Judge to review subpoenas after defendant lists jurors and witnesses in post-conviction hearing

Judge David D. Wolfe said he will review a list of potential subpoenas requested by Jimmy Reeder and will issue a written order before the court schedules a follow-up hearing in Reeder—s post-conviction relief (PCR) proceeding.

Reeder, who filed a third amended PCR petition, told the court he seeks roughly 15 to 18 witnesses, including prosecutors, law-enforcement officers, child advocacy center staff and several jurors from his 2013 trial. He argued the witnesses are needed to show juror bias, prosecutorial statements and that his trial attorney failed to pursue relevant follow-up questions. The judge said any witness called in a PCR proceeding must be tied to an issue raised in the petition and limited to matters not already resolved on direct appeal.

Why it matters: Reeder is challenging his 2013 conviction in which he was sentenced to what the judge described on the record as a combined 35 years. If the court finds that the subpoenaed testimony would bear on grounds permitted in a post-conviction petition — such as ineffective assistance of counsel or juror bias not previously litigated on appeal — the court could order live testimony or further proceedings.

At the hearing, the judge outlined a step-by-step process for evaluating subpoenas: defense counsel will question Reeder in a question-and-answer format about why each witness is relevant; the state may then cross-examine; and the court will rule witness by witness. "I'm not going to grant your request to discharge Mr. Saul at this stage," the judge told Reeder, rejecting a request to remove court-appointed counsel. He also said on the record that he has drafted an order denying Reeder—s motion to recuse the court.

Reeder sought testimony from, among others, Ray Crouch (the district attorney general for the 23rd Judicial District), Detective Jason Matlock and multiple staff from the Child Advocacy Center. Reeder said he wants Crouch to clarify what was discussed at a motion in limine and whether certain recordings or alleged character evidence were limited or retracted. He asked that jurors who served in his trial be subpoenaed to resolve whether they had undisclosed relationships, prior convictions in their families, or other connections that might have affected voir dire.

The state and court-appointed counsel repeatedly pointed to the existing trial and motion transcripts, and the judge emphasized that many of the topics had been litigated previously. Counsel noted the record contains voir dire testimony and the motion-for-new-trial transcript that memorialized juror questioning at trial. The judge said he must examine the voluminous file and trial record before deciding which subpoenas, if any, should issue.

The judge concluded the hearing by saying he would take the matter under advisement, review the record, issue a written order identifying which subpoenas — if any — should be permitted, and set a hearing date. "As I explained, we'll set a hearing date for the hearing on the petition for post-conviction relief once I have that order down," he said. The judge also confirmed Mr. Saul will remain Reeder—s attorney for the interim; the case was continued.

What—s next: The court will issue a written ruling on the subpoena requests and set the next court date. Any rulings on the subpoenas or counsel status may be appealed as permitted under the post-conviction statutes.

Quote highlights: "I'm not going to grant your request to discharge Mr. Saul at this stage," Judge David D. Wolfe said on the record. "I have drafted an order that will be entered on the record that denies your motion to recuse this court."