Bradley Morales appeals murder conviction to Supreme Court

Morales argues right to public trial, right to represent himself were denied

A defense attorney for a Minot man convicted of murder last year is arguing that the presiding judge violated his constitutional right to a public trial by closing the courtroom on multiple occasions without first considering alternatives and by denying his request to represent himself.

Bradley Joe Morales, 28, Minot, is currently serving a 40 year prison sentence for stabbing his ex-girlfriend to death in August 2017. Morales is appealing his murder conviction to the State Supreme Court. The appeal is scheduled to be heard March 19 in Bismarck.

His defense attorney in the appeal, Kiara Kraus-Parr, is arguing that North Central District Court Judge Doug Mattson created a structural error during the trial when he closed the courtroom to the public on several different occasions before and during the actual trial.

Mattson had been troubled by coverage of the Morales case in The Minot Daily News and believed closing the courtroom was necessary to prevent prospective jurors from being tainted by news coverage.

Kraus-Parr is arguing that, before closing the courtroom, Mattson should first have held the required hearing to address whether doing so was necessary and to consider alternatives to closing the courtroom. A judge is required to consider four different factors, known as Waller factors, before closing court proceedings. They include whether there is "an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced" and "the closure is no broader than necessary to protect that interest" and "reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding" were considered and the judge has "made findings adequate to support the closure" of the courtroom.

"The right of a public trial is not held just by the defendant," wrote Kraus-Parr. "The Press and the general public's right to attend criminal trials is paramount to a functioning criminal justice system. Furthermore, the jury had been empaneled, sworn, and repeatedly admonished. The need to close the courtroom to the press to protect the jurors from the news is unreasonable and futile. The press is going to report on Mr. Morales and the trial and quite possibly many things that would not be appropriate for a juror to hear or consider. This is the right and the purpose of an independent press. That is why the jurors are admonished not to do investigation or consider evidence outside that presented in court … Because the trial court's numerous closing(s) did not address or adequately address the Waller factors including making any accommodations to allow the public to be present, it violated Mr. Morales' right to a public trial. This Court must reverse the district court and Mr. Morales' conviction because the district court repeatedly improperly closed the courtroom."

Morales had also expressed dissatisfaction with his defense attorney and said he wanted to represent himself. Kraus-Parr also argues that the Morales had a Sixth Amendment right to do so and that the conviction should be reversed because it was denied. Kraus-Parr also argues that the state acted in bad faith when it dismissed one charge against Morales and refiled it after the death of his ex-girlfriend. The month before, a judge had ruled that the Ward County State's Attorney's Office had been "judge shopping" in various cases when it demanded a change of judge in cases where Judge Stacy Louser had been assigned. Louser was removed from the case and Judge Mattson was assigned as the presiding judge after the first charge against Morales was dismissed and then refiled. Kraus-Parr argues that the district court created reversable error in the case by dismissing the first count against Morales.

The Ward County State's Attorney's Office has not yet filed a brief in response, but it will maintain that Morales's murder conviction should stand and his constitutional rights were not violated.