Utah County Hamblin case dismissed with prejudice

This article is an update to the ongoing story involving Joe Bennion, David Hamblin, and Jamin Darcy (Goel). To read the first story, click here.

AMERICAN FORK—The Utah County sexual-abuse case against David Hamblin, 70, formerly of Spring City, has been dismissed—with prejudice.

Because of that, the charges the former counselor had been facing—six assorted counts of sex-abuse, sodomy and rape of a child—are dropped without the possibility of the state refiling them.

It was a decision 4th District Judge Robert Griffin did not make lightly.

“Allegations like the ones raised in this case require careful scrutiny,” the judge wrote in an opinion filed last Thursday, March 20.

“Sexual abuse is abhorrent and elicits a sense of deep horror and revulsion. However, it is our respect for fundamental rights protected by our constitutions that requires that a criminally accused defendant be given a fair trial.”

The judge found that the prosecution made grave errors in how it conducted the case. In fact, he wrote, the case was so mishandled as to give it some distinction. Even compared to cases where prosecutorial misconduct may have occurred, “…this case is not a usual one,” Griffin wrote.

“Granted, every case is unique in its own way. But this case is unusual for the quantity and quality of prosecutorial missteps that amount to more than a lack of preparedness by the prosecutor or garden-variety delays or mishandling (of) a case…In short, this is that “rare” case where dismissal with prejudice is warranted.”

A factor playing into the judge’s decision was a bombshell moment, on tape, in which investigators are heard admitting to holding evidence back. “The court’s order for discovery involving EH and RH [initials of two witnesses/victims] came in sooner than expected … We were hoping to get through (the) preliminary hearing before that happened… We were just hoping to hold off on that for a period of time strategically.”

To intentionally withhold evidence that is potentially exculpatory is called a “Brady violation,” and such a violation, by itself, can be grounds for dismissal.

The judge determined that prosecutors had not simply caused an unjustified delay in the case, but that the delay was unconstitutional.

That distinction—the delay violating constitutional rights—was key to whether the dismissal would be made with prejudice or without.

The dismissal in Utah County has possible implications for another case in 6th District Court in Manti, in which Hamblin is facing six charges of aggravated sexual abuse of a minor.

There is overlap in how and where the cases originated, the investigators who investigated them (including at least one investigator in the recording referred to above), and in the offices (all outside Sanpete County) that have conducted the prosecutions.

“That’s the main issue,” Hamblin’s Sanpete County defense attorney Brian Frees told the Messenger several weeks ago when the Utah County case was first dismissed, but the 6th District Court was waiting to see whether the judge would make it with or without prejudice.

“The investigators in the Utah County investigation unit have had some bad behavior that has been exposed in other cases,” Frees said.

Also, contrary to prosecution statements at the time the Utah County case was brought in 2022, the case proved to have connections to allegations of Satanic-ritual sex abuse.

Frees indicated that evidence recently uncovered in Utah County may be exculpatory for the Sanpete County case as well. The Sanpete case may also involve a connection to spurious satanic-ritual origins.

Because exculpatory material is required to be handed over to defense attorneys in a timely manner, failure to do so “violates due process of law guaranteed under the federal constitution,” the judge wrote, quoting Brady v. Maryland, the 1963 case that gave rise and a name to the Brady Rule.

In a footnote, Judge Griffin wrote, “The court has no guarantee the state has even now disclosed all required discovery. … In addition, as best as the court can tell, the state never took any steps to reassign the investigators working on this case who had expressed a hope to slow-walk production of exculpatory evidence.”