Evidence issues may delay retrial of three-decades-old pipe bombing conviction

Dozens of witnesses have died since James Genrich’s first trial for a series of deadly pipe bombings in Grand Junction, highlighting the many challenges in relitigating one of Grand Junction’s most notorious criminal cases. 

In addition to the deceased witness issue, attorneys involved in the case point to conflicts with expert reports, latent fingerprint analysis and a massive amount of discovery documents that would exceed the complete works of Leo Tolstoy. 

“The prosecution has endorsed 79 witnesses, ten of whom the prosecution may seek to qualify as experts. In addition, at least 25 individuals who testified at the 1993 trial are now deceased, which raises potential evidentiary issues that must be addressed and resolved before trial,” attorneys for Genrich wrote as a part of a motion asking that the trial be continued to a later date.

Genrich had been set for a new trial that would begin April 13, more than 12,000 days after his 1993 conviction on murder charges for a series of bombings that killed two people in Grand Junction, Henry Ruble and Maria Dolores Gonzales. Three decades later, a key piece of evidence used to convict Genrich was deemed inadmissible on appeal and a new trial was ordered.

The evidence in question was tool-mark analysis that came from an expert witness who testified at trial that marks made on the detonated bombs could only have been made with tools owned by Genrich, “to the exclusion of all others.” Later, national reviews of forensic evidence flagged issues with certain forensic science practices, including tool-mark analysis, and that report was used as new evidence to get the tool-mark testimony tossed. 

Now, attorneys for the 21st Judicial District Attorney’s Office and the Innocence Project, which has taken up Genrich’s case, are scrambling to re-try a case that saw its original jury verdict 34 games into the Colorado Rockies’ inaugural season. 

“This case has 20,284 pages of discovery plus 1,579 non-pdf files amounting to 8.7 GB, twenty-one days of trial transcripts, numerous days of pretrial hearings, four days of postconviction hearing transcripts and days of grand jury transcripts,” Genrich’s attorneys noted in a Feb. 23 court filing. 

Delays and deadlines

Genrich’s legal team initially declined to waive speedy-trial rights during a January court appearance. Speedy trial requires a defendant receive a trial within six months, though that time period is often waived as attorneys prepare cases. In a motion requesting a continuance and waiving that speedy trial right, Genrich’s attorneys point to delays from the 21st Judicial District Attorney's Office in getting them the information they need. 

“Defendant obviously cannot (prepare) if he does not even know who the witness — or multiple witnesses — will be, or what each will say as to their conclusions or methodology,” defense attorneys argued. 

Specifically, Genrich’s attorneys say that they do not have sufficient information to prepare for pre-trial hearings that were to begin in March. While the earlier toolmark evidence was deemed inadmissible, the court’s ruling did not apply to all evidence, just the testimony that the markings from the 1990’s bombs could be traced to Genrich’s tools “to the exclusion of all others.” 

That means the new trial could feature expert toolmark analysis, which Genrich’s team would likely challenge before trial. However, they argue, they still don’t know what they would challenge one-week before the deadline to file motions. 

In a response to the defense team’s request for a continuance, the 21st Judicial District Attorney's office agreed with the challenges of readying for trial but did not concede the framing that they had not been forthcoming with discovery. 

“What the prosecution has not done — and what the defense is actually complaining about — is tell the defense exactly which of the several endorsed experts we plan to call at trial, or specify which portions of their opinions we believe are admissible,” prosecutors argued in a Feb. 27 filing with the court, adding later that “The rules do not require the People to provide the defense with an advance script of our trial presentation.”

Genrich’s attorneys say prosecutors have listed six toolmark analysts who could be qualified as expert witnesses but whose reports range in what information they would include. That includes an expert named Matthew Noedel. A website listed for Noedel’s services as a forensic scientist based in Puyallup, Washington, includes a copy of his 19-page resume. Noedel lists numerous forensic licenses, including for tool mark certification that pre-dates the National Academy of Sciences report that eventually factored into Genrich’s new trial. Noedel also presented on “Tool Marks in Bone — Evaluation of a ‘Sawzall’” at a conference in Missoula in 2004. 

“It should be noted that it took the prosecution’s newly retained toolmark examiner, Matthew Noedel, approximately six months to complete his comparisons,” Genrich’s team says, adding that the results did not produce conclusive evidence. 

“Mr. Noedel determined the results of any toolmark comparisons were inconclusive and that the mark which prior examiners had agreed was a ‘match’ to Mr. Genrich’s tools was also and potentially unsuitable for comparison,” they said. “Mr. Noedel’s recent examination, which found no matches to Mr. Genrich’s tools, raises further uncertainty over what toolmark testimony the prosecution would seek to introduce.”

New fingerprint testing

According to court filings from Genrich’s attorneys, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation last summer indicated that they had found two latent fingerprints on bomb evidence retained from the initial case. 

Genrich’s attorneys say those prints were compared against Genrich’s “with inconclusive results due, reportedly, to insufficiently clear or incomplete known standards.” Last July, Genrich’s attorneys say, CBI said they would need new prints from Genrich for another analysis. 

“The prosecution, however, did not obtain additional prints from Mr. Genrich until this past week,” Genrich’s attorneys write. 

In January, the 21st Judicial District Attorney’s Office requested the court require Genrich to provide “nontestimonial identification” in the form of fingerprints and DNA swabs. They said a review of evidence showed potential pieces that could be considered for fingerprints or DNA. 

“These items include some specific items that were found at the various crime scenes including a 9 volt battery casing, a battery, some duct tape and some fibers. Obtaining finger prints and buccal swabs to send off for testing along with these items of evidence will allow these investigatory questions to be answered prior to another trial occurring,” prosecutors said in their motion, which was granted by the court Jan. 6. 

Prosecutors said in their latest motion to the court that there was one forensic test that remained outstanding, but that the report of the results would be shared with Genrich’s legal team when ready. 

Attorneys in the case will meet again with 21st Judicial District Chief Judge Brian Flynn to discuss dates for motions hearings and a trial. That hearing is set for Mar. 17 and a new 6-month speedy trial period began Tuesday.