Wyoming's highest court "misread" appropriate case law when it reversed last month a lower court decision to dismiss the charge of first-degree murder against Rita Humphrey, according to arguments filed this week in 7th District Court.

Humphrey's attorney is petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case and is asking that criminal proceedings against his client be halted pending the result of the petition.

Humphrey has been arrested twice in connection with the 1977 shooting death of her husband Jack Humphrey at their Evansville home. The years that passed between when the murder charge against Humphrey was dismissed in 1980 and her arrest on the same charge in 2004 have been the central issue in a series of legal arguments.

Judge W. Thomas Sullins dismissed the case in December, concluding that the 24-year delay amounts to a violation of Humphrey's right to a speedy trial.

Mike Blonigen, Natrona County's district attorney, argued against the dismissal of the case before the Wyoming Supreme Court in June. He pointed to federal and state case law as he suggested that the only years relevant in calculating whether Humphrey's right to a speedy trial was violated are those that passed while she faced formal charges.

The Wyoming Supreme Court took a similar position when it reversed Sullins' decision in October.

Michael Krampner, Humphrey's attorney, argues in the petition to the U.S. Supreme Court that the Wyoming decision rests on a common "misreading" of the Sixth Amendment by lower courts.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of a suspect in a crime to a "speedy and public trial."

Krampner argues that one purpose of this provision was to insure fair trials. He suggests the 1992 case of Doggett v. United States marks a return of the Supreme Court to this principle and reverses a trend apparent in earlier decisions.

Since Humphrey was first charged with murder in 1980, Krampner claims, witnesses in the case have died or forgotten information and evidence has been lost. As a result, he argues, Humphrey cannot now receive a fair trial.

The Wyoming Supreme Court denies Krampner's reading of the Doggett decision.

"In Doggett, the Supreme Court expressly reaffirmed its holding" in earlier decisions "that the Sixth Amendment right of the accused to a speedy trial has no application beyond the confines of a formal criminal prosecution," the Oct. 6 decision says.

Krampner's petition to the Supreme Court is no guarantee that the court will consider the case. Jerry Parkinson, dean of the University of Wyoming School of Law, said the court typically receives thousands of petitions while reviewing only a handful.

"It is a shot in the dark because of the numbers that go through," Parkinson said.

Mike Blonigen called the petition a "longshot" for a more specific reason.

"There is no controversy" about how speedy trial claims ought to be considered, Blonigen said.

It could be months before the Supreme Court decides whether to review the case. Krampner has asked for a stay in the criminal proceedings against his client while it is being considered.

Blonigen said he does not think a further delay is necessary unless the Supreme Court decides to review the case.

Reporter Anthony Lane can be reached at (307) 266-0593 or anthony.lane@casperstartribune.net.