Around Wyoming

Entertainment

Food

Sports

Wyoming Life

Headshot of Cowboy State Daily's managing editor, Greg Johnson.

Greg Johnson

Crime & Courts

Courts

Attorneys for a former Cheyenne woman accused of murdering 

 38 years ago say there’s not enough evidence for a trial and want a district court judge to order a new preliminary hearing.

In the meantime, 57-year-old Eva Martinez is out of jail after her bond was reduced from $100,000 to $25,000 during an arraignment hearing last week in Laramie County District Court.

There’s no record in the public-facing court file of whether Martinez entered a plea to the single charge of first-degree murder she faces.

However, her public defenders claim prosecutors didn’t offer enough evidence to bind her over to trial — an argument they make in a motion to vacate her previous preliminary hearing and order a new one.

During Martinez’s June 18 preliminary hearing, the circuit court judge cited the wrong legal terminology to support moving her case forward to trial and “relied on factual findings unsupported by the evidence provided at the preliminary hearing,” wrote public defenders Stacy Kirven and David Korman in their motion.

Preliminary hearings aren’t trials and there is no “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold, argues Sweetwater County Attorney Daniel Erramouspe, who’s acting as a special prosecutor in the case for the Laramie County Attorney’s Office.

“‘Reasonable belief’ is the standard” for a preliminary hearing, Erramouspe wrote in his Monday response to the motion for a new hearing. “‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ is not. The preliminary hearing is ‘not designed to be a dress rehearsal for the trial.’”

The thrust of the claims on Martinez’s behalf centers around Circuit Court Judge Antoinette Williams citing the current laws instead of what the law was in 1988 when the baby died, referencing a “second autopsy” when there wasn’t one, and the definitions of terms relating to a first-degree murder charge.

[{"type":"text","marks":[{"type":"bold"}],"text":"Some Background"}]

While the grisly discovery of the boy’s body happened more than 38 years ago, it wasn’t until 2021 that advanced DNA testing allowed investigators to 

 and identify Martinez as the boy’s probable mother, according to an affidavit of probable cause written by Detective Sgt. Ryan Martinez of the LCSO (no relation).

When first interviewed by detectives decades later on Dec. 22, 2025, Martinez “repeatedly denied knowing anything about Baby John Doe or having any children or pregnancies around that time frame,” the affidavit says.

It was during that interview that a sample of her DNA was taken.

When she was interviewed again months later after results showed the strong probability of her being Baby John Doe’s mother, she maintained her first story, according to the affidavit.

“She denied having any knowledge of Baby John Doe, having knowledge of anyone else who was responsible for Baby John Doe’s death, or why Baby John Doe’s body was placed in the culvert at Happy Jack Road and McKinney Drive,” the affidavit continues.

She claimed she wasn’t in Cheyenne around that timeframe, but investigators could not verify that information.

Martinez graduated from Cheyenne Central High School in 1987, and at some point afterward moved to Las Vegas, where she worked for about the next 20 years before returning to Cheyenne, the affidavit says.

[{"type":"text","marks":[{"type":"textStyle"},{"type":"bold"}],"text":"Finding The Body"}]

Martinez would have been 18 on Feb. 28, 1988, when Laramie County Sheriff’s Office deputies responded to a call at Happy Jack Road and McKinney Drive just southwest of the boundary for F.E. Warren Air Force Base.

What they found was anything but routine, the affidavit says.

People who had been walking in the area discovered the dead baby near a culvert.

“Their juvenile son had initially noticed a dog chewing on something in the area, and they later realized it was a deceased baby,” the affidavit says. “It was determined that the deceased baby had initially been inside the culvert prior to the dog moving it.”

The baby was “abandoned, unclothed, deceased … discovered near the roadway,” according to an LCSO report announcing Martinez’s arrest last month.

“An autopsy concluded that the baby was a fully developed, full-term, 6.5-pound baby,” according to the report. “The autopsy found no evidence of significant injury, congenital anomaly, or disease.”

It also was determined that the baby was born alive and remained alive for “an amount of time due to air being in the baby’s lungs and stomach,” the report says.

However, at the time the cause and manner of the boy’s death were undetermined.

[{"type":"text","marks":[{"type":"textStyle"},{"type":"bold"}],"text":"That Testimony"}]

That autopsy is one of the reasons Martinez needs a new preliminary hearing, her lawyers argue in their motion.

That the prosecution failed to present any evidence that she killed Baby John Doe is another.

At the first hearing, testimony referred to a “second autopsy” performed on the boy, and Judge Williams also initially mentioned it in giving her order to bind Martinez over to trial.

There never was a “second autopsy” and mentioning that as a reason to advance the case is improper, the public defenders argue.

During the first preliminary hearing, the detective “acknowledged that there is no evidence to support numerous critical facts regarding the alleged offense,” the defense motion says. The detective further “conceded that there was no way to determine if Baby John Doe died in Wyoming.”

Another inconsistency is testimony that the infant’s cause of death in 1988 was listed as “undetermined,” but it wasn’t until March 2026 when his death certificate was amended to show homicide.

[{"type":"text","marks":[{"type":"textStyle"},{"type":"bold"}],"text":"Not Enough"}]

Those arguments aren’t enough for a judge to throw out the first preliminary hearing and order another, 

That’s because a preliminary hearing isn’t a trial, and the issues raised by the defense’s motion should be dealt with during Martinez’s trial.

“Those are trial questions and are not grounds to vacate a bind-over,” he wrote. “Defendant’s contrary position would require the lower court to resolve precisely the kind of ‘difficult legal questions’ that the Wyoming Supreme Court has held are inappropriate at a preliminary hearing and are reserved for the district court.”

He also says the dispute over a nonexistent “second autopsy” doesn’t hold water, because the original autopsy was given an updated review, Erramouspe wrote.

Whether the review “is described as a ‘second autopsy,’ an ‘updated autopsy’ or a review and amendment of the original autopsy is immaterial to probable cause,” he argues.

Moreover, Martinez isn’t entitled to a new preliminary hearing because she doesn’t like that a judge found probable cause, Erramouspe wrote. Whether there’s enough evidence is ultimately a question for a jury.

“Defendant’s requested remedy of a new preliminary hearing before a different circuit judge is especially unwarranted,” according to Erramouspe’s response. “Wyoming law does not entitle a defendant to relitigate probable cause before a new magistrate whenever she disagrees with how the first described the evidence.”

While Martinez was granted a lower bond — and posted it — there are some conditions attached to her being released from jail, according to court records.

Her bond had to have been posted by a bondsman, not personally, and she has to wear an ankle monitor.

If convicted of first-degree murder, Martinez could face life in prison or death.

Eva Martinez and new sign 6 10 26

Cowboy State Daily is Wyoming’s largest newspaper with Wyoming’s most experienced journalists. 

<title>Cheyenne Woman Accused Of Murdering Newborn 38 Years Ago Wants New Hearing | Cowboy State Daily</title>

Attorneys for a former Cheyenne woman accused of murdering her newborn boy 38 years ago say there’s not enough evidence for a trial and want a judge to order a new preliminary hearing. She's also out of jail on a lower bond granted last week.

Cheyenne Woman Accused Of Murdering Newborn 38 Years Ago Wants New Hearing

Headshot of Cowboy State Daily's general assignment reporter, Clair McFarland.

Clair McFarland

Politics

Government & Politics

The doctor whom Gov. Mark Gordon sought to remove from the Wyoming Board of Medicine over the doctor’s outspoken advocacy for a ban on child sex changes has won his appeal – halfway.

 in the governor’s personal and official capacity for three alleged free-speech and petition violations, all stemming from Cubin’s advocacy for “Chloe’s Law” – a proposed ban on sex-change treatments for kids that ultimately became law.

Cubin, a Casper radiologist, was pushed off the board because of things he said while lobbying state lawmakers to pass Chloe’s Law while he was a member of the Board of Medicine. 

This came after his multiple failed efforts to try and convince Wyoming Medical Society leadership to change its opposition to the bill.

In a letter to state legislators, Cubin called the Medical Society, of which he was a member, “woke” and taken over by “extremely liberal” members.

“I urged our legislators to be circumspect about the information they were being provided and cautious about what they allow physicians to do to kids in our state — something that is now the law across Wyoming,” Cubin said at the time.

[{"type":"text","text":"Gordon wrote to Cubin to remove him from the Wyoming Board of Medicine."}]

The governor told Cubin the doctors the board governs should “have confidence that board members prosecute their responsibilities on the board in an objective and unbiased way.”

[{"type":"text","text":"But Cubin resigned instead."}]

Then he sued the governor in both his official and personal capacities. For the official claims, Cubin wanted the court to make Gordon restore Cubin to his seat on the board, and to declare that Gordon had violated Cubin’s First Amendment rights.

For the personal claims, Cubin sought “monetary damages” against Gordon “in an amount to be determined at trial.”

U.S. District Court Judge Scott Skavdahl pronounced the whole lawsuit insufficient for court and dismissed it.

The judge found that Cubin had failed to show the governor unconstitutionally retaliated against him for his speech because, in Skavdahl’s view, Cubin’s speech didn’t rise to the level of “public concern” and the government’s interest in “promoting efficiency” on the board outweighed Cubin’s expressive rights.

Skavdahl also concluded that for the personal-capacity claims, Gordon has qualified immunity.

A panel of three 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Judges disagreed, saying Cubin’s speech does rise to the level of public concern.

Their Tuesday order sends the case back down to the Wyoming-based federal court for further review – and revives Cubin’s claims against Gordon in his official capacity.

Cubin's attorney Brendan Philbin, of the Liberty Justice Center, said he and Cubin are "thrilled with the result" of the appeal. 

"I think the court really nailed it on what this case is about, when they said that speech on matters of democratic debate is of paramount public importance," said Philbin. "We’re rally happy the court saw that Dr. Cubin was participating in the legislative process and really exercising the rights that we hold dear, to participate in representative government. And we’re excited now to go back to the district court and continue to seek justice for him."

[{"type":"text","text":"Philbin also called the remand a win for Wyomingites. "}]

the governor remains confident that the merits of this case will show he did not infringe on Cubin’s freedom of speech.

“The Governor is confident that he will also prevail in his official capacity upon remand to the District Court,” said Edmonds. 

[{"type":"text","text":"A Matter Of Public Concern"}]

A person is likelier to prove that his government employer retaliated against him for his speech if his speech was a matter of public concern.

Cubin’s complaints about the Wyoming Medical Society cut against that claim because that’s a private group, wrote 10th Circuit Court Judge Nancy Moritz in the Monday remand order. But he was clearly lobbying for legislation, on a matter of high public concern, the order also says – which cuts in his favor.

“Gordon urges us to view Cubin’s frustrations… as personal grievances with the internal dynamics of the Society, a private organization,” wrote Moritz. 

“On the other hand,” the order counters, “Cubin raised these concerns in opposition of the Society’s 

facts characteristic of ‘the type of core political speech the First Amendment was designed to protect.’”

Cubin’s speech was a matter of public concern, so his retaliation claim against Gordon as an official is revived, the order says.

[{"type":"text","text":"Balancing Disruption Vs. Speech"}]

Gordon had explained his decision to remove Cubin as a safeguard against people questioning the board’s impartiality, and against disruption of “at least some of the Board’s core functions.”

Government employers have an interest in regulating their employees’ speech, but courts also balance that interest against employees’ rights.

Skavdahl’s court hasn’t seen enough evidence for the judge to side with Gordon on that one, the 10th Circuit decision says.

[{"type":"text","text":"Just Sue The Government Though"}]

The Monday order upholds Skavdahl’s ruling that Gordon gets qualified immunity for his attempt to remove Cubin.

[{"type":"text","text":"That means Cubin can’t sue Gordon for money in his personal capacity. "}]

A key tenet of qualified immunity holds that government officials – such as police officers, governors or other public employees – would have to break a clearly-established right to face lawsuit liability as individuals.

Though Cubin showed a strong enough case for retaliation to revive his official-capacity claims, he didn’t prove that Gordon was violating a clearly-established right, the appeals court ruled.

“It was not clearly established that Cubin’s email (complaining about the Medical Society) addressed a matter of public concern,” the order says. “And Gordon is entitled to qualified immunity in his personal capacity.”

10th Circuit Court Judge Richard Federico and a Utah-based U.S. District Court Judge filling in on the case - Ann Marie McIff Allen – also joined Mortiz’s ruling.

Eric Cubin and Gordon 8 29 24

<title>Doctor Who Lobbied Against Child Sex Changes Wins Second Chance In Court | Cowboy State Daily</title>

The doctor Gov. Gordon sought to remove from the Wyoming Board of Medicine for advocating a ban on child sex changes has won his appeal – halfway. A Tuesday ruling sent the case back to federal court, reviving First Amendment claims against Gordon.

Doctor Who Lobbied Against Child Sex Changes Wins Second Chance In Court

Days after a religious clash exploded on the Wind River Indian Reservation, the Northern Arapaho Tribe’s government says it has adopted a new policy requiring ministry and charitable groups to get tribal authorization for their work on the reservation.

The Northern Arapaho Business Council (NABC), which is the tribe’s six-person leadership board, posted an announcement about the new policy to social media Monday.

The announcement says the policy is “reaffirming the Northern Arapaho Tribe’s inherent sovereign authority to require consultation and governmental authorizations seeking to conduct recurring ministries, charitable services, outreach programs, and other organized activities on lands under the jurisdiction of the Northern Arapaho Tribe.”

This controversy started July 5, when Christian pastor Sarah Lucas, of Foundations for Nations, preached 

against some of the tribe’s Sundance ceremonies

 involving a pipe relic as a prayer centerpiece. She had indicated praying "to pipes" is idolatry. 

She had said, “a pipe cannot hear your prayers,” and “we know that Jesus is enough.”

Foundations for Nations falls within the exterior boundaries of the Wind River Indian Reservation but it sits on private, not tribal land.

. Lucas refused, telling Cowboy State Daily she’s sorry the sermon came off as an attack, but not sorry for preaching from the Bible.

[{"type":"text","text":" “Jesus is the only way,” she said."}]

The board’s announcement says that the tribe’s records department reviewed records to see if Foundations for Nations had ever received authorization from the tribal government “to conduct recurring organized ministry or outreach activities on the Reservation.”

The review found no documentation that the church is authorized to work on the reservation, says the announcement.

NABC Chair Keenan Groesbeck has told the church that the tribe requests consultation “before any expansion of recurring ministry activities under the new policy,” the announcement says. 

The tribe has invited “the organization” to meet with the NABC by July 25 to discuss its mission, leadership, funding, activities, and “any documentation it believes demonstrates authorization to operate on lands under Tribal jurisdiction.”

It may be a point of debate whether private land surrounded by tribal trust lands falls within tribal jurisdiction, and if so, for what purposes. It’s unclear if the tribe’s new policy is constitutional.

“This policy is not about preventing anyone from practicing their religion,” Groesbeck said in the statement. “It is about respecting the sovereign government of the Northern Arapaho Tribe. Any outside organization seeking to conduct organized activities within our jurisdiction should first communicate with the elected leadership of our Nation and work in partnership with the Tribe.”

NABC says in the statement that the policy will apply uniformly to outside groups.

[{"type":"text","text":"Lucas declined Tuesday to comment. "}]

[{"type":"text","text":"Constitution, Law"}]

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, in part, that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech or the freedom of the people to assemble peaceably.

After the American Civil War, Congress passed the 14th Amendment to expand those prohibitions to state governments. Neither amendment imposed restrictions on tribal governments’ ability to impede the free exercise of religion or speech, or other listed rights.

A century later in 1968, Congress imposed some – but not all – Bill of Rights restrictions on tribal governments through the Indian Civil Rights Act. The law protects rights similar to the U.S. Constitution’s first, fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth amendments, and portions of the 14th Amendment.

“No Indian tribe in exercising powers of self-government shall… make or enforce any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for a redress of grievances,” the law says. 

Disputes have surfaced over the years, regarding just how much Congress can regulate tribal governments.

The U.S. Constitution delegates just one congressional authority over tribes: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

Curiously, tribal governments were some of the strongest proponents of interpreting the “Indian Commerce Clause” to give Congress broad power over American Indian tribes.  

That advocacy unfolded during the U.S. Supreme Court case Brackeen v. Haaland, which contemplated whether a federal law giving tribes primacy over Native child custody matters is constitutional.

The high court found it constitutional. It took a broad view of the Indian Commerce Clause to do so.

“As we already explained, our precedent states that Congress’s power under the Indian Commerce Clause encompasses not only trade but also ‘Indian affairs,’” says the majority opinion, by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

[{"type":"text","text":"Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion proclaiming overreach."}]

By passing a law governing tribal custody matters, “Congress ignored the normal limits on the Federal Government’s power and prescribed rules to regulate state child custody proceedings in one circumstance: when the child in volved happens to be an Indian,” he wrote.  

Thomas said the majority opinion “gets things backwards. When Congress has so clearly intruded upon a longstanding domain of exclusive state powers, we must ask not whether a constitutional provision prohibits that intrusion, but whether a constitutional provision authorizes it.”

Foundations for nations 7 21 26

<title>After Church Blowup, Arapaho Tribe Says No 'Ministries' Without Permission | Cowboy State Daily</title>

After Church Blowup, Arapaho Tribe Says No 'Ministries' Without Permission

Kolby fedore

Kolby Fedore

Outdoors

Jory Thomas, 14, was absent-mindedly flipping loops with a rope while visiting his grandparents' campground on the Yellowstone River over the Fourth of July weekend when he heard someone start screaming for help.

Within seconds, the Montana ranch kid emptied his pockets, splashed across a side channel and waded chest-deep into the river.

[{"type":"text","text":"Then he did something he'd spent the past year practicing on calves."}]

[{"type":"text","text":"This time, he roped a drowning man."}]

The July 5 rescue unfolded so quickly that by the time the first Sweet Grass County Sheriff’s Office deputy arrived three minutes after Jory's father called 911, everyone was already safely on shore.

"My opinion, Jory saved the individual's life, 100%," Sweet Grass County Sheriff Alan Ronneberg told Cowboy State Daily. "Had Jory not acted, I believe the chances of this individual not making it to shore were very slim.”'

[{"type":"text","marks":[{"type":"bold"}],"text":"A Boat Hits A Bridge"}]

The Thomas family lives on a ranch about a dozen miles outside Big Timber, directly across from a campground where Jory's grandparents had been staying for the week.

Jory wandered over to visit with his parents and grandparents that afternoon, a rope already in his hand as he casually practiced throwing loops.

"All of a sudden he heard some yells for help," Jory's father, Jase Thomas, told Cowboy State Daily.

A boat had struck a bridge pillar, throwing its occupants into the Yellowstone River.

Three people fell in, but only two managed to get out, leaving one person alone in the swift current, desperately clinging to a cooler.

[{"type":"text","text":"Jory didn't hesitate."}]

Somehow, said his father, he convinced the drowning man to let go of the cooler. Then he threw the rope, catching the man around the neck and one arm. 

Jory and another bystander then pulled the man safely to shore before emergency responders arrived. 

In the moment, Jory didn’t think about any potential danger to himself, he just acted on instinct, the teen told KTVQ television in Billings, Montana, which first 

"This current was pretty fast then, and he was moving pretty quickly," he told the outlet. "Only thing I could focus on was helping him get out of the water because I didn't want to see anyone go in front of me.”

[{"type":"text","marks":[{"type":"bold"}],"text":"'Let Me Have My Son Back'"}]

Jory's father has spent three decades on the Big Timber Volunteer Fire Department and immediately called 911.

Dispatch records show the call came in at 5:39 p.m. A deputy arrived just three minutes later and reported everyone was already out of the water. 

[{"type":"text","text":"Watching the rescue unfold wasn't easy for the elder Thomas. "}]

He knows that stretch of river, and that it becomes more dangerous just downstream, where swift current, deep holes and logjams create deadly hazards.

"My biggest concern was to let me have my son back," he said before taking a long pause, reflecting on the potential for Jory to also get caught up in the current.

"He understands water, but I don't think he understands what could happen,” Jase said. "I mean, he does, but he had one thing in mind, which is great, and he got it done." 

Jase believes the man his son rescued likely wouldn't have survived much longer.

[{"type":"text","text":"Sheriff Ronneberg agrees."}]

"I'm not sure how close the individual was to being 'lost,' but in my experience such things happen faster than you might guess they can," he said.

[{"type":"text","marks":[{"type":"bold"}],"text":"'He Loves Roping' "}]

Although the rescue looked almost unbelievable, it wasn't blind luck. Jory has spent the past year immersing himself in roping.

He practices on roping dummies in his spare time and started roping calves from horseback during local brandings, his father said.

[{"type":"text","text":"\"He's always had a rope,\" Jase said. \"He loves roping.\" "}]

Outside of ranch work, he's an avid hunter and is spending this week showing a steer and a pig at the county fair. 

[{"type":"text","marks":[{"type":"bold"}],"text":"'That's Just Who He Is'"}]

[{"type":"text","text":"To his family, the rescue wasn't entirely surprising."}]

[{"type":"text","text":"Jase said his son has always been the first person to help someone else."}]

"We'll be in town at the grocery store, and you'll see an elderly person," he said. "They can't pack the groceries, and he never says a word. He goes over and gets their groceries and packs them out. That's just who he is." 

Ronneberg said the rescue is a reminder that courage often appears in ordinary moments.

"Jory saw another in trouble and acted, not for himself but for another," Ronneberg said. "He didn't pull out a phone, but a lariat. He didn't watch what was happening but intervened."

"Jory is a lesson for all of us in this day and age and showed us what is courageous and right.”

Montana lasso teen 7 21 26

<title>14-Year-Old Ranch Kid Ropes Drowning Man On Yellowstone River, Saves Life | Cowboy State Daily</title>

A 14-year-old ranch kid from Big Timber, Montana, had a rope in his hand when cries for help erupted from the Yellowstone River. He sprinted into the water, threw one loop and caught a struggling man around the arm and neck, pulling him safely to shore.

14-Year-Old Ranch Kid Ropes Drowning Man On Yellowstone River, Saves Life

The Wyoming Republican Party’s leadership committee endorsed Brent Bien for governor, Chuck Gray for U.S. House, and Harriet Hageman for U.S. Senate during a virtual meeting Monday evening.

The roughly 50-person voting committee also endorsed Rep. Scott Smith in his bid for state treasurer, Rep. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams in her bid for secretary of state, and Rep. Tom Kelly for superintendent of public instruction.

In releasing the endorsements, the party Central Committee’s majority broke recent tradition – and arguably state law – by choosing to back some Republicans over others before the Aug. 18 primary election is final.

While that law references financial backing, state GOP Chair Bryan Miller told members in April it’s been interpreted to bar endorsements too.

But party leadership is waging an ongoing federal legal challenge in an effort to have that state law overturned as a violation of the party’s First Amendment rights.

Proponents of letting the party endorse people pre-primary have called it a move toward freedom. Opponents have called it an “insider” maneuver, or disrespectful to the law or Republican voters.

Numerous members of the roughly 50-member voting body cast “abstain” and “no” votes during roll calls Monday.

“I don’t think it’s a good idea for us to be endorsing candidates at all,” said Hot Springs County GOP state committeeman Phil Scheel during a debate on whether to endorse Hageman, a sitting U.S. representative, in her run for U.S. Senate. “So I am going to suggest the group vote down this motion.

State Republican Party Vice-Chair Bob Ferguson, who had chaired the candidate endorsement vetting committee, ruled Scheel’s comment out of order.

The state central committee majority already approved a bylaw calling for vetting and endorsements at its convention in April, so Monday’s discussion should have been on Hageman’s merits, said Ferguson.

Niobrara County GOP Chair Janae Miller typed a comment into the Zoom meeting chat.

“Niobrara county constituents have been vocal in their opposition to endorsing

 no matter their excellent or poor performance,” 

wrote Miller. “They want the voters to decide at the polls.”

The Wyoming Republican Party leadership endorsed Brent Bien for governor, Chuck Gray for U.S. House, and Harriet Hageman for U.S. Senate on Monday evening. The controversial move breaks current tradition and maybe state law.

Joan Marie Cater, 75