Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge denies motions, sets jury trial in Allen terroristic-threat case
Summary
After a multi-hour hearing on attorney-client privilege and the content of recorded conversations, the court denied motions to suppress and dismiss and set Ronald Allen’s jury trial for Sept. 30.
Judge Stephanie Boyd denied defense motions to suppress and to dismiss in the case against Ronald Allen and set a jury trial for Sept. 30.
The hearing centered on whether audio recorded during conversations between Allen and his lawyer was protected by the attorney-client privilege or fell within the exception for disclosures to prevent a future crime. The judge found an exception applied, concluding the recorded statements fell outside privilege and were admissible for the pending criminal charge.
Why it matters: The court’s ruling preserves the state’s evidence for trial and resolves a contested legal question about the scope of privilege when allegedly threatening statements are made in a confidential setting.
Prosecutor Duffy Pillock argued the defendant’s recorded remarks were a true threat and not protected, urging the court to treat them as statements meant to place a public group in fear. Pillock told the court the recording and subsequent steps taken by the attorney (including office security and training) showed the remarks were taken seriously.
Defense counsel Charles Butcher argued the remarks were emotionally charged venting and conditional speculation tied to a custody dispute, invoking Watts and related case law that treat certain hyperbolic political or private statements as protected speech. The defense argued the recording lacked an expressed plan or specific target and that the attorney’s own testimony undercut an imminent threat finding.
Judge Boyd resolved the privilege issue in favor of admissibility and said she could not resolve intent (mens rea) at the suppression stage; she concluded those factual elements are for a jury. On the record she said, “The motion to dismiss is denied. The motion to suppress is denied. I'm gonna schedule this for a jury trial for September 30.”
Next steps: The case will proceed to jury selection and trial preparation; counsel were directed to raise any additional motions before the trial date.
