A hearing seeking a new trial for Steven Ray James, sentenced to life imprisonment for the death of his infant son, has been continued until April 17 at 1 p.m.
In granting the continuance, Third District Judge Pat B. Brian told James' lawyers they would have to provide compelling evidence that John Lippencott is willing to testify that the prosecution's key witness lied during the trial.James, 40, was convicted last year of second-degree murder in connection with the August 1986 death of his 3-month-old son. On Aug. 26, 1986, James told police that his son had been abducted from his car in Logan. An extensive search failed to locate the boy. Three months later, the boy's body was found by duck hunters near a Bear River marina.
James was tried in Salt Lake City after being granted a change of venue.
Defense attorney Nathan Hult said the request for new trial stems from statements by a former Utah State Prison inmate who said Ron Peterson, the state's key witness against James, admitted that he had fabricated his testimony in an effort to get more lenient treatment for himself. Hult said inmate Ken-neth Lisner told James of Peterson's statement when they met at the prison last fall.
During oral arguments Thursday, the focus shifted from Lisner to Lippencott. Peterson testified during the trial that he overheard James confessing to the killing in a conversation with Lippencott.
Hult argued that without Peterson's statement the jury may have found his client not guilty. He said the possibility that Peterson's testimony may have been fabricated is grounds for a new trial.
Prosecutor James C. Jenkins noted that James testified during the trial that Peterson's statements were false but that the jury chose not to accept that claim. He said allowing additional witnesses on both sides to continue to make counter claims would not change the trial result.
Brian granted the defense 10 days to contact Lippencott in California to determine whether he is willing to provide testimony contradicting the statements by Peterson. He also instructed the attorneys to inform Lip-pencott's probation officers that the court would not tolerate an uncooperative attitude from Lippencott.
Brian also chided defense attorneys for not using court processes to compel Lippen-cott's participation in the original trial. He said defense claims that Lippencott threatened to undermine the case of whichever side compelled his presence at the trial did not justify failure to seek court assistance in requiring Lippencott to testify.
Brian said sufficient alternatives were available to ensure Lippencott's participation would not have tainted the jury's consideration of evidence.