POCATELLO — The man accused of fatally stabbing 25-year-old Nori Jones in her Pocatello home in September 2004 has been declared competent to stand trial in the capital murder case.

No trial date has yet been set in the case, however, as the attorneys representing the accused murderer, Brad Scott Compher, 44, of Pocatello, have again called his competency into question and are also arguing Compher is developmentally disabled enough that the death penalty should not be applicable in this case based on U.S. Supreme Court law.

Compher has been incarcerated at the Bannock County Jail since September 2014 after Pocatello police arrested him for allegedly killing Jones. His arrest followed a police investigation that uncovered DNA evidence placing him at Jones’ Pole Line Road home, the scene of the crime.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against Compher, who appeared in front of Judge Stephen Dunn last week for a status conference hearing regarding his case.

The Bannock County prosecutors handling the case and Compher’s court-appointed attorneys, John Scott Andrew of Pocatello and Gary Edward Proctor of Baltimore, Maryland, have argued for several months regarding the status of Compher’s competency.

Dunn first determined Compher was not competent to stand trial in February 2018. A person is competent to stand trial only if they understand the charges against them, understand the basics of the legal system and have the mental capacity to participate in their own defense.

Following Dunn’s February 2018 determination, he ruled that Compher was dangerously mentally ill and ordered him to undergo restorative processes with the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare while in the custody of the Idaho Department of Correction.

An attorney with the Idaho Attorney General’s Office filed a notice of discharge motion on Jan. 29, 2019, that stated a Boise-based clinical psychologist, Dr. James R. Barry, had completed a competency evaluation of Compher six days prior on Jan. 23. The motion stated that Barry found Compher competent to stand trial.

Barry wrote in his report, “Based on the information gathered during this evaluation, it is the opinion of this evaluator, that to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty, Mr. Compher is currently competent to stand trial.”

State prosecutors then filed a motion asking for Dunn to set a trial date in the case. Compher’s attorneys filed motions of their own objecting to Barry’s findings and the prosecutors’ motion to set a trial date.

On June 20, Dunn held a hearing on those motions at the Bannock County Courthouse. During the hearing, Compher’s attorneys argued that the Department of Health and Welfare restorative processes were “inadequate and inconclusive on the question of competence.”

The defense attorneys also asked Dunn to rely more heavily on the findings of Dr. David Moulton, a forensic psychiatrist in Salt Lake City, who had conducted an evaluation of Compher in December 2017 that ultimately led to Compher undergoing restorative services with the Department of Health and Welfare.

Part of the defense team’s argument centered on the idea that because Compher is facing the death penalty, Dunn should weigh Dr. Moulton’s evaluation as more important, despite the fact his evaluation occurred before Compher was theoretically restored to competency by Health and Welfare.

Prosecutors did not provide many oral arguments during the June 20 hearing but did respond to the defense arguments and offered Barry a chance to explain his findings in the form of a memo filed on July 10.

Ultimately, Dunn sided with the prosecutors, noting that he did not agree with the assertion that certain expert opinions deserve a different degree of significance based on what charge or penalty a defendant faces.

“The court disagrees,” Dunn wrote in a July 25 memorandum declaring Compher competent. “Competency is a factor that must be consistently applied to all cases and defendants. It is a statutory standard that cannot appropriately be fluid or variable depending on the type of charge at issue.”

Though Compher has been declared competent, a trial date is still nowhere in sight.

On Aug. 5, Compher’s attorneys filed a motion asking Dunn to reconsider his competency ruling stating that the judge’s finding failed to address the relevant factor of competency. Compher’s attorneys argue that although Compher understands the charges against him and can consult with his defense attorneys, nowhere in Dunn’s decision does it say Compher can assist in his own defense.

Compher’s attorneys assert that Dunn’s omission of that specific language is a violation of Compher’s due process rights.

Andrew and Proctor also contest the information that Dunn used to declare Compher competent. To support their claims, Compher’s attorneys included an Aug. 5 memo that Moulton signed that said he believed the tests the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare used to declare Compher competent are not the correct tests, that Barry did not consider Compher’s deficits may be “masked for brief periods,” that Moulton met with Compher for over 12 hours of face-to-face interviews compared to Barry’s 50-minute meeting with Compher and that Barry did not perform the kind of in-depth, specialized assessment that Compher requires.

Furthermore, the defense team provided U.S. Supreme Court case law and peer-reviewed research that they believe contradicts Dunn’s assertion that all competency cases are the same.

“The standard for competency in a capital case is different,” Compher’s attorneys wrote in their motion. “Based on Dr. Moulton’s most recent report, as well as those previously furnished to the court, (Compher) requests that the court reconsider its finding of competency.”

If Dunn rejects the motion asking him to reconsider his previous ruling, the court must then take up another argument — that even if Compher is declared competent, he is still developmentally disabled enough that it would be cruel and unusual punishment for him to receive the death penalty.

On Aug. 6, Compher’s attorneys filed another motion that states they intend to call witnesses to testify in court who can say Compher is intellectually disabled. A supplemental defense motion also calls an Idaho statute into question because that statute uses the words “mentally retarded” as opposed to the more acceptable term of “developmentally disabled.” The statute also states that a person is determined to be developmentally disabled when they have an IQ test score of 70 or below.

Compher’s attorneys argue that Idaho’s use of the words “mentally retarded” no longer comport with U.S. Supreme Court and American Psychiatric Association definitions. Moreover, Compher’s attorneys argue that methods other than an IQ test can be used to determine a person’s level of developmental disability, and that because Idaho’s statute does not take those other methods into account the statute should be declared unconstitutional.

Prosecutors have not yet had a chance to respond to the recent motions the defense filed earlier this month. Once the prosecutors respond, Dunn will consider both arguments and set a hearing date to issue a ruling.

Once that happens, it appears that Compher’s case will finally head to trial.