The Case
On May 2, 2022, two three-year-old boys Hunter Jackson and Odin Ratliff were killed when Kent Cody Barlow drove his car off the road into a corral they were playing in. Spencer Burt for Fox 13 reports that “the structure collapsed on top of the boys, which caused their death, according to the state medical examiner.” The prosecution claimed that Barlow was high on methamphetamine during the time of the incident, going over 120 miles per hour in a 45 mile per hour zone. Barlow was charged with two counts of manslaughter, which Judge Robert A. Lund upgraded to two counts of first-degree murder observing that the defendant seemingly had “a depraved indifference to human life.”
The Events of Delay
Despite the high-profile nature of the case, as well as the open-and-shut appearance, the Barlow case still hasn’t come to its conclusion. At different times throughout the case, the defence went after the drug charges, the prosecution, and the judge. On November 16, 2022, Benjamin Aldana, Barlow’s attorney moved to suppress blood test evidence claiming that it was acquired illegally. The upgraded charges had caused the court process to have a bit of a reset and the defence motioned to continue the preliminary hearing which was moved to November 2023. The trial was moved to July 2024. On October 10, 2023, Aldana accused the state of “vindictive prosecution” and Judge Lund rescheduled the preliminary hearings for January 29-30, 2024. The Preliminary hearing wasn’t continued until March 1, 2024 because Aldana had tested positive for Covid-19 the day before the January 29 scheduling.
On May 19, 2024, the defence filed to disqualify Judge Lund for bias. Wendy Halloran & Jared Turner for KUTV report that the complaints of bias have gone the other way as well. “There have been complaints alleging Judge Lund has given special treatment to Barlow, and approves of defense attorney Ben Aldana’s motions far too often.”
Aldana further filed for a stay of proceedings on June 10 further accusing Judge Lund of having a “deep-seated antagonism” towards Barlow as well as acting as an advocate on behalf of the families of the victims rather than as a neutral judge. Judge Lund denied the motion to stay the proceedings. Aldana requested further delay to the trial due to his own father’s health.
Understaffed Defence Office?
The prosecution and the parents of the dead children accused the defense for using delay tactics while Ben Aldana, the public defender for Barlow, accused “the Utah County Commission in September 2023 of refusing to fund the Office of Public Defender to provide attorneys for people who can’t afford one.” In November of the same year, the Utah County Public Defender’s office reported that their staffing levels were severely low. He claimed many times that his caseload was too heavy.
Aldana requested further delay to the trial due to his own father’s health. Most recently, on July 30, 2024, Judge Lund held a Court hearing with the Supervisors from the Utah County Public Defenders Association. Lisa Estrada, Aldana’s direct supervisor, reports Wendy Halloran and Kaigan Bigler for KUTV, “addressed Lund first by saying that Barlow does not want another attorney, and asked the court to respect the relationship and continue with the continuity of representation in this case.” Estrada further claimed that there was no one to take over for Aldana anyway and that Aldana was “only present in the courtroom to respect the court order requiring him to attend.”
Judge Lund brought forward Tom Means of the Utah County Public Defender’s Association to figure out who could replace Aldana. When Judge Lund denied Aldana’s request to delay the trial to October and to keep the September date, Estrada repeatedly interrupted him. A 2KUTV YouTube clip captured the essence of the discussion.
Judge Lund asked Tom Means, “doesn’t a double murder trial that’s set for trial constitute the highest priority of representation in the public defender’s office?” Means responded tentatively, “I would say yes.” Judge Lund responded to Means affirmation, “So, my position is that something has to happen–.” Estrada interrupted saying “Your honour, you’re moving so quickly, and I have no idea what motions you’re talking about.” Judge Lund responded, “well, all this is in the record Ms. Estrada, so again hold your comments please until I’m done.” Estrada responded, “I’ve seen none of these motions. I have not read the preliminary transcript. I have no idea what’s going on in this case whatsoever. I am right now being placed in the position of being ineffective.”
Delay Tactics?
It’s very likely that the Utah County Public Defender’s Office is understaffed and under-resourced. This is a serious problem for the timely execution of justice. But the cases that would be most likely to suffer would be the lower profile cases, not the double homicide case. This was exactly Judge Lund’s point to Means and Estrada.
The Prosecution does not believe that the case is nearly as complicated as Aldana makes it out to be. One of the prosecutors, Ryan McBride, commented to KUTV saying, “In my view, it’s a simple homicide case, and the facts of this case are largely uncontested.” It’s not as if the identity of the accused is contested.
Furthermore, it seems a bit too convenient that Barlow refused any other representation except Aldana after the various delays that had happened because of reasons pertaining to the defence attorney himself. Why wouldn’t a defendant who was clearly the perpetrator want to stay with the defence attorney who has so expertly delayed his case, regardless of how intentional or unintentional that delay may be.
Discussion – Who Wants Timeliness
Judge Lund seemed to agree with the complexity of interests in the case, though not necessarily with the complexity of the case itself. He said called the length and resource expenditure of the preliminary hearings to be “unprecedented” and argued that the court must uphold Barlow’s right to a speedy trial as well as the families of the victims, “the judicial employ, and the public.”
In “Who Wants Timeliness,” Geoff Cowper noted that the benefits of timeliness are asymmetric: “often one of the parties would rather not see justice rendered expeditiously.” The right to a timely trial can sometimes be a right that a clearly guilty defendant does not want any part of, except to weaponize it against the court when that right gets violated. Furthermore, the rights of the defendant can be too often emphasized over the rights to timeliness that other parties involved have. Thus, it’s notable that Judge Lund included the mothers of the dead children, the judicial employ, and the public as parties to whom a timely trial is owed.
Wendy Halloran for KUTV reported on June 26th that the mothers of Odin Ratliff and Hunter Jackson have expressed failing faith in the court system. Brooke Jackson believes that it is very likely that the September trial will be postponed, saying that neither she nor Theresa (Odin’s mother) have requested time off for the trial because they have no faith that it will happen. Theresa, the mother who found the dead boys said, “Every time that I step in here, I am reminded that I lost my three-year-old son… Experts are being paid to be here every time and every time that I am here, I am sacrificing my career which I will do to fight for my son, but it’s getting very hard for me to continue to come when I feel like I get thrown back every time I’m here.”
Low resources and staffing shortages can be a significant problem to address and they can be a main cause for delay but they can also be its excuse. The case is scheduled for September despite Aldana’s motion to further delay it to October. It is the right of all those involved, the public, the prosecution, the mothers, and (whether he wants it or not) the defendant that this case finally comes to its conclusion.
