Judge: NAU shooting suspect Steven Jones' retrial date won't budge

Michael Kiefer Anne Ryman
The Republic | azcentral.com
Steven Jones is a former Northern Arizona University student accused of killing one student and injuring three others in 2015.

FLAGSTAFF — Steven Jones' Northern Arizona University shooting case was in Superior Court Wednesday as the judge and attorneys hammered out details for an October retrial.

With a prosecutor in the courtroom and Jones and his attorneys attending by telephone, Judge Dan Slayton set a date next month to hear arguments on whether the Coconino County Attorney's Office should be disqualified from prosecuting the case.

MORE:Steven Jones wants county attorney disqualified for conflict of interest

Slayton also insisted Jones' October retrial date is firm. 

Jones, 20, is charged with one count of first-degree murder and six counts of aggravated assault for a 2015 shooting that left one student dead and three wounded. Jones claimed he shot in self-defense when an argument and fight outside an off-campus apartment complex spilled onto the Flagstaff campus.

The night of the shooting

In the early morning hours of Oct. 9, 2015, Jones and two friends found themselves outside a rowdy off-campus apartment complex. Several of the residents, who were members of the same fraternity, thought Jones and friends were trying to crash a party there. Jones was punched during a shouting match in the street, then he and his friends retreated down a sidewalk in front of a university dorm with several of the fraternity brothers following them.

Jones ran for his car, which was parked in a nearby parking lot, and retrieved a pistol from his glove compartment. He then confronted two of the fraternity brothers, and claims they charged him.

MORE:What happened the night Colin Brough died on NAU campus?

He shot, killing Colin Brough and wounding Nicholas Piring. Then, as he bent over Brough — he claims he was trying to administer first aid — he was jumped by several students. He shot again, wounding Kyle Zientec and Nicholas Prato. Then he surrendered to police.

The trial

Jones went to trial April 4. He and the surviving victims testified, as did Jones’ companions the night of the shooting, and other party goers. Their accounts differed as to whether the fraternity boys were aggressive and whether punches were thrown, other than the first one that broke Jones’ teeth and knocked off his glasses.

READ:Jones' testimony | Nick Piring | Nick Prato and Nick PletkeAustin Conteras

During closing arguments, Jones’ attorneys, Josh Davidson and Burges McCowan, accused prosecutor Ammon Barker of capitalizing on information excluded from the jury to mislead jurors. Slayton did not declare a mistrial. That came shortly after, when the jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision on whether Jones was guilty or innocent.

MORE:NAU shooting retrial: What happens next?

A retrial was scheduled for Oct. 10.

Since the mistrial

Jones is out of custody, living with his parents in Glendale while awaiting retrial. He is under strict monitoring as to his movements.

Meanwhile, the three surviving victims and the parents of Colin Brough have lodged two civil lawsuits against Jones and his parents.

On Aug. 9, Davidson and McCowan filed a motion to disqualify the Coconino County Attorney’s Office as prosecutor of the case. The motion alleges the office has a conflict of interest because the elected county attorney, William Ring, is a former employee of the law firm that filed one of the civil lawsuits. Ring also was a recipient of campaign donations from the firm.

The motion to disqualify also alleged that Ring’s office gave the civil attorneys information they had gathered during their prosecution.

In a response filed Tuesday, Ring admitted that the prosecutor assigned to the case had, in fact, made an interview with Jones' father available to the civil attorneys, one of whom attended Wednesday's hearing. 

Ring claimed in the response that the "defendant has provided no law or fact to this court that would disqualify the Coconino County Attorney's Office, let alone require the court to do so."

Ring also wrote, "Defendant has engaged in nothing more than inflammatory innuendo to manufacture 'an appearance of impropriety' that does not exist."

Slayton on Wednesday set a Sept. 8 date to argue that motion.

READ MORE:

Mistrial declared in NAU murder trial as jury reaches impasse

Timeline: The shooting at Northern Arizona University

NAU shooting: Heroic student shares story