A man convicted of murder for pushing his second wife off a cliff in Rocky Mountain National Park will not receive a new trial, after a federal judge rejected claims that his defense lawyer at trial was constitutionally ineffective.

Harold Henthorn is serving a life sentence after a jury found him guilty in 2015 of killing Toni Henthorn during a hike near Estes Park. Henthorn appealed his conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to take up the case. Although the evidence against Henthorn — who was the only witness to his wife’s death — was circumstantial, jurors also heard about the death of Henthorn’s first wife under similarly suspicious circumstances. 

Following his unsuccessful Supreme Court appeal, Henthorn moved to vacate his conviction on the grounds that one of his attorneys, longtime defense lawyer Craig L. Truman, was so deficient in his preparation for the case that he violated the constitutional guarantee of effective representation of counsel.

Last month, U.S. District Court Senior Judge R. Brooke Jackson rejected those assertions.

“I was the presiding judge at the trial, and although it was a memorable trial in many respects, I have reviewed the trial transcript as a check on, and to refresh, my memory,” Jackson wrote in a June 23 order. “Even if I had found that Mr. Truman’s performance was deficient in some respects (which I have not), I find that there is not a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different absent the alleged errors or that my confidence or that of a reasonable person in the outcome has been diminished.”

During the 10-day trial, jurors heard about Henthorn’s behavior on or around Sept. 29, 2012, when Toni fell to her death in Rocky Mountain National Park. A Larimer County dispatcher said Henthorn did not appear to be performing CPR on Toni while she guided him through first aid on the phone. Henthorn hung up the 911 call saying he had to conserve his battery, but made nearly two dozen calls and exchanged almost 100 text messages afterward. 

There was also a map discovered in Henthorn’s car with an “X” marking the spot where Toni fell.

Jackson further allowed the jury to hear about two other incidents. First, the year prior to Toni’s death, Henthorn threw a heavy beam off a deck he was repairing at the couple’s vacation cabin, which struck Toni in the neck. Second, Henthorn’s first wife, Lynn Henthorn, died in 1995 while she and her husband were changing a tire on the side of a Douglas County road. She was crushed under the vehicle and authorities ruled it an accident.

In all instances, the only witness was Henthorn, and there were questions about his behavior and his representation of events.

Immediately after his conviction for Toni’s death, Henthorn appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, claiming Jackson should not have permitted the jury to hear about the two uncharged incidents involving his wives. The 10th Circuit said the evidence was appropriate, as it could lead the jury to conclude Henthorn intended to kill Toni given the striking similarity to the alleged accidents in the past.

Then in January 2019, Henthorn filed his motion with Jackson alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.

“Mr. Truman’s representation of me and the strategic direction of his defense, were solely planned for his personal financial gain,” Henthorn wrote. He alleged Truman asked him for money to hire expert witnesses, but never called any witnesses to testify. Henthorn also accused Truman of not doing “any of the work of preparing a defense.”

Jackson appointed an attorney to represent Henthorn, who further elaborated on Henthorn’s allegations. Truman had been ineffective, the defense claimed, for failing to object to irrelevant, hearsay or prejudicial testimony. Truman also allegedly maligned his client during closing arguments, told the jury it would hear evidence that never materialized and mishandled the part of the trial about Lynn’s 1995 death.

Jackson, while noting it is rare for courts to find trial counsel performed so ineffectively it violates the U.S. Constitution, ordered a hearing on Henthorn’s claims.

The government, accordingly, assumed the unusual position of arguing in favor of Henthorn’s defense. Assistant U.S. Attorney J. Bishop Grewell countered Henthorn’s assertions by praising Truman’s “solid strategic” choices at trial.

“And not calling a single witness sent a strong signal to the jury that the government had so failed to meet its burden by virtue of its circumstantial evidence that the defense didn’t even need to respond,” Grewell wrote.

In May of this year, Jackson held a hearing about Henthorn’s motion featuring the testimony of Truman himself. Jackson ended up disregarding most of Henthorn’s specific claims about Truman’s failure to object, finding they did not correspond with Henthorn’s original complaint about Truman’s alleged lack of preparation.

Jackson narrowed Henthorn’s remaining claims to four specific allegations of ineffectiveness. First, Henthorn believed Truman did not appropriately engage with David Weaver, a detective with the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office who testified about his attempted replication of Lynn’s death being crushed under a vehicle.

Henthorn’s appointed lawyer argued to Jackson that Truman had failed to object to the replications and did not effectively cross-examine the detective to undermine the quality of the replication.

Jackson, however, found the transcript flatly contradicted those assertions. Truman did, in fact, cast doubt on Weaver’s expertise in reviewing the 1995 death, and got Weaver to admit there were key dissimilarities between Lynn’s roadside death and the police replication in a controlled environment.

“So we have a different vehicle, correct?” Truman asked Weaver. “Different ground. … Different jack. … And a height that you guessed at?” The detective admitted on the witness stand to those deficiencies.

“There is no reason to believe that Mr. Truman’s approach to the cross examination of Detective Weaver was not a well-informed strategic choice. Mr. Truman demonstrated mastery of the facts surrounding the reenactments during that cross examination,” Jackson wrote.

Second, Jackson rejected Henthorn’s claim that Truman was ineffective for failing to call an expert witness — an emergency medical technician who would have testified to the possibility of the car jack failing and causing the vehicle to crush Lynn. Truman stated at the hearing his decision was strategic, and that he believed calling defense witnesses might have subconsciously shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution to Henthorn.

Finally, the judge found little merit to Henthorn’s other contention that Truman mishandled jury selection and made claims in opening statements that failed to materialize. Jackson acknowledged there was a discrepancy between actual witness testimony and evidence and the previews Truman provided at the trial’s opening.

However, “Mr. Truman was placed in a difficult position; he had a client who made inconsistent statements,” Jackson wrote. Truman had tried to pitch evidence to the jury “that most supported Mr. Henthorn’s version of events.”

Based on those factors and the other evidence of Henthorn’s guilt, Jackson declined to overturn Henthorn’s conviction.

The case is United States v. Henthorn.