the Beacon Login

Wednesday, November 25, 2009


Against Rule 16 of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure, Burleigh County State's Attorney's Office attorney Feland withheld from defendent Blunt and Hoffman investigative interviews and/or witness statements collected during the prosecution of the case. Rule 16 (f)(1)(B) delineates under “Demands for Production of … Statements of Witnesses” that Upon a defendant's written request, the prosecution must furnish the defendant: (b) any statements made by the listed prosecution witnesses.”


From case documents, it can be established that AT A MINIMUM statements/documents associated with witnesses Jason Wahl, Jodi Bjornson, Billi Peltz, and Jim Long were never, NEVER, turned over to Blunt and Hoffman --even after Hoffman’s repeated written requests. Not only is this a clear violation of Rule 16, it is also appears to be a violation of the stated purpose of the Rule: North Dakota's rule does not allow the government to assess whether a written record containing the substance of an oral statement, or the substance of an oral statement, is relevant. The written record containing the substance of any oral statement, or the substance of any oral statement, must be disclosed regardless of whether the prosecution considers the oral statement relevant, and regardless of whether the prosecution intends to use the oral statement.”


There is irrefutable evidence of Wahl’s EXTENSIVE involvement in Blunt’s case, yet unbelievably no statements by Wahl appear to have ever been provided by Feland to Blunt and Hoffman. Wahl’s recorded contact that I have (though FAR from complete) is extensive and logic dictates that there had to be at least one --just one-- document that qualified as a statement by witness Wahl and thus had to be turned over to Blunt and Hoffman. How is it that none, not one, of the dozens and dozens of meetings/calls/documents appeared to have EVER qualified as a statement? None of them? Really?


I have to wonder just how many other statements and/or documents like Wahl’s November 2007 memo are in BCSAO’s possession from Wahl and other witnesses that were never turned over as required? Under Richard Riha’s leadership is this how the BCSAO fulfills its judicial, ethical, and professional obligations to seek justice first?

Click here to email your elected representatives.


Avatar for Chatcath

I have said it before and I will say it again. Ms. Feland used taxpapers’ money to destroy an innocent man. Now, who has misappropriated funds?

Chatcath on November 25, 2009 at 03:39 pm

And, Ms. Feland used a HUGE amount of taxpayer money and likely broke the law doing it!

Steve Cates on November 25, 2009 at 03:51 pm

Whos the real criminal (Feland) in this whole sorted affair and exactly how much tax payer money did she waste?  Who is more unethical and dishonorable… a person in power (Feland) who uses her power to prosecute an innocent man or a person who knows knows of this abuse of power and does nothing (Riha) or in this case I think the whole BCSA office.  Shameful.  Public servants that are corrupt and all of them need to be and should be fired.

Madknuk on November 30, 2009 at 11:54 am

visions Committee swiftly and unanimously rejected the Bill by the third day of the 60th Legislative Assembly with a 5-0 Do Not Pass vote. The Bill was further roundly rejected on the Senate floor in a 45-2 Do Not Pass vote on the fourth day of the 60th Legislative Assembly. Yet, even after being clearly told no, NDSAO continued to take a demonstrably active if not driving role in the prosecution of Blunt doing the exact activities that the defeated bill told them they could not and were not to e

Dress on April 22, 2010 at 08:27 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?