Cyberattack disrupts death row inmate’s trial

In the United States, a hacker attack has paralyzed the Arizona Federal Public Defender’s Office, disrupting preparations for a mental capacity hearing for Ralph Menzies, a man who has been on death row for more than 35 years. The trial has been postponed, and the case has become a clear example of how digital attacks are now affecting not only infrastructure but also the justice system.

The crime dates back to 1986, when Ralph Menzies was convicted of kidnapping and murdering Maureen Hunsaker. He was sentenced to death in Utah, but his execution has been repeatedly postponed. Now the case is about his mental health: lawyers insist that due to dementia and cognitive problems, he is not aware of what is happening and therefore cannot be executed.

Last week, however, hackers attacked the Arizona Federal Public Defender’s Office system. A nearly completed 25-page legal document disappeared, and all employees lost access to their files. According to local media, the office had to completely suspend work, prohibiting the use of any technology.

Judge Matthew Bates, who is presiding over the case, agreed to extend the deadline for filing documents until April 18. The prosecution did not object and even offered to provide materials from its side to help the defense. The new trial date has been set for May 7.

• Unlike many countries, the United States has not abolished the death penalty at the state level. Its presence or absence is decided individually by each state.
• Utah remains one of the most conservative states on the issue of the death penalty. Interestingly, it still allows firing squad as an alternative method of execution if lethal injection is not possible.
• The situation with Ralph Menzies is a clear example of how cyberattacks can affect trials. A simple hacker attack on government servers becomes an obstacle to justice, calling into question not only digital security but also the stability of the judicial system.

While the system is restored, the fate of a person — even a convicted person — remains uncertain. This raises important questions about the state’s responsibility to protect not only infrastructure but also the principle of a fair trial.