MAYVILLE — District Attorney Patrick Swanson was in the hot seat Tuesday afternoon as the court had to decide whether or not Quentin Watts should be allowed to take the witness stand for the defense’s case in the Rebecca Ruiz murder trial.

In its entirety, Tuesday’s proceedings took place with an empty jury box as Judge David Foley, the prosecution and the defense deliberated Watts’ conflicting statements.

WATTS’ STATEMENT

On July 13, 2017, six days after the murder of Julian Duman, Watts was investigated by the Dunkirk Police Department and more specifically, Detective Scott Korzenski. Upon leaving Watts’ residence, Watts “fainted,” as Korzenski described, and he was taken to Brooks Memorial Hospital.

Korzenski said he did not hear the reasoning behind Watts’ ill health, but Mirandized (to give a Miranda warning) Watts at Brooks. Watts said he was informed that he had cocaine in his system and that he couldn’t remember if he was told that he could not make a statement under the influence.

Korzenski began two statements at Brooks — he couldn’t remember why he stopped the first — and aimed to get the truth with leading comments.

Korzenski said on July 13, “I told Mr. Watts we knew you were there. You can be a witness or a suspect.”

Watts gave a statement to the police department. He was later in jail and wrote a letter on Aug. 7, 2017 that he gave to a fellow inmate to have notarized in Chautauqua County Jail. The letter, however, conflicted with his July 13 comments.

Watts stated he did not include the full story, but that he didn’t lie. He didn’t include everything because, “I was trying to go home.”

It was not said as to what changed in the storyline or what differed between Watts’ statement to Dunkirk Police and the letter on Aug. 7.

The prosecution thought the adapted story would discredit any information given by Watts.

“The information in the letter made the grand jury statement irreconcilable,” said First Assistant District Attorney Andrew Molitor, who was brought to the stand.

The prosecution met with Watts and asked him if he told a different story to anyone after receiving the Aug. 7 letter. Watts lied saying that he did not, Molitor said, and then Molitor brought out the letter. At that point, the prosecution questioned if it should charge Watts with perjury or making a false statement.

In a letter to the defendant, Ruiz, on Jan. 17, 2018, Watts stated, “They have no case against you. I am taking my statement back.”

After the prosecution and Swanson assessed the implications of charging Watts with the Class E felony of making a false statement, he followed through on it by directing the city of Dunkirk Police to apply that charge against him.

IMPACTS ON RUIZ TRIAL

Since Watts has a case against him for the statements, presiding Judge Foley has to decide if he should be allowed to take the witness stand in front of the jury. Swanson was asked at the beginning of Tuesday’s proceedings if he would dismiss the charges of making a false statement and give immunity to Watts (which did not include perjury), but the DA declined the offer.

The defense’s leading attorney Anthony L. Pendergrass, who has a vested interest in Watts’ story, questioned the prosecution for the way they handled Watts’ situation.

Pendergrass brought all members of the prosecution to the stand. He challenged the necessity of charging Watts now and how it impedes Ruiz’s sixth amendment right to a fair trial.

Pendergrass asked Molitor, how long the statute of limitations for a felony charge is; to which he answered five years. The defense quickly followed that up with: Why did you charge him on March 3, if it could have waited? This question was asked to all three members of the prosecution table and they all echoed, he did a crime and he should be charged.

Swanson, while on the witness stand, received the criticism from Foley and Pendergrass. The DA added that he did not want to see Watts take the stand to lie and commit perjury.

Judge Foley quickly responded.

“Isn’t that for the jury to decide?” Foley asked Swanson.

Pendergrass added that if Swanson believed he was lying he could cross examine his statements using the evidence of the grand jury statement and from that, the jury would decipher whether what he said was true or not. Also, if Watts did state conflicting comments on the stand, Pendergrass said, Swanson could have charged him with a Class D felony.

Pendergrass did not say whether that was perjury or making a false statement.

The defense stressed that Watts’ charge will hinder the Ruiz murder trial.

Swanson, adamant in his original decision, stated, “Ultimately, that may be the result,” but it wasn’t by design.

The DA said that he had immunity going into the grand jury statement to Dunkirk Police and since Watts didn’t tell the full story, he hurt himself.

Pendergrass argued that charging Watts affects Ruiz’s sixth amendment rights for a due process, as Watts would have been a witness. Pendergrass asked Swanson if he did negatively affect Ruiz’s trial.

“No, Mr. Watts did that with his actions,” he answered.

A frustrated Pendergrass walked from the podium with little eye contact saying, “Thank you,” as Swanson turned the question around.

The Ruiz murder trial will continue today at 9 a.m., with the first 30 minutes being specifically for Judge Foley’s response to Tuesday’s dilemma.

Twitter: @ByKuczkowski