Charles Crane/MDN From left to right: Defendant Bradley Joe Morales, Judge Doug Mattson and State’s Attorney Roza Larson confer during a bench meeting during opening arguments of Morales’ murder re-trial on Tuesday.

The long-delayed re-trial of Bradley Joe Morales began this week in district court in Minot.

Morales had been convicted for murder in May 2018 in the stabbing death of his ex-girlfriend Sharmaine Leake. Morales appealed his conviction to the State Supreme Court in 2019, which ruled that he must be given a new trial due to procedural errors that violated his right to a public trial. After multiple delays caused by changes in representation and a COVID-19 diagnosis for Morales, the parties finally convened on Monday before district Judge Doug Mattson. Morales, who is not a lawyer, is acting as his own attorney.

Jury selection began on Monday morning, and concluded shortly after noon on Tuesday. Over 100 prospective jurors were grilled during two separate sessions, with both sides ultimately agreeing on a jury of eight men and four women.

Before opening arguments began, Morales requested that Judge Mattson delay opening arguments and testimony to allow him more time to review submitted video evidence and test equipment. Morales claimed that some of the DVDs provided to him malfunctioned and played only black screens, lamenting a lack of access to the public defender advising his defense to have the adequate time to prepare for the trial.

“This is going to impede my ability to be able to defend myself. I need the opportunity to get this evidence together.” Morales said. “I have been denied all resources, at least give me that to have my evidence ready to come here and present my case.”

State’s Attorney Roza Larson objected to this request, contending that Morales had been given 90 days to be ready for his trial, and had the opportunity at the preliminary hearing the week before to remedy such concerns. Larson also pointed out that the video files in question provided to them by the defense had not given them any playback issues, and that it was Morales’ responsibility to take the time to test them on the court’s equipment. Given the long delays and disruptions involved in this case, Larson said there wasn’t any more room for adjusting the timetable of the trial.

“We have witnesses we have flown in. We are ready. It is time to go.” Larson said.

Judge Mattson denied Morales his request, ruling that they would proceed with jury instructions and opening arguments, but would allow Morales to redirect the first witness Wednesday morning.

Larson presented the state’s opening argument first, asserting that the evidence the State planned to present in the case would prove that the defendant is guilty of murder for willfully causing the death of the victim from “manifesting an extreme indifference for the value of human life.” Larson then provided the basic facts of the case from the night of August 16, 2017, that led to the 911 call that brought patrol officers to the scene of her stabbing. Despite an objection from Morales over statements he made that were recorded on the officer’s body cameras and brief bench conference, Larson pressed on with her argument, enumerating examples of actions and behavior of the defendant that escalated to the events of that night.

“This is a case about domestic violence.” Larson concluded, “Listen carefully to all the evidence in determining the defendant’s guilt.”

Morales took his turn, arguing to the jury that the case presented by the State will contain inconsistency and deception. He claimed that compartmentalized statements may not include the full context, and that it is up to the jury to decide what is true. Morales directed the jury toward evidence he said would show that the defendant had not deliberately caused the death of the victim, had rendered aid and called the authorities for help.

Speaking in the third person, Morales said, “What the State wants to do you, is to believe everything Mr. Morales says except that it was an accident. The defendant has nothing to hide.”

The first State witness was then called, with responding Minot Police Officer Joshua Noyes testifying about what he observed when he arrived at the scene outside the townhouse in Minot. His body camera footage was then played for the court after an objection from Morales was overruled. The state rested its questioning of the witness, allowing Morales to forgo postponing his redirect for the next day. The back and forth grew contentious, when Morales introduced Noyes’ incident report.

The jury was removed from the courtroom, and Morales insisted that the witness was committing a Brady violation by refusing to accurately relate the contents of his report to the jury that he felt indicated Morales had attempted to render aid. Morales said it was not consistent with Noyes’ prior testimony. Morales introduced some examples of case law he believed supported his aim of showing that his actions that night to render aid to the victim should be mitigating factors when determining a charge of murder.

Larson argued that the cases Morales introduced were “apples to oranges”, and reflected rulings in completely different cases than the one currently before the court. Judge Mattson decided that he would take the night to review the cases, and render a ruling in the morning.