Rick Hubbard

Rick Hubbard served as Solicitor for the State and took an active role from jury selection through both evidentiary phases and closing arguments. During voir dire, he argued that questions about capital punishment and mitigation should not commit prospective jurors before they heard the evidence, and he challenged qualifications when a juror appeared prepared to follow the majority rather than deliberate independently.

Across the guilt presentation, Hubbard examined witnesses about Jones's workplace functioning, movements and purchases, interview accounts, the recovery of the children, and forensic findings. His questioning of David Mackey and Adam Creech emphasized changes in Jones's accounts, concealment efforts, interview demeanor, and whether reported voices appeared in later explanations. When defense counsel objected to Hubbard's effort to elicit Creech's opinion that Jones understood wrongdoing, the court heard a proffer, later limited the lay-opinion testimony, struck an answer, and instructed jurors to disregard it. The court separately admitted State's Exhibit 145 subject to a previously preserved defense objection.

Against the insanity defense, Hubbard cross-examined Erin Bigler about what brain imaging could not establish, including causation, schizophrenia, or knowledge of right and wrong. He questioned Timothy Jones, Sr. about his observations of his son's behavior and cooperation with investigators, and he presented Kimberly Kruse's opinions about neurocognitive impairment, psychosis, symptom reporting, and malingering. In the guilt-phase closing, Hubbard argued that the defense had not met its burden on insanity and asked jurors to infer awareness of wrongdoing from Jones's reported conduct before and after the deaths.

During the penalty phase, the court admitted selected recovery and autopsy evidence over defense objections. Hubbard presented recovery-site testimony from Dave Lawrence, autopsy evidence through Janice Ross, and school testimony concerning Nahtahn, then challenged mitigation accounts from Donna Maddox, Timothy Jones, Sr., and Deborah Grey. His questioning tested diagnostic foundations, omitted or inconsistent information, the limits of retrospective assessments, and whether reported family history and symptoms were corroborated. Grey acknowledged that some information could not be corroborated and described the limits of her investigation. In the prosecution's final argument, Hubbard emphasized aggravating circumstances, the children's lives, and the recovery evidence while arguing that mitigation did not warrant mercy and asking for a death sentence.