Second evidence worker testifies at evidentiary hearing in Goodyear murder case 

GOODYEAR, AZ — A second evidence worker, formerly with Goodyear Police, took the stand at a special hearing in a child murder case.

Carl Aftosmes said he had no confidence in Goodyear police’s record-keeping system used in the property and evidence unit.

He was the third person called to the stand during an evidentiary hearing to decide what happens next in the case against Lisa and Germayne Cunningham.

The ABC15 Investigators were the first to break the story that evidence issues at Goodyear police had put the couple’s trial in jeopardy.

The Cunninghams are accused of murdering their seven-year-old daughter back in 2017.

These problems came to light after months of trial. The main issue, Goodyear police can’t prove chain custody going back years.

Ultimately, in April, a judge declared a mistrial and ordered this special hearing which started about a month later.

Defense attorneys started by calling the main detective to the stand.

Detective Noah Yeo said that he discovered, back in May 2025, that there were inaccurate times and dates in the chain of custody logs regarding cell phone evidence in the case.

However, he didn’t alert anyone about those issues until January 2026, when the trial had already been underway for five months.

Then, the court heard from former Goodyear Police property and evidence supervisor, Andrea Gamez. She testified that the department’s evidence problems were widely known and her unit had been overlooked and under-resourced for years.

Carl Aftosmes started answering questions back in May, but his testimony picked up on June 8.

Aftosmes described major problems he experienced firsthand with the transition to a new software used within the property and evidence unit.

“It was a mess from day one,” said Aftosmes.

He said there were thousands of pieces of evidence that were incorrectly marked as “disposed” and the issue went unaddressed by top brass.

DANIEL REYNAK (DEFENSE ATTORNEY): You had alerted your superiors, the people above you, for two years without them correcting it. Correct?

AFTOSMES: That’s correct.

DANIEL REYNAK (DEFENSE ATTORNEY): At least, according to your interview, you kept telling them. It wasn’t like you said it once, you said it multiple times. You gotta correct this error, and it took two years to correct it.

AFTOSMES: That’s correct

DANIEL REYNAK (DEFENSE ATTORNEY): And because of that you couldn’t do inventory for two years.

AFTOSMES: That’s correct.

The evidentiary hearing was originally expected to last three to four days, but it was quickly decided the hearing would stretch into at least June.

When the hearing is over, Judge Patricia Starr will have to decide if the case should be dismissed for good.