A dispute over the admissibility of evidence has indefinitely delayed the attempted murder trial for a former Alabama nurse practitioner and her husband in the alleged abuse and neglect of their young adopted daughter.

Kala Blakely, 42, and her husband, Bartley Blakely, 45, were arrested in 2021 and later indicted for attempted murder.

The couple is accused of attempting to intentionally cause the death of the 12-year-old girl by restricting food which caused acute malnutrition and/or withholding medical care and/or depriving victim of necessities of life and/or hitting her.

The girl, adopted from Colombia, was removed from their care. The couple has three biological sons.

At the time of her arrest, Kala Blakely ran a family health clinic Moody.

Her attorneys have previously called the charges “ridiculous” and said they looked forward to a jury hearing the facts instead of the false narrative they say has been portrayed so far.

The joint trial was set to begin April 21, but attorneys for the couple filed a motion to suppress some digital evidence – including thousands of text messages between the couple that they say were illegally obtained.

Prosecutors contend the evidence is vital to the case.

The case is being prosecuted by deputy district attorneys Lauren Breland, Ashley Mims Patterson, Charissa Henrichs and Demario Thornton.

Kala Blakely is represented by attorneys John Lentine, Christopher Daniel and Wendell Sheffield. Bartley Blakely is represented by attorney Scott Brower.

Jefferson County Circuit Judge Kandice Pickett, on the day jury selection was set to begin, granted the defense attorneys’ request to suppress the evidence.

That trial was stayed while the Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office determined its next steps.

Prosecutors are now appealing the judge’s decision to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.

The adopted daughter, who did not speak English, had only been with the family for a short time.

Court records state she had several health issues that may or may not have been disclosed by the adoption agency.

In January 2021, the girl was taken to Children’s of Alabama with a severe infection. She was sent home for 10 days of intense antibiotic treatment via a PICC line.

When the family did not return for a follow-up visit, hospital staff called the parents and learned the child had not been treated, court records content.

When Kala Blakely took the child back to the hospital, records state, the child had several serious physical injuries. She told hospital staff that the child was throwing tantrums and running into walls.

A doctor disputed that explanation, records show, and also said the girl was severely malnourished.

A DHR worker reported the incident to Trussville police, which launched an investigation.

A police detective spoke with hospital nurses who reported that Kala Blakely made a number of comments such as, “I regret adopting her,” and “she’s made our a life a living hell and I see why her mother abandoned her,” court records contend.

“Additionally, Kala Blakely refused access to an English to Spanish/Spanish to English language interpreter as well as sedation, saying that “she is going to have to deal with the pain,” records state.

In October 2021, an investigator with the district attorney’s office was reviewing jail phone calls between the couple.

On the calls, Investigator Justin Bowlin wrote, Bartley Blakely told his wife he had started to delete her social media pages.

Based on that conversation, Bowlin sought and obtained a search warrant on the Blakely home and multiple electronic devices belonging to both couples were recovered.

The search warrant was carried out Oct. 29, 2021.

That warrant stated that that once items were seized, Bowlin would apply for a second warrant to forensically search particular items for digital evidence – both live and deleted.

That second search warrant was not sought.

Four days before the trial was set to begin, a hearing was held on the defense team’s motion to suppress the evidence.

Prosecutors said the original search warrant sought to “seize, examine and search,” the digital devices collected and therefore did not require a second search warrant.

The hearing was continued to April 21, the day jury selection was to begin.

The investigator testified that he believed the search warrant as initially written allowed a forensic examination, and said he did not realize there was an issue with the search warrant until the motion to suppress was filed.

The hearing ended at 12:15 p.m. and by 1:01 p.m., Pickett ruled she would not allow the evidence to be presented at trial and said jurying selection would begin at 12:15 p.m.

In her ruling suppressing the evidence, the judge said the first search warrant only allowed for seizure of the electronic devices and rendering them safe until a second search warrant was obtained, which did not happen.

Pickett noted there was no intention by the investigator to “violate the rights of the defendants.”

Prosecutors requested more time to determine how to move forward and were given until 2:30 p.m., records show.

They asked for the trial to be continued, which the judge denied and called the case for trial.

Prosecutors said they were not prepared to move forward until they explored pretrial appeal options, and eventually the judge granted a stay until April 29.

“However, the court made it clear that if the state did not appeal by that date, the court would dismiss the case and would allow arguments as to whether to dismiss the case with or without prejudice,” records show.

Dismissing with prejudice means a case is permanently closed. Dismissing a case without prejudice means the same charges could be brought again.

On Tuesday, prosecutors notified the judge they had filed the formal appeal, which puts the case on hold until a ruling from the higher court.

A status hearing is set for November.