The office of the Utah Attorney General at the Capitol in Salt Lake City is pictured on Tuesday, Jan. 16, 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)
The Utah Attorney General’s Office will continue advocating for the execution of Ralph Menzies, after a judge denied a motion Thursday to disqualify the office from future proceedings over an alleged conflict of interest.
In November, a judge will decide whether Menzies, a 65-year old death row inmate with dementia, is competent enough to be executed by firing squad.
But his attorneys say the competency review — where the state’s Department of Corrections and Department of Health and Human Services will evaluate whether Menzies is aware of his impending execution and the reason for it — will not be fair.
That’s because the Attorney General’s Office is communicating with those two agencies, which are tasked with conducting an impartial review, while advocating for Menzies’ execution, his lawyers argued in court documents.
That’s akin to the state putting its “thumb on the scales of justice,” possibly tainting the competency review, Menzies’ attorney Eric Zuckerman said in a statement Thursday. Zuckerman had requested the Attorney General’s Office be disqualified from representing the state going forward.
On Thursday, 3rd District Court Judge Matthew Bates said he will deny that motion during a virtual court hearing. However, the ruling is not yet public, so it’s unclear whether there will be any limitations or caveats for the Attorney General’s Office. Bates said the ruling will be public by Friday afternoon.
“If the Utah Attorney General is allowed to continue representing the State in this case, we can have no confidence that Ralph Menzies’ competency proceedings will be fair and impartial,” Zuckerman said. “Due process requires that the State not put its thumb on the scales of justice by sharing confidential information among entities with conflicting interests.”
The Attorney General’s Office had not yet responded to Utah News Dispatch’s request for comment Thursday afternoon.
Menzies kidnapped 26-year-old Maurine Hunsaker in 1986 while she was working as a cashier at a gas station in Kearns. He took her up Big Cottonwood Canyon and kept her overnight in a picnic area, according to court documents. Two days later, her body was found tied to a tree with her throat slashed.
In 1988, Menzies was convicted of kidnapping and aggravated murder. He was sentenced to death by firing squad.
Before he’s executed, Ralph Menzies needs a competency review. His attorneys argue it won’t be fair
In the decades since the murder, Menzies health has significantly declined, so much that his attorneys are prepared to argue he is not competent enough to face execution.
Menzies was diagnosed with dementia in March 2023 after he fell several times, his attorneys write in court filings, and an MRI exam found his brain tissue is deteriorating, causing memory loss and reduced cognitive functions.
In a five-day hearing starting on Nov. 18, Bates will hear arguments for and against Menzies’ competency. Even though court documents suggest Menzies is in a declining mental state, stopping an execution due to incompetency requires a high bar that is rarely met in capital punishment cases, attorneys say.
According to Utah code, the assessment must consider whether Menzies is aware of his impending execution and if he knows his murder conviction is the reason. State code also requires the evaluation of his mental disorder and whether psychoactive medication is necessary to “maintain or restore the inmate’s competency.”
Because Menzies is in such poor health, his attorneys argued he should be exempt from attending the hearing in person. Having to travel back and forth from the prison to the courthouse, wearing shackles and sitting in the courtroom during the hearing would cause him discomfort, Zuckerman told the court on Thursday.
Plus, Menzies’ presence could delay proceedings if he requires special accommodations or breaks because of his health.
But Matt Hunsaker, Maurine’s son, pushed back. If Menzies doesn’t attend the hearing and the judge rules he is competent enough to face execution, that could open the door for another appeal. Menzies could argue that his attorneys forced him to not appear, Hunsaker said.
“He is going to be able to basically say, ‘My attorneys forced me into doing this.’ … I firmly believe that him not being there opens the door to appeals,’” Hunsaker said during the hearing.
“He’s the one who brought this challenge to the court,” Hunsaker said. “He’s the one asking for this. Now he’s saying ‘I don’t want to be there.’”
Ultimately, Bates ruled that Menzies will be required to attend at least the first day of the hearing. After that, the court will determine whether he’ll have to come back for the following days.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.