Status of Nickels' motion remains unclear

EPHRATA - David Nickels' motion for a new trial remains undecided following testimony from the 12 jurors.

Nickels, 31, of Helena, Mont., was convicted of first-degree murder in September following a roughly two-month-long trial in Grant County Superior Court. His attorneys filed a motion for a new trial, arguing they had new evidence of Julian Latimer telling a person Ian Libby shot Sage Munro, rather than Nickels.

Defense attorneys Jackie Walsh and Mark Larrañaga added accusations of juror misconduct and an anonymous witness, who reportedly said Libby tried to sell him a gun. They also reportedly have two more witnesses who heard confessions from Libby.

Most of the day focused on testimony by the jurors in the case. Defense attorneys argued the problems came with three jurors - Alisa Harrison, Arlene Bundy and Michelle Chambers.

They claimed Harrison knew the Munro family, and told jurors most of the people in the members of the audience were Munro's family members, according to court records.

The jurors varied on whether they remembered any comments about the audience members. Four remembered someone mentioning Munro had family in the audience. The family members varied from a grandfather to a mother. The other jurors, including Harrison, Bundy and Chambers, didn't remember any comments about Munro's family being in the audience.

The most detailed description came from juror Nancy Tracy, who testified a juror said she knew about 90 percent in the audience.

Defense attorneys claimed Chambers used her professional experience as a nurse to add evidence to the case when the jury was deliberating. Chambers is a registered nurse and has dealt with people using methamphetamine.

Chambers didn't remember mentioning her experience, she said.

Several jurors remembered discussing methamphetamines and how addicts act, remembering Harrison saying her brother had a methamphetamine addiction. A few of jurors said Chambers shared her experiences.

"I think she just said that she had some dealings with the people who had come in and had some dealings with the ways that they reacted, things that they would do," juror Robert Dillard said.

The final issue revolved around Bundy's alleged comment to an alternate juror, saying she felt sorry for Nickels because he was being tried in Grant County and he couldn't receive a fair trial, according to court records. The majority of the jurors didn't remember the reported comment. Two of the jurors testified they remembered the comment.

Following the testimony, Judge Evan Sperline didn't make a ruling on the defense's motion. He plans to make a ruling on whether a portion of the defense's motion was made in time. When the ruling is made, he plans to set a schedule for the prosecution and defense to begin submitting written arguments about issues.

"The court does not intend to set further oral arguments," he said. "This could go on in perpetuity, but I think it's important that the defense have an opportunity to file this. That doesn't mean that this court will consider it, or deem it to be timely, but if I make a decision that something isn't timely, how can the Court of Appeals review my decision, unless it has the materials."

Sperline thanked everyone for their patience, saying it is a long, tedious process, but necessary, he said.

"We're not trying to elevate anyone's rights or interests above the rights or interests of everyone else," he said. "We're trying to apply the rule of law as it is required to be applied. "