Jerry Mattson, convicted in Nevada County child sex case, wants new trial |

Jerry Mattson, convicted in Nevada County child sex case, wants new trial

Jerry Mattson

A man convicted in Nevada County Superior Court on a child sex accusation argued he deserves a new trial because of a series of errors that occurred during his first one.

Jerry Mattson, 27, was scheduled Friday for sentencing on a count of continuous sexual abuse. Instead Judge Candace Heidelberger said she’ll hear arguments on Feb. 26 from prosecutors and Mattson’s defense attorney about why Mattson should have another trial.

Deputy District Attorney Jesse Wilson said the judge could made a decision that day. If she rules against Mattson, his sentencing would then occur. If Mattson prevails, a new trial date would be set.

“It’s on for both of those things,” Wilson said.

Mattson faces similar accusations in another, still pending case. Wilson said he expects attorneys will discuss that case as well on Feb. 26.

Mattson argues in his Wednesday motion that police and prosecutors erred during his investigation and trial, which warrants a new trial.

Defense attorney David Alkire, who represents Mattson, states in the motion that a detective failed to perform follow-up interviews into the allegations because he didn’t want to find evidence that could help Mattson.

Alkire also argues a judge’s decision prohibited him from fully questioning two people during trial, one of whom he claims lied about an unrelated sexual assault.

“Her subsequent refusal to cooperate in any investigation of this alleged event is a significant, additional instance of her lifelong habit of fabricating accusations of sexual misconduct and then either retracting them or refusing to cooperate in an investigation,” the motion states.

Additionally, Alkire said a doctor told jurors that 99 percent of all molestation accusations are true — a legally improper statement.

“Accordingly, it is respectfully urged that (Mattson) should be given a fair chance to have his case heard by a jury that is not improperly influenced by the conduct of an expert witness who should have known better,” the motion states.

To contact Staff Writer Alan Riquelmy, email or call 530-477-4239.

Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.