Criminal case. The crime took place in April 2012. The DA's office wrote the indictment over 4 years because the witness wasn't sure when it happened. Our attorneys never argued the long bloated time frame from 2011 to 2015, although the brief sheriff investigation said it was a week ending March and beginning of April 2012. A jury pronounced a conviction of guilty on 6/9/2025. Had a Motion for New Trial 8/25/2026. The only witness testified that she now didn't know who had abused her after she remembered the long time family friend who had previously abused her 13 years ago. she admitted that her testimony was colored because the family thought it was this other man. She assumed it was her grandfather. 3 days after the trial, she realized she may have put the wrong man in prison. The judge disregarded her testimony as did the prosecutor, now saying she was lying. There was no evidence of the family trying to get her to change her testimony. This all came to her on her own. She's age 20. There was no investigation of this new suspect. How can you sentence someone to 25 years when the witness now says was it this other new person (who had an unusual sexual interest in her as a 7 year old) or was it her grandfather? She didn't know, because it was in the dark, she had her eyes closed, there was no voice. The prosecutor convinced her and the jury she could identify the abuser from his breathing and smell (smelled like skin and hair) and a round belly (half of men in America). Nobody remembered this other person that stayed at the grandparent's house until after the trial when she remembered him. Judge Ulanda Watkins did not follow Oregon law that says would a reasonable juror change their verdict with the new information. Then a new trial must be granted. 3 weeks later the prosecutor got PROSECUTOR OF THE YEAR FOR OREGON after the sentencing and the case was mentioned in the press release. The other guy is still running around abusing little girls. The short FBI investigation says the other man is 100% pedo. This other man graduated from medical school with her father, had known the witness since she was born, and his side gig is a child photographer. He did the textbook grooming sending gifts to only her in the family of 4 children. The judge was not allowing our attorney present this new information and having a fit as if we were wasting her time. She just wanted to get on with the sentencing. Fairness & Impartiality: There was a definite bias against the defendant. She kept repeating how this took place over 4 years. It was actually 3 nights. Judicial Temperament: Out trial attorney called the day after the sentencing and Motion for New Trial and said he'd never been so embarrassed for his profession in his life. He was upset because the judge wouldn't allow the other attorney to properly present our evidence for Motion For New Trial. When he told the judge the witness doesn't know who did this. Was it my Grandfather or this other person? I don't know. That's reasonable doubt." The judge insisted the witness didn't say that the day before. She did say that. it's in the transcripts. Communication: 12 different times in the trial there were no recordings of conversations where there was white noise. 2 times the judge said, "With this new technology, everything is being recorded." When we went through the transcripts and there was no record during the white noise, we called the court house records division. The lady that oversaw the records division, said she went to the same training the judge went to and it doesn't record it. You have to write down what the attorneys decided and write that down. She didn't understand how the judge misunderstood the white noise feature. Timeliness: The judge told the jury beforehand during jury selection they could leave Friday on their vacations. Friday the Jury went home hung. They deliberated 90 minutes on Monday and wanted to leave on vacation.