Judge denies defense motion in asphalt plant bombing case

By RICHARD JENKINS

[email protected]

Hurley — A defense motion seeking to dismiss the charges against a Kimball, Wisconsin man accused of bombing an asphalt plant in 2015 was denied Monday in Iron County court.

Matthew Allen Gollubske, 39, is charged with two counts of being a party to the crime of using explosives to damage property in connection to several explosions between 4:15 and 6 a.m. on the morning of July 4, 2015 at Mathy Construction’s asphalt plant off U.S. 2 in the town of Kimball.

Gollubske’s attorney, William Appleton, filed a motion in August arguing too much time had passed since the bombing to ensure his client received a fair trial.

“The state’s delay in charging the defendant has significantly impaired his ability to assist in his own defense, including but not exclusive to impaired memory of state and defense witnesses, inability to locate/identify and/or resulting (in) unavailability of potential defense witnesses, staleness of the evidence, decreased ability of defendant to investigate the criminal allegations and identify alternative suspects and/or recover and present exculpatory evidence at trial,” the motion read.

Gollubske and his father Robert Gollubske, 82, had previously complained about the asphalt plant — also known as the Northwoods Paving asphalt plant as the company became a division of Mathy Construction in 1995 — and the impact its operations were having on the family and their property nearby. Robert was found not competent to stand trial on the same two charges in August.

Judge Gary Carlson dismissed the motion, ruling the delay between the incident and Gollubske’s June 2019 arrest wasn’t intended to give prosecutors a tactical advantage in the case.

Assistant attorney general Richard Dufour, who is prosecuting the case for the Wisconsin Department of Justice with Iron County District Attorney Matt Tingstad, responded to the defense motion by arguing much of the delay was simply waiting to see if federal charges would be brought in the case.

“At best, the defense can show ‘prosecutorial negligence or indifference,’ but clearly not intentional delay for the purpose of harassing the defendant or gaining a tactical advantage,” Dufour wrote, arguing this doesn’t rise to the standard needed for dismissal.

Following Carlson’s dismissal of the motion, Gollubske entered a not guilty plea to the two felonies and a Nov. 4 hearing was set for any additional motions in the case.