MENU
component-ddb-728x90-v1-01-desktop

Nuxoll's Attorney Asks for Several Pieces of Evidence Suppressed in March 19th Trial

NUXOLL TRIAL PREVIEW.jpg

A man accused of stabbing and slashing his friend to death will soon face a jury.

Patrick Nuxoll faces a charge of first-degree murder for the May 2015 death of 63 year old David Cramer.

Witnesses have been supeonaed, and a pool of 70 potential jurors will be whittled down when Patrick Nuxoll's trial begins March 19th.

But first, both sides had to debate what evidence can be admitted.

Attorney Rick Cuddihy says, "This is an ongoing constitutional violation, Judge."

That's Nuxoll's attorney, Rick Cuddihy, speaking to Judge Jeff Brudie at pretrial motions March 2nd, a hearing where the defense asked for several pieces of evidence to be thrown out.

Starting with much of what Nuxoll is reported to have said to officers.

Officer John Mainini, who booked Nuxoll into the Nez Perce County Jail, says, "Mr. Nuxoll stated to me, to the best of my memory, that because of what he'd done to his friend, he'd most likely not be going home again."

Cuddihy argues Nuxoll wasn't read Miranda rights until over four hours after officers arrived to his Linden Avenue home on May 21st.

"So after you sieze Mr. Nuxoll's clothing, you decide you're going to have him transported down to the police department," Nuxoll questioned Lewiston Detective Jason Leavitt.

Det. Leavitt responds, "Yes." "he hadn't been given any Miranda warnings up to that time, had he?" Cuddihy continues. "Not that i'm aware of," Detective Leavitt answers.

Cuddihy says a search warrant wasn't issued before detectives took photos and collected Nuxoll's bloody clothes.

Detective Leavitt says they were trying to save potential evidence. "The reason we wanted the clothing, again, was to preserve it. The longer he wears it the drier the blood stains get and the concern would be that the evidence could be damaged."

Another big piece of evidence under scrutiny is a bloody watch Nuxoll was wearing.

"They put it on the amended return of the search warrant that wasn't obtained until 11:30 in the morning. Yet the watch was seized at about 8 in the morning. So I don't know how you seize a watch persuant to a warrant that was issued three-and-a-half hours after the seizure," Cuddihy argued during that March 2nd hearing.

The defense claims the search warrant itself should be invalid. Judge Brudie will make a ruling on these motions prior to the trial, which starts March 19th.

Final jury selections will be made on the first day of trial, and opening statements are anticipated to begin Tuesday, March 20th.

close video ad
Unmutetoggle ad audio on off

Trending