Judge denies dismissal in Ashbaugh case after late discovery; narrows immediate exclusions and orders GPS curfew

The court on March 31 heard an extensive defense motion arguing violation of defendant Tyler Ashbaugh’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial after a large tranche of discovery was produced shortly before trial. Defense counsel Nathaniel Navey asked the court to dismiss the indictment, saying the late disclosures — which he described as roughly 212 jail calls, 44 dash- or body-camera videos, 53 PDF documents including a 571‑page gunshot-residue (GSR) report and other testing — prejudiced the defendant who has been under indictment since May 22, 2022.

Assistant District Attorney Megan Galloway told the court she had taken affirmative steps to locate and turn over records that were not retained in the case file, including going to SAPD headquarters to recover videos and sending evidence to be retested when the original analyst was unavailable. Galloway said she delivered the recovered materials to defense counsel as soon as she obtained them.

Judge Stephanie Boyd declined to grant the defense motion to dismiss for speedy‑trial violation. On the record she said the constitutional right to a speedy trial is important but that dismissal is not the automatic remedy for all discovery delay claims. The court did make two immediate evidentiary rulings: the jail calls (which defense counsel says were uploaded to eDiscovery March 3, 2025) and the recently produced “punishment” materials (older-case materials newly placed in this file) are the categories the court said it is willing to exclude if the defense elects exclusion. The court did not at this hearing broadly exclude the other newly produced materials (e.g., historical cell-site data, retested firearms report or recovered body/dash cams) but left open further argument after the defense has had time to review them.

Judge Boyd also addressed logistics: she ordered the parties to agree on a GPS-tracking-with-curfew arrangement for Ashbaugh (the court and counsel agreed to an 11 p.m. curfew to accommodate late work shifts), directed counsel to estimate how long they would need to review the files, and to confer on a joint jury-trial date that works for both the defense and the state. The court said it would reconsider suppression/exclusion motions based on that schedule and would hold a pretrial hearing if the defense seeks exclusion of the punishment materials.

During the hearing Ashbaugh testified that he had been arrested on May 22, 2022, spent more than two months in custody before release, and had been under GPS monitoring since bond. He described long-term limits on employment access, loss of housing when his lease was not renewed after press coverage, and difficulty scheduling attorney visits through his GPS officer. Defense counsel emphasized those facts as part of the asserted prejudice and asked the court to consider dismissal as the only adequate remedy.

The state countered that the record shows efforts by ADAs and SAPD to locate and preserve materials; that some discovery was created or assembled mid‑case (including some retesting done after the original analyst was unavailable); and that the defense had not formally pursued a speedy‑trial demand earlier. The court balanced those factual claims, denied dismissal, and set the path for a short schedule to let the defense review the material and either move to exclude particular items or proceed to trial on an agreed date.

The court’s partial exclusions (jail calls and punishment evidence) and the tracking-with-curfew order are immediate administrative outcomes. The court said it will revisit suppression and exclusion questions after counsel sets and confirms the joint pretrial and jury-trial dates.