Defense makes motion for new trial for Ronald Lee murder case

Sep. 22—LA GRANDE — The attorney for Ronald Lee, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison in August, wants his client to have a new trial.

Attorney Dean Gushwa, who represented Lee during the trial this summer in Union County Circuit Court, and Union County District Attorney Kelsie McDaniel were in court Wednesday, Sept. 21, to argue Gushwa's motion for a new trial. The defense attorney contends Lee did not receive a fair trial.

Union County Circuit Court Judge Thomas Powers sentenced Lee, 74, to life in prison on Aug. 5 after a jury convicted Lee of murdering his wife, Loretta Williams, in November 2018 at her Cove home. The two were in the process of divorcing.

Gushwa argued Lee did not receive a fair trial because the court, while giving the jury instructions, did not address the lack of transcripts of Williams' 911 call. Gushwa claims the jury was prejudiced against Lee because the transcript was central to the defense case. Gushwa told the jury during opening statements that a transcript would be provided. Gushwa argued this was an irregularity in the proceeding and grounds for a new trial.

In the motion, Gushwa pointed out that after the jury began deliberating the members had only one question and it was asking for a transcript of the 911 recording. He stated he believes this emphasizes the weight the jury placed on the 911 call.

"Obviously, it weighed heavily on their minds," Gushwa said.

Without the special instruction, the jury could believe that no transcript or transcription witness ever existed, which would cast doubt on the defendant and on his credibility, Gushwa said.

In her response, McDaniel argued that Gushwa did not explain how this rose to the level of irregularity in the proceeding. According to McDaniel, a lawyer telling the jury in an opening statement what evidence they expect to present during the course of a trial, but then not being able to admit that evidence, is not an irregularity. There is always a risk in predicting what evidence will be admitted.

"It doesn't make it irregular because it doesn't work in your favor," McDaniel said.

McDaniel said Gushwa wanted to relitigate the issues of the transcript's admissibility and transcription witness. She argued the special jury instruction Gushwa wanted to include was improper as it would have been commenting on inadmissible evidence.

While deciding on the jury instruction during the trial, Powers declined the special instruction, saying the jury instruction already addressed the issue and it was not appropriate for the court to direct the jury to or away from it.

During the hearing, Gushwa also brought up two additional points under Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure in support of a new trial: accident or surprise and error of law. Since these were not addressed in the original motion, Powers granted both parties time to write an additional brief on the subject.

Gushwa's motion is due to the court by Oct. 3 and McDaniel will have until Oct. 10 to respond. Either party can request a hearing for another oral argument after the briefings are submitted, but currently neither Gushwa nor McDaniel anticipate it will be necessary. Powers will review the briefings and make a decision on whether to grant a new trial.

Isabella Crowley is a reporter for The Observer. Contact her at {span}541-624-6014 or{/span} icrowley@lagrandeobserver.com.