Attorney General’s Office, while defending secretary of state, denies wrongdoing in way it’s handled ongoing criminal and civil investigations
OG Article: here
View our Fair Use Policy: here
In the ongoing legal battle surrounding Nebraska's two medical cannabis petitions, allegations of witness tampering have surfaced. The Nebraska Attorney General’s Office, representing Secretary of State Bob Evnen in the lawsuit while also pursuing a separate challenge to the petitions, denied these claims during a pretrial hearing before Lancaster County District Court Judge Susan Strong.
The case revolves around a lawsuit filed by former state senator John Kuehn, challenging petition signatures supporting two ballot measures aimed at regulating and legalizing medical cannabis. The first phase of the trial is set to begin on October 29, just a week before the November election. Kuehn and Evnen’s attorneys will need to prove that enough petition signatures were either incorrectly accepted or affected by fraud. If successful, the case could continue after the election, allowing the ballot sponsors of the Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana campaign to defend the challenged signatures.
Witness Tampering Allegations
Sydney Hayes, representing the ballot sponsors, raised concerns about “roadblocks” in receiving evidence from the Attorney General's Office and accused the state of creating a "chilling effect" on potential witnesses. Specifically, Hayes alleged that the civil attorneys in the case had improperly contacted Jacy Todd, a notary charged with misconduct, suggesting witness tampering. The Attorney General’s Office fiercely denied these allegations, with Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Huxoll calling the claims a “significant misrepresentation.”
Legal Complexities and the Criminal Investigation
Criminal charges have already been filed against a petition circulator and a notary, with more charges potentially on the horizon. Hayes argued that the involvement of the Attorney General’s Office in both the civil and criminal matters created a conflict, particularly in the treatment of witnesses. However, Huxoll maintained that the criminal and civil divisions within the Attorney General’s Office were acting independently.
Trial Moving Forward
Despite these challenges, Judge Strong ruled that no ethical violations had occurred and denied a request to delay the trial. Strong emphasized that while criminal investigative materials could not be used in the civil case, the trial would proceed as scheduled. The outcome of the first phase could have significant implications for the November election, potentially affecting voter decisions on the medical cannabis measures. If necessary, a second phase of the trial would follow later in the fall.
With early voting already underway, any decision in the trial’s first phase could lead to voter confusion, though Evnen has indicated a willingness to issue clarifying statements if needed.
Comments