Judge agrees to defense motion, delays Randall Kilby’s 2 murder trials in killings of woman, 2 brothers
Attorney said they are 'still investigating and negotiating this case'
BEND, Ore. (KTVZ) – A judge has agreed to a defense attorney’s request and again pushed back by several months the two murder trials of Randall Kilby, a Bend man accused of fatally assaulting a woman on Christmas Day of 2020 and killing two brothers he was sharing a home with the following March.
The now-37-year-old was due to stand trial in late January for the ax killings of brothers Benjamin and Jeffrey Taylor, but shortly before that trial date, Deschutes County Circuit Judge Wells Ashby agreed to postpone the trial until Oct. 31.
At the same time, Ashby reset Kilby’s other trial in the killing of Daphne Banks, which was set to begin this Tuesday but has been rescheduled to start Jan. 9, 2024.
In both cases, defense attorney Thomas Spear filed a motion that said Kilby’s lawyers were “still investigating and negotiating this case,” and are “not ready and not prepared to go to trial.”
In the motion, Spear said Kilby, who remains held without bail pending trial, “agrees that we need additional time – this delay is not a tactic for an advantage, just the product of Mr. Kilby’s attorney having too many tasks on his plate and not being able to get sufficient time to prepare his defense.”
It’s the second such delay, which is not all that unusual in court cases. Last spring, Ashby rescheduled both trials after the defense attorney noted scheduling issues and the appointment of Spear’s first co-counsel to a new judgeship.
This time, Spear wrote in his motion seeking a continuance, “To remedy the problem of not having enough time, several barriers have been removed.” He said he is no longer executive director of the Bend Attorney Group and said Raun Atkinson will be his co-counsel and “is getting up to speed on the case.”
Deputy District Attorney Aaron Brenneman filed an objection to the requested delay, noting the double-homicide case was almost two years old.
“The State cannot point to actual prejudice caused by a continuance,” he wrote, “but as any case gets older, the ability for the State to present witnesses becomes difficult as people relocate, retire or develop illnesses. We further object to continuance due to the late notice (trial is scheduled to state in two weeks.)”
