This charging document demonstrates a cascade of prosecutorial misconduct, investigative failures, and reliance on compromised sources that fundamentally undermine the integrity of the stalking charges filed against Elvis Nuno. The prosecution's case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, speculation, and testimony from compromised sources, while ignoring basic investigative standards and due process protections. The failure of defense counsel Bryan Tipp to challenge these obvious deficiencies constitutes a clear dereliction of duty and potential legal malpractice.
The entire foundation of this case is built on information provided by Detective Ethan Smith, who was demonstrably compromised from the outset. The charging document fails to disclose that:
Under Montana law and basic prosecutorial ethics, this level of source contamination should have resulted in immediate case dismissal. The use of information from a compromised officer who was removed for misconduct violates fundamental due process requirements.
Multiple claims in the charging document are directly contradicted by available evidence:
The Non-Existent Phone Conversation: Smith claims to have spoken with Mr. Nuno's parents about his phone number and technical capabilities. However, both parents explicitly deny this conversation ever occurred. This represents either perjury by Smith or gross negligence in fact verification by prosecutors.
False Mental Health Claims: The document alleges that Mr. Nuno's mother "alluded to the Defendant suffering from mental health issues". Again, both parents categorically deny making such statements. This fabrication appears designed to prejudice potential jurors and create a false narrative of instability.
The prosecution's central theory relies on the assertion that messages from multiple phone numbers "were structured in a similar manner as the Defendant's texts". This claim fails basic evidentiary standards: