Cold case trial pushed back

CLOVIS — The cold-case trial for William Hadix is on the backburner again.

It’s likely to be at least another six months before Hadix, 69, will face charges for the 2003 death of Jessie Clyde “J.C.” Tucker.

“There will be no trial today, or this week, or next week,” Judge Fred Van Soelen told a courtroom full of juror candidates Wednesday morning. “A very important witness was not able to be here. We tried to work around that, but we couldn't.”

That witness was Dr. Patricia McFeely, a pathologist who performed Tucker’s autopsy.

“Dr. McFeely is sailing around the world,” said Chief Deputy District Attorney Brian Stover. Prosecutors will need to be in touch with her at her next port-of-call before the case can proceed.

In her absence, Stover had enlisted Dr. Ross Zummwalt from the state Office of the Medical Examiner. He addressed the scheduling conflict in a hearing last month, attended via speakerphone by Hadix's defense attorney Gary Mitchell of Ruidoso.

Stover said at the time that “given the nature of the cause of death,” he didn't expect there to be any issue using a different, qualified pathologist.

It mattered Wednesday, the first day of an eight-day trial slate, when a full jury pool waited almost two hours before being dismissed.

“There are rules that would limit what the substitute pathologist could talk to,” said Stover. “The defense counsel felt it would not be just for the case to move forward with that limited information.”

The challenge of using a substitute pathologist, Stover said, is enhanced by the fact that the original autopsy file on Tucker was destroyed in a 2010 fire at the Office of the Medical Examiner.

Stover said Mitchell also requested testing on a piece of forensic material from Tucker. Mitchell did not ask sooner because he thought until very recently that the forensic material had also been destroyed in the 2010 fire, said Stover.

Mitchell filed a motion April 10 questioning the use of a substitute pathologist.

“In the case before the Court, it is critical the original doctor testify,” wrote Mitchell. “Frankly, there are many questions only those doing the original autopsy can testify to if they still have a memory of it which poses another question.”

In a response document filed April 11, Stover said Mitchell's motion was “untimely filed.”

He said the prosecution submitted their new witness list, including Zummwalt as the substitute pathologist, on April 4.

“The defense then waited until two days prior to the start of the trail to file a motion to exclude the pathologist,” wrote Stover, saying this was insufficient notice for the state to reply.

Regarding Mitchell's issue with the forensic evidence, Stover wrote that the loss of evidence in the fire “has been known to the defense for more than a year.”

Mitchell could not be reached for comment.

Stover said that between the schedules of himself, Mitchell and the court, the case will need to be continued until November or December.