Nicholas Sheley...He Is, He Isn't, He Is, He Isn't, He Is Going To Stand Trial On August 29, 2011, Isn't He?

Nicholas Sheley at Stateville Correctional Institution

Nicholas T. Sheley is a 31 year old man from Whiteside County, IL who is accused of engaging in a week long killing spree at the end of June 2008. The alleged killing spree resulted in the bludgeoning deaths of eight people in IL and MO, with victims ranging in age from a 2 year old boy to a 93 year old man.


Jury selection for the first murder trial related to this alleged 2008 killing spree, for the death of Ronald Randall, 65, of Galesburg, IL is scheduled to begin on August 29, 2011 in Knox County, IL. As we are on the eve of trial, this seems like a good time to look back at the progression of this case the last three years.

This post and the timeline linked here  can also serve as an introduction to the case for those who might not be familiar with the case but would like to follow the trial here at Katfishponders...This timeline is compiled of information from news reports made in 2008 as this case was unfolding. Even though some of the details included in these reports may come into the trial for the case we will be discussing here, many will not, because what was reported in the media isn't evidence (actually much of what will be admitted remains to be litigated), but more so because Nicholas Sheley is charged and being tried for the death of the one victim in Knox County, not all 8 victims.

In earlier posts here at Katfishponders, I've referred to the progression of this case as a long and winding road because of the many twists, turns and delays this case has taken over the last three years. Many of the twists and turns can be attributed to choices made by Nicholas Sheley, but not all......

At the final pretrial case management hearing on August 12, the court sat a tentative date for opening statements to begin on September 6.....but the question is, given the history of this case.....Will it?

He is...He isn't?
The Arrest and Indictment...

Nicholas Sheley was arrested in Granite City, IL on July 1, 2008. Even though it's alleged by authorities that Sheley's killing spree started in Whiteside County and ended in Festus, MO, it was decided that Nicholas Sheley would be charged in Knox County, IL first. On July 2, 2008 Sheley was transported to Galesburg, IL and charged for the murder of Ronald Randall.


He is.... pleading not guilty to the charges against him and is being held on a 10 million dollar bond  in the Knox County Jail to await trial. Sheley is accused of kidnapping, killing, and robbing Ronald Randall 65, of Galesburg on June 28, 2008. He is also accused of stealing Randall's 2007 Chevy Silverado pickup truck.

He isn't....At the start of a hearing on September 29, 2009 Nicholas Sheley said, “Your honor, I would like to change my plea to guilty.”

He is.....By the time the hearing came around for Sheley to officially change his plea to guilty he had changed his mind again and let his not guilty plea stand.

He isn't.... being held in the Knox County Jail anymore....Sheley awaited trial in the Knox County Jail until he was convicted and sentenced to prison for 7 years in October 2009 for assaulting corrections officers at the Knox County Jail. After a stint in Pontiac Correctional Center,  Sheley was moved to Stateville Correctional Center this Spring.

( This is just my opinion, but I think Mr. Randall's truck 'may' have been the most important piece of
evidence that law enforcement had to tie all of the deaths together, which 'may' also explain why Sheley is being tried in Knox County first. The 2007 pickup is equipped with OnStar which assisted in tracking the vehicle and based on the discovery addressed in various motions that I've seen, there was (figuratively) a truck load of DNA evidence from various victims found in Mr. Randall's  truck  when it was recovered in St. Louis, MO.)

 A Knox County Grand Jury handed down a 17 count Bill of Indictment against Nicholas Sheley in August 2008. Counts 1-10 are first-degree murder charges. The indictment alleges that on June 28, 2008 Sheley caused blunt-force trauma to the head of Ronald Randall that resulted in Randall's death. Counts 11-17 allege that on June 28 Nicholas Sheley kidnapped Ronald Randall, robbed him and stole his 2007 Chevy pickup. Three of the murder counts listed in the indictment  include aggravating factors that made this a death penalty eligible case. The aggravating factors listed allege the blunt-force injuries to Ronald Randall were the result of heinous behavior and wanton cruelty to someone age 60+. Sheley was informed that the state has 120 days to decide if they will seek the death penalty.

He is... facing the death penalty. The state filed the necessary paperwork on September 4, 2008 to seek the death penalty in this case. For 2.5 years this was litigated as a capital murder case.

He isn't.... facing the death penalty.....In March of 2011 the Governor of Illinois,  Patrick Quinn, signed legislation to abolish the death penalty in IL. The new legislation actually didn't take effect until July 1, but the state withdrew their intent to seek the death penalty shortly after Governor Quinn signed the legislation.

As we head into this trial, the minimum sentence for a 1st-degree murder conviction in IL is 20-60 years. If the aggravating factors included in the indictment are found to be present by the jury, Sheley will face natural life in prison. The possible penalties if convicted for the other counts in the indictment are as follows: counts 11-15, two counts of aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated vehicular hijacking and one count of armed robbery — all Class X felonies punishable by six to 30 years in prison (60 years if aggravators are found ). Counts 16 and 17 are one count of robbery, a Class 1 felony; and one count of possession of a stolen vehicle, a Class 2 felony with punishment ranging 3-15 years, a $25,000 fine and 2 years supervision after release.

Nicholas Sheley will be represented by court- appointed attorney Jeremy Karlin in this trial, but many of the twist and turns (and delays) in this case so far have revolved around choices made by Nicholas Sheley about his representaion......

 He is....He isn't?
Sheley's Counsel....musical chairs?

 After Nicholas Sheley was declared indigent by the court, Knox County Public Defender James Harrell, was appointed to represent him. When the state announced their intent to seek the death penalty, Sheley became 'qualified' to have two attorneys that are members of the Capital Litigation Trial Bar to represent him . Jeremy Karlin, a private local attorney, was appointed as co-counsel on the same day the state filed their intent to seek the death penalty, September 3, 2008.When James Harrell requested a one week delay to allow Mr. Karlin to read all the discovery, Sheley asked to address the court. Sheley told the court he doesn't want a continuance of any kind. He went so far as to say if it is necessary to fire his attorney's then so be it.

 ~ He wants to represent himself round one ~ 


Within weeks (actually 9 days) Nicholas Sheley informed the court he wanted to fire both of his attorneys because of conflict in trial strategy (for one, they were dragging things out against his wish for a speedy trial), he also claimed they were ineffective counsel and dishonest. Because he couldn't afford to hire a private attorney, Sheley requested to represent himself (Pro Se). Harrell and Karlin contested Sheley's request, first based on a bonafied doubt of his fitness to stand trial and then on his inability to intelligently waive his right to counsel. After four months of fitness hearings and evaluations by state and defense mental health experts, Sheley was found fit to stand trial .

On January 31, 2010, the court found there was no conflict with counsel or evidence of ineffective counsel or dishonesty which left the issue of Sheley's Pro Se motion. Judge Stewart told the state they would be entitled to depose the mental health experts before he made a ruling as to the defendant representing himself. When the state requested the experts be advised of  recent incidents at the jail involving the defendant and asked that incident reports be submitted to the experts before they were deposed, Sheley requested a 10 minute recess to consult with his attorneys. When court reconvened the court was advised by Jeremy Karlin that Mr.Sheley withdraws all motions to remove his attorneys. Another He is....He isn't....that one week delay Sheley didn't want had just set the trial back five months....hmmm....makes this writer wonder, just what did he really want? ~ sigh ~

At the Jan 31 hearing John Hanlon attempted to enter his appearance with the court per Supreme Court rule 416, but was not allowed until the state was able to get clarification as to the rule. (Hanlon is from the Office of the State Appellate Defender in the Capital Trial Assistance Unit in the Springfield office. The Capital Trial Assistance Unit is staffed with attorneys who provide trial assistance in death penalty cases in which the defendant is indigent.) Hanlon later became a member of the defense until March 2011 when the death penalty was abolished in IL.


~ He wants to represent himself rounds 2 and 3 ~ 


While these 2 attempts to represent himself weren't for the trial related to the 2008 alleged killing spree, I include them here because they also represent choices made by Nicholas Sheley in his dealings with the Knox County judicial system.
   
In April 2009 Nicholas Sheley was charged with three counts of aggravated battery to a correctional officer, one count of aggravated assault and one count of criminal damage to governmental property stemming from the April 17 incident at the Knox County Jail where Sheley has been held awaiting trial for the 2008 murder charge. At an April 23 custody hearing for these new charges Sheley told Judge Dwayne Morrison he doesn't want James Harrell to represent him and would file a motion to represent himself.
At a hearing scheduled to hear argument on Sheley's motion to represent himself, on May 15, 2009, Nicholas Sheley  informed the court he had changed his mind and decided to accept Public Defender James Harrell as his attorney in the jail assault case....geesh.... 

He is, He isn't...

At a case management conference on September 8, 2009, after James Harrell filed a motion for a continuance, Sheley presented a prepared statement to the court, he said,“At this time, I’m going to challenge the effectiveness of my counsel.” Sheley went on to say he was dissatisfied with his counsel’s direction and wanted nothing to do with the motion considered at the conference, which was to delay the trial’s beginning to give the defense more time to look at the state’s evidence.“If my counsel makes an error, I suffer the blight, I do the time. I do not need a continuance,” said Sheley. This time around the court denied Sheley's latest request to represent himself based on the court's finding that Jim Harrell was providing effective counsel and given the previous mental health examinations as well as the fact the outcome of the battery case may be allowed into the trial for the 2008 murder case it would be improper to allow him to represent himself.

He is, he isn't...

As it turns out, Nicholas Sheley did get his way and got rid of James Harrell....at least for the murder case. In January 2010 the Public Defender filed and was granted a motion to be released from the case, citing  a “total breakdown in the attorney-client relationship” that would prevent him from effectively representing the defendant.(This was shortly after Sheley's conviction on the battery charges. IMO, Harrell did the best he could with that case given the fact the state presented a video of the Knox County jail incident.) At the same hearing, Judge James Stewart appointed Jeremy Karlin as lead attorney and Anthony Vaupel (another private attorney) was added as co-counsel to Jeremy Karlin. Vaupel remained on the case until March 2011 when the death penalty was abolished and Sheley was no longer entitled to 2 attorneys. As I mentioned earlier, John Hanlon left the case at this time as well........leaving  Jeremy Karlin alone to represent Nicholas Sheley...but not for long.....

~ He wants to represent himself round four ~ 

March 29, 2011  was the first hearing since the state had abolished the death penalty. John Pepmeyer informed the court  the state is filing a motion to "de-certify" the death penalty in this case, adding the death penalty is no longer an available remedy in this case. Pepmeyer also informed the court that counsel for both parties met prior to the hearing and agreed to September 19, 2011 for a trial date. When Judge Stewart attempted to confirm that date with defense counsel, Karlin replies he has no authority to set a trial date because of the document Mr. Sheley has just handed him....a 59 page handwritten Pro Se Motion that requests he be allowed to fire his attorney and represent himself. He also asked the court to block defense counsel from responding or objecting to his motion and to block any attempts at further mental health evaluation. The links to that motion can be found in my report from that hearing.,

He is....
On April 25, 2011, Judge James Stewart ruled that he would allow Nicholas Sheley to represent himself in his murder trial.Judge Stewart also set a trial date for June 20, 2011.

Before Stewart made his decision, both prosecution and defense argued against Sheley’s motion.
Defense Attorney Jeremy Karlin warned Sheley’s temper could hamper his ability to get a fair trial.
“My greatest concern, your honor, is my client’s ability to maintain his temper,” he said.
The prosecution  noted Sheley will have only limited access to certain documents necessary for his trial because he is being housed at the Illinois Department of Corrections. Sheley, for instance, doesn’t have access to a computer at the prison. Stewart concluded by saying it wouldn’t be in Sheley’s best interest to represent himself. But he added defendants have an “absolute, Constitutional right” to relieve their defense counsel and because of the ruling, Jeremy Karlin was removed from the case.

 I was on vacation much of May and June so I missed some hearings but here are links to the reports of the hearings from Galesburg.com:
Knox County prosecution requests delay in Sheley trial
Sheley trial a go, for now
Sheley trial pushed back to August
Sheley says IDOC impeding his defense
Prosecutors want Sheley returned to Knox County County spends $1,000 on computers for Sheley
Sheley, accused of murder, stays put in Joliet
I think it's fair to say the state and the county have went to great expense to ensure that Sheley was able to prepare for representing himself at trial. I'm sure they do not want to have to try this case again!

He isn't...

On July 10, 2011, Nicholas Sheley once again had a change of heart and wrote the court the following letter. I included the letter here because it is only 2 pages and speaks for itself. You can click on each letter to enlarge it.

 

 A hearing was scheduled for July 19 to decide on Sheley's request for Jeremy Karlin to be re-appointed as his counsel. During that hearing Judge Stewart said he would recognize the letter from Sheley as a Motion.

Bill Elward from the IL Attorney General's office told the court it's the state's position that this was gamesmanship. In his letter to the court, Sheley said a series of lock downs at the Stateville Correctional Center have denied him access to materials needed to prepare his case. Elward said he spoke with the

Illinois Department of Corrections and learned there was an altercation on July 8, which caused a lock down through July 11, however, it did not prevent Sheley from obtaining materials.

Elward said he had spoken with Jeremy Karlin both on the phone and in person. Elward said that Karlin told him  he could be ready for trial on August 29 if the prosecution agreed to provide a list of witnesses and evidence well before the trial, as well as advise him which witnesses prosecutors intend to call each day. Elward said the position of the state is, "If he wants to have a trial, he can have a trial. If he wants a trial with counsel, he can have one ... let's decide this issue today." 

 Judge Stewart made a comment about legal gamesmanship and case law that I didn't catch entirely, however I did hear him say that because the state doesn't oppose the request for Mr. Karlin to be reappointed, he would allow it, adding it's against his better judgement because Sheley had knowingly and voluntarily waved his right to counsel.

Jeremy Karlin approaches Nicholas Sheley and shakes his hand. As Sheley was led from the courtroom we made eye contact for a few seconds. I couldn't tell for sure if he was happy or mad....he had a look on his face much like the one in the mugshot above but his lips were pulled into a circle as if he was trying to whistle....he didn't look particularly happy. If his goal is to get to trial he should be happy....Judge Stewart said he expects a jury to be seated  and opening statements started on September 6, 2011. Ya think?

Sphere: Related Content

Nicholas Sheley Case, It's A Long And Winding Road to Justice

Updated at bottom- June 18

One thing I have learned from the many murder trials that I have observed is that even though there are rules of procedure set down by (both U.S. and State) Constitutions (such as the due process clause that ensures legal fairness)  and  legislators (statutory laws) there often are issues that arise that are unexpected.

In our system of justice when lawyers make their argument before a court or a situation arises that is not directly addressed in a law or the interpretation of the law is in question, the court depends on legal precedent or case law  (decisions of appeals courts and other courts which make new interpretations of the law that are derived from the application of particular areas of law to the facts of individual cases, and, therefore, can be cited as precedents) to support their argument or resolve the issue.

When the death penalty is on the table there are even more rules and exceptions to rules, but issues still arise that are unique. The capital murder case of Nicholas Sheley has had several unique issues come up in the preparation for trial. Recently there has been an issue come up that's been brought about by some action taken by the IL Department of Corrections (DOC).

Nicholas Sheley at Pontiac Correctional

Nicholas Sheley is a 30 year old Sterling, IL man, who has been charged with capital murder for the 6/28/08 bludgeoning death of Ronald Randall, 65, of Galesburg, IL. The trial is expected to start sometime between January to March 2011 . Sheley is also charged for five deaths in Whiteside County, IL and two deaths in Festus, MO. related to an alleged killing spree during the last week of June, 2008. Sheley is awaiting trial at the Pontiac Correctional Center, in Pontiac, IL after being sentenced to seven years in prison for a conviction on charges that alleged he attacked 3 correctional officers causing them injury during an incident at the Knox County Jail in April 2009. Prior to that conviction, Sheley had been held in the Knox County jail since July 2008 on a $10 million bond.

There has been two hearings related to this issue with the DOC. The first hearing was so vague that I didn't even write about it at the time. The second hearing shed a little light on the issue and I was able to find some information online, so I'll give it a try. This entry will include both hearings.

The first hearing, on May 14, about the issue raised by the DOC was short. There wasn't anyone from the prosecution for the murder case at this hearing. The IL DOC was represented by Chris Higgerson and Lea Bendik of the IL Attorney General's office. Lead attorney Jeremy Karlin, Co-counsel Anthony Vaupel ( both court appointed because Sheley is indigent ) and Nicholas Sheley were at the defense table.(escorted by 4 "big" guys from DOC)

At the beginning of the hearing, Jeremy Karlin moved to have the hearing closed. Ninth Circuit Judge James Stewart didn't feel there was authority to close the hearing and told the parties he wanted the issue briefed before he would consider closing the hearing.  Stewart said that in a criminal case there are mixed rights, the defendant has a right to a fair and public trial, but the press and public also have a  right to attend criminal trials.

Karlin told the court if the hearing isn't closed he would be forced to disclose defense theories to the public when discussing the objections the DOC has, adding that he also respectfully disagrees with expenditures previously authorized. Karlin acknowledged to the court this is a novel area due to the DOC position and reminded the judge that they were under deadlines. Judge Stewart responded any deadlines the defense is under are from this court and we are not discussing expenditure of funds. Bendik told the court the AGO agrees with the defense, but the judge reiterated he wants to be briefed.

Karlin requested that the record reflect the imposition on the defense of the DOC motions that are interfering with our attempt to__________. Oops I missed that in my notes but I think he was talking about preparing their defense and meeting deadlines. This is an area where the conversation seemed cryptic to this novice.... Stewart said something about April 1 and the Supreme Court also directs the conduct of_______(this court?) He continued that on May 11 there was a return of mandate. This is no case of controversy- will address when the matter becomes ripe. Bendik started to say something and Stewart said he rules this is not a case of controversy so the motion to unseal transcripts is moot. The case is continued to June 18.

I have been trying to find out what the issue is with the DOC, I didn't find this until after the 2nd hearing but I'll stick it in here so you will have a better idea what I'm talking about when reporting on that hearing. This is what I 've been able to find....On April 1, 2010, Judge James Stewart issued an order directing the Illinois Department of Corrections to transport defendant Nicholas T. Sheley for certain testing. The DOC filed an emergency motion  for leave to file a petition for an original writ of mandamus. (A writ of mandamus is a writ issued by a superior court ordering a public official or body or a lower court to perform a specified duty.) The motion was denied and the order was entered by the court.
(This is speculation but because of the discussion at the end of the May 14 hearing, I think what the DOC wanted was the transcripts to be unsealed from an earlier ex parte hearing to authorize expenses for the defense.)

The DOC then filed an emergency motion with the IL Supreme Court for a supervisory order. The motion was allowed. The Supreme Court wrote in it's order, " In the exercise of this Court's supervisory authority, the Circuit Court of Knox County is directed to vacate its order of April 1, 2010, directing the Illinois Department of Corrections to transport defendant Nicholas T. Sheley for certain testing. The circuit court is directed to conduct a hearing at which the Illinois Department of Corrections may be heard on the subjects of safety and expense, and may suggest alternative orders."

A week or two after the first hearing, once again, a little birdy notified me there was a hearing scheduled for June 11 at 10 am. {{Hugs}} The birdy also told me this was to hear arguments about who would pay for transporting Sheley for tests, so I'm surprised when  Assistant Attorney General Bill Elward and Knox County State's Attorney John Pepmeyer come in and take a seat at the state table. (I expected to see the 2 who had represented IL DOC at the last hearing.) At the defense table is  Lead Attorney Jeremy Karlin and Co-counsel Anthony Vaupel. John Hanlon is also here for the defense. Hanlon is from the Office of the State Appellate Defender (OSAD) in the Capital Trial Assistance Unit in the Springfield office.

We still have a little time before court so Karlin and Elward are talking a little sports across the aisle...I didn't hear who, but someone is the worst sports franchise ever. LOL ( These guys may be friendly with each other when court is out of session, but once the hearing starts they are very professional and definitely serious about their adversarial roles.)


There are 3 people sitting in the reserved seats for the press, directly behind the defense. I recognize the reporter from Whiteside County, we both motion hello. I sure miss Susan Kaufman from the Register-Mail. ~ I'm  waving if your reading this Susan ~  The other 2 are new faces (after court I introduce myself and one of the new faces is from the Galesburg Register-Mail and the other is a new reporter from WGIL a local radio station.)

A little after 10, Nicholas Sheley is brought in by 2 DOC officers, he is fully shackled and wearing his tan DOC uniform, I couldn't help but notice he's sporting brand new Nike shoes.(In the county jail he had to wear plastic sandals year round).

Judge Stewart enters and court is in session.(Again, my notes today are sort of cryptic because they seemed to talk that way.....and they weren't saying exactly what the issues were. I will do my best to "fill " them out a bit given the information I gathered after this hearing)

Judge Stewart says that there are several issues for today:
          There are issues for both parties to brief.
          The defense has also filed a motion to extend discovery.

Jeremy Karlin rises to address the court.
He mentions the interpretation of section 10c of the Capital Litigation Act :
     1. Addresses certification of expense and the question whether the court has power to do so ex parte.
      2. Whether at a future date or whether should be done in camera.
Karlin says the state agrees the court has authority to enter orders if the date, time and place are known. Karlin gives Judge Stewart the agreed proposed order.

Bill Elward addresses the court for the state and says they agree to the order with an amendment to the second line, first sentence.(This will make more sense once I see a copy of the order)

 Judge Stewart says he wanted both sides to offer briefs and make a record. Stewart acknowledges even though he agrees with the language in the order and signing it,  this is unusual because the IL DOC is a part of another branch (executive branch)of the government . The separate branches of government do not  have authority over each other.
(The way I understand the situation is the DOC is objecting to transporting Sheley for these defense requested tests because of financial and security reasons. The defense wants this undisclosed testing done in order to effectively prepare their defense.)

Judge Stewart tells the court the legislature has recognized the need for the defense in a capital case to prepare a defense for the guilt phase and for mitigation in the penalty phase if there is a conviction.Stewart adds there is provision in the Capital Litigation act for ex parte hearings (for the benefit of one side or party, in this instance the defense, in the absence of the other) for expenditures on expert witnesses. He says this boils down to an equal protection argument. If the defendant could afford to hire his own expert witnesses the defense wouldn't have to disclose to the prosecution who they have consulted and would not want to do so.

Judge Stewart even offered an example, for instance if the defense consulted with an expert who determined they could not support the defense's position, the defense wouldn't use them; however, if the state was privy to the identity of this expert just because the defendant was indigent, they could seek the expert out for their own case, which would give the state an unfair advantage. If the defendant was then found guilty, the conviction could be overturned because this unfair advantage could result in the denial of due process.

Stewart said therefore he will side with the defense, but if the Supreme Court overrules there would be no harm to the state because they would then be privy, adding if this court is wrong a bright line test can be done. The court orders the DOC to transport the defendant for the required testing. Stewart told the defense whenever they need an ex parte hearing they should notify the prosecution of the hearing so they are aware, but the order allows Sheley to be tested and transported without the knowledge of the prosecution.Judge Stewart said the court is trying to preserve the rights of everyone.

Karlin in referring to the defense motion to extend discovery deadline, told the court because of the nature of what we just did (order for testing), we don't want to mislead the court or the state when we are still investigating.

Bill Elward rose and told the court the state feels a little handicapped. The state has an offer of proof for their motion in limine due by 6/30. Can't the defense make some response? They can amend if needed adding at some point the state will file a motion to compel.

Stewart said the matter will be set for the next hearing, June 18 (tomorrow) acknowledging unusual circumstances have been involved in the issues brought by the DOC.

There are two more hearings tomorrow, Friday, June 18. The first hearing will be at 10 am. It will be a closed hearing and I'm pretty sure it will be exparte. The second hearing will be "open" and is scheduled for 11 am at the Knox County Courthouse in Galesburg, IL.

Yes, it's a long and winding road but we will get there.....

Update- June 18

I went to the hearing today at 11 am,  but everything that needed to be done was accomplished in the closed hearing. The closed hearing was in camera (versus exparte) and attended by the defense and the attorney(s) from the IL AGO representing the IL DOC. I recognized Lea Bendik from the May 14 hearing. I'm not sure who else from the IL AGO attended as the closed hearing was done by the time I got there. Of course, we aren't privy to the results of that hearing....we'll just have to wait and see if the DOC goes back to the Supreme Court or if Judge Stewart's order to transport Sheley for testing stands.

I stayed around the courthouse a bit and was able to find out that the defense motion to extend deadlines resulted in an agreement between the parties to extend deadlines as follows:

The previous state deadline to enter their offer of proof for the defendant's prior bad acts was extended  2 weeks to July 15.

The defense response to the state's offer of proof is due August 15.

The defense deadline to enter any known Affirmative defenses per Supreme Court Rule 413 is moved to September 15.  
(Affirmative defenses operate to limit, excuse or avoid a defendant's criminal culpability, even if the charges are admitted or proven. Whereas a defendant normally has no burden of proof, when offering an affirmative defense, the defendant usually must affirmatively come forward with some evidence that the defense exists; hence, "affirmative" defenses. A few examples of affirmative defenses are an alibi, self-defense or an insanity-defense.)

I may do an entry on the not-guilty by reason of insanity defense sometime. Not because it applies to this or any other case I'm following, but because the concept interests me. Did you know Illinois doesn't recognize a not-guilty by reason of insanity defense? Each state has a different standard for this defense....like I said...I'll get into that some other time.Stay tuned. ;)

Oh and one more thing.....I was told that the worst sports franchise ever, that I referenced from the June 11 hearing is the Blackhawks, but that was then, I'm told that now the Blackhawks are now the best franchise. LOL! Sphere: Related Content

Waiting, Waiting, And Waiting Some More....Judge Rules Nicholas Sheley Trial Won't Begin Until 2011

Nicholas Sheley mugshot

The hearing I attended at the Knox County Courthouse on April 29, was originally intended to be a telephonic scheduling conference between Ninth Circuit Judge James Stewart, the Prosecution, the Defense and defendant Nicholas Sheley who is housed in the Pontiac Correctional facility. Judge Stewart had scheduled the teleconference earlier this year in an effort to save Illinois some travel expense. Some of the attorneys for the state, one of the defense attorneys and Nicholas Sheley are located through out the state between Chicago and Springfield.

 Unfortunately,  the prison phone system couldn't forward the call into the area of the facility where Sheley is held, so Sheley was transported two hours each way for this half hour hearing.Why Sheley couldn't be brought to an area of the prison where the call could reach ?? I don't know. Kudos anyway to Judge Strickland for trying to keep an eye on the expense. The purpose of the teleconference  was to schedule some hearing dates and deadlines in preparation for the upcoming capital murder trial of Nicholas Sheley, 30, for the murder of Ronald Randall, 65, of Galesburg, IL . Sheley is also charged for five deaths in Whiteside County, IL and two deaths in Festus, MO. related to an alleged killing spree during the last week of June, 2008.

 I made my way up the stairs to the second floor courtroom about 1:15 pm. The hearing was scheduled to start at 1:30 pm so I had a few minutes to spare. I stopped for a minute to talk to a reporter from Whiteside County, Tara Becker, before taking my usual seat behind the family of Ronald Randall. They always sit in the front row behind the prosecution. This spot gives me a good view of the entire courtroom and a pole to lean on.

 A side note that may be of interest: At the last hearing Tara Becker told me she was reporting on the sale of  the Thompson State Prison to the federal government. I asked how that was going and she said the prison is officially closing as a state owned facility and the few prisoners who were housed there have been moved. In December 2009 President Obama directed the federal government to buy the near-empty state prison in rural Thomson, Ill., to house maximum security federal inmates and lease a portion of the prison to the Department of Defense to house detainees from the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The suspected terrorists from Gitmo will not be allowed visitors and the facility will be at least as secure as a super-max facility. The decision is part of a plan for shutting down the controversial Guantanamo detention center. OK, back to the  Sheley hearing.....

In the next few minutes two more members of the accredited press arrive and three of the attorneys from the Attorney General's office for the prosecution and two of the lawyers for the defense. Bill Elward, Micheal  Atterberry and Steve Plazibat from the AGO take their seats in front of where I'm sitting. Lead defense counsel, Jeremy Karlin comes in with new co-counsel Anthony Vaupel.  They take a seat at the defense table, Karlin opens his laptop and they look ready for business. Knox County State's Attorney John Pepmeyer and John Hanlon from the State Appellate Defenders Office won't be in court today.

Right at 1:30 Nicholas Sheley is escorted into the courtroom by four (pretty big) corrections officers from the Pontiac State Prison. He is wearing his tan color prison garb, is fully shackled at his waist and feet. I notice instead of the rubber sandals worn at the county jail, Sheley has on some canvas sneakers. One of the CO's keeps hold of a ring on Sheley's waist chains until he is seated. There are a few Knox County Sheriff deputies and bailiffs in the courtroom as well. As soon as they have Sheley situated, Judge James Stewart takes his seat at the bench and the hearing is under way.

Judge Stewart explains that the scheduled teleconference didn't work out so we are here to do the same business. He first said they couldn't get the  prison on the call, and then said, "well, not to where Mr. Sheley was". Stewart also said that he has four issues that he wants to cover today :

1) Defense co-counsel Anthony Vaupel to update the court on his progress of familiarizing himself with the  case.
2) If the state has complied per Supreme Court rules 412 ( Disclosure to Accused )
3) If the defense has complied per Supreme Court rules 413 ( Disclosure to Prosecution )
4) There is a scheduling motion to be heard.

Judge Stewart asks what the state has on their agenda for today? Bill Elward stands to speak for the state. Elward says they want to set a trial date. Previously the trial was expected to start in October or November 2010 before lead counsel Public Defender James Harrell left the defense. The state is asking for a realistic date that they can work backwards from to set deadlines. Stewart agrees there have been issues with lawyers and other collateral issues that make it necessary to reset the schedule.

Anthony Vaupel rose to address the court. He informs the court that he has been able to read through all of the discovery (over 10,000 pieces of evidence), the court filings, and has reviewed most evidence on disk.
Judge Stewart asks where the other attorneys on the defense are in reviewing what has been submitted in the case? Jeremy Karlin stands and informs the court he has read the entire case multiple times. He adds that he can't speak for Mr. Hanlon, but when they have discussed the case Hanlon is able to speak intelligently about the case. ( I checked my notes and at a case management hearing six months ago, on December 4, 2009, Mr. Hanlon answered that question by saying," all but the last box".)

Judge Stewart says well," How about October or November, does the state have all of it's evidence and it's investigation done?"(Stewart had originally targeted sometime between May and October 2010 for the trial.) Jeremy Karlin says he doesn't see anyway  they can be ready by then. The question of the Motions in Limine for "course of conduct evidence" remains unanswered.

In 2009 the defense filed a Motion in Limine To Exclude Evidence of Other Alleged Crimes or Other Alleged "Bad Acts" at Trial, that hasn't been ruled on. In January 2010 the prosecution filed it's response to the defense Motion in Limine, their first Motion in Limine to admit Course of Conduct Evidence and simultaneously filed a Motion to Seal their Motion in Limine and any defense response because it contains evidence that may or may not be presented as evidence at trial and could taint the jury pool. At several previous hearings Karlin has referred to this as the $64,000 question because he can't comply with Supreme Court rule 413 as to expert witnesses and an affirmative defense until he knows what and how the state intends to use the evidence at trial. The state has contended they can't make that decision until they have some idea of what type of defense will be used. In court documents filed in March, Stewart ruled they would keep the motion sealed until there is a hearing to determine what evidence will be admitted, then the prosecutors will redact inadmissible portions.

Judge Stewart asks Karlin how long after that question is decided would the defense be ready for trial? Karlin replies February or March of 2011. Michael Atterberry stands and tells the court the state will be prepared to try the case then. Stewart says he is not ruling out January, and tentatively sets January to March 2011 for the trial unless circumstances arise that would interfere with that time period. The judge says they need to set deadlines for depositions and a close date for all motions to be filed.

Judge Stewart then asks if  the state has fully complied with 412? Michael Atterberry said, " We believe we have substantially, we're trying to provide what the defense motion just asked for, we have contacted the lab." (This is the first I've heard of this motion, I'll have to see if I can get a copy.) Stewart asks, " Does the defense feel they have complied with 413? Jeremy Karlin replies,"To the extent we know what our defense is."

Atterberry tells the court,  the state can re-plead their Motion in Limine and  asks for 3-4 months to prepare. Stewart says July or August for the state to re-plead and 30 days for the defense to respond, it shouldn't take as long for the defense to respond as it does the state to prepare to re-plead.. Karlin says any information about how the state intends to narrow.....the state conceding is good; however, that doesn't eliminate the defense need for the court to hear live testimony. Atterberry says 3 months needed. Stewart asks if it's necessary for the state to re-plead? Michael Atterberry says the state will do it as an offer of proof by July 1, June 15 at the earliest.

Stewart says if Mr. Karlin decides he wants to have testimony heard the court is available, and adds the deadline for the state to re-plead as an offer of proof is June 30 and then we need to have a case management hearing in July. Karlin says the defense would like an opportunity to respond.The judge says how much time needed to respond? Karlin tells the court 60 days to draft is reasonable, 60 days to respond. Then Karlin must have reconsidered because he says," I agree it's harder to re-plead, how about 45 days?". Judge Stewart responds," 30 days should be enough time, July 30 to respond, and a case management conference August 6 at 1:30.

Judge Stewart asks if the defense can disclose their defense based on the information they have? Karlin says they have done that, but not an affirmative defense, adding the defense can do that within 21 days of the hearing to decide the Motion in Limine. Stewart says 21 days from now. Karlin stands his ground, he tells the judge he doesn't mean to be obstinate but there are some investigations that aren't completed. Stewart tells Karlin he wants them to disclose some affirmative defense by June 30. Karlin answers they (the state) are entitled to know when I know. Stewart says it has been 2 years, it can be amended. ( It seems as though the judge is trying to be as fair as possible here, the state has conceded to re-plead their motion, so the defense can offer up some type of defense.)

Bill Elward stands and asks the court for some confirmation as to the dates that have been set. He lists
offer of proof 6/30, defense response 7/30 and case management hearing 8/6.
Karlin isn't happy with this schedule, he says,"We have addressed this issue, the schedule has us telling you an affirmative defense on the same day." Judge Stewart again says, after 2 years you should... Karlin interjects  but we will have additional information to obtain.

Anthony Vaupel says something about a motion for fingerprint evidence.(This must be the motion mentioned earlier by Atterberry.)  We just got the motion yesterday,Atterberry replies, we have conceded, we'll see if the information supplied is ok. Vaupel asks the court if this can be addressed at the case management hearing on 8/6. Stewart must have agreed because the next thing I heard was an order will be submitted.

Court is recessed. 

The DOC guard grabs the hoop on the back of Sheley's shackle. Sheley takes a scan of the gallery and he is led from the courtroom with his entourage of security to head back to Pontiac Correctional Facility. I spoke with someone who saw them arrive today who said Sheley and  the four guards made the 2 hour trip in 2 vehicles. Sphere: Related Content

The Land Of Casey Fables - Continuing...The Justice For Caylee Anthony Saga -

The primary interest of katfish...ponders in this case has always been Justice for Caylee. Reporting on the State of Florida's quest for justice for Caylee Marie Anthony has truly turned into a SAGA. In the past month, there has been enough fodder added to this true story ( that is playing out like a fractured fairytale) to fill  dozens of  chapters. It's not surprising this case plays out like a fairytale, given that most of what Casey Anthony says about Caylee sounds like a fable.

 

                              ~The Poor Poor Princess~

 There was an indigency hearing held on Thursday, March 18, 2010 for the court to rule on a
Defendant's Motion For Determination Of Indigency For Costs.
This motion caused a lot of concern for anyone who had been following this case, particularly the citizens of Florida. Many defendants are indigent but the background of this defendant raises special concerns. Many readers are familiar with the background of this case but it never hurts to refresh.

When Casey was first arrested on July 16, 2008 she filed an application for indigency and requested a public defender be appointed.( If you follow the link provided to the application, note Casey stated on the form that she had an income of $1,400 bi-weekly....oopsie... she scratched the income part out....for a second she must have forgot the police had discovered she had been lying about having a job for 2 years.) Casey hired Jose Baez to represent her the next day.( Or was he already waiting in the wings?) It was curious hiring a private attorney one day after being granted indigent status and assigned a public defender, even more so when her parents testified a week later during a bond hearing they had very little net worth. A curious fact but really no one's business since she wouldn't be using state money, so there the speculation about the Anthony's windfall of riches began.

After a grand jury indicted Casey for first-degree murder, in October 2008, Casey's " Knight in Shining Armor", Jose Baez, began to bring in reinforcements to defend the case. By March of 2009, Casey's "round table" included as many as eight attorneys working various aspects of the case and several world renowned experts announced they had been retained to work their "magic" on the forensic evidence that was accumulating in the case. This led the State's Attorney to file a motion dubbed "The Pauper To Princess Motion". The State's Attorneys  feared there might be a conflict of interest if Casey's defense attorney was also handling business deals for her.The state knew Casey had no tangible assets to sell to afford this type of defense and wanted assurance that  there were no book or movie deals for her story that might hinge on the outcome of this case and potentially raise appellate issues if there is a conviction. The issue was resolved in a short hearing and a session " in camera" between the Judge, the defense and the state. Judge Strickland ruled that he found no conflict of interest. The transcript from the in camera session was sealed, so speculations about the riches being bestowed upon the Anthonys continued.

That brings us to where we are now in 2010 and the hearing for the Defendant's Motion For Determination Of Indigency For Costs . There were several surprises during this hearing on March 18. The first surprise was a new attorney, Cheney Mason, had joined Casey's defense. Mason addressed the court through-out most of the hearing so I'll refer to his appearance in the hearing here but I'll discuss him more specifically  in a bit.

 When the hearing started Casey Anthony was surrounded by defense attorneys. Cheney Mason on her left, Jose Baez on her right. Linda Kenney-Baden and Andrea Lyons were bringing up the rear. At the prosecution table were Jeff Ashton, along with Linda Drane Burdick and Frank George. An attorney for the Justice Administrative Commission (JAC) participated in the hearing by telephone. (The Justice Administrative Commission is the state agency that oversees funding. The commission has opposed allocating funding for Anthony's defense, saying in court papers it has "severe concerns" about whether Casey Anthony qualifies for financial assistance, given her own financial affidavit attached to her motion that shows she has already contributed over $ 110,000 for her defense.)


Through out this hearing, Princess Casey seemed down right giddy, much like the cat that swallowed the canary. Those surrounding her at the defense table seemed giddy as well, at a minimum, there seemed to be a new found confidence. (Was this man, Cheney Mason,  their new "Knight in Shining Armor"? ) They were so confident in fact, rather than present an accounting of their costs to the court, Cheney Mason beckoned the court to just "trust him" that Casey was broke. Strickland's responded this wasn't a matter of trust, they were seeking public funds and the affidavit provided the court  is "pretty light in terms of full disclosure." Despite defense efforts to provide the disclosure "in camera" it was decided the defense attorneys would testify as to their clients access to funds and the defense expenditures to date in open court.

Mr. Mason called his "witnesses" one by one. Lead (for all intents and purposes)defense attorney Jose Baez testified Thursday that the defense received and spent about $275,000 over the past year and a half. Of that, $5,000 came from an anonymous donor, $70,000 came from a former defense attorney, Todd Macaluso, and $200,000 came from ABC through a "deal" with Anthony.( The terms of the deal were not released.) That money, he said, was spent on defense costs including travel, depositions and retention of experts."It's been quite an expensive task," he said. Baez also testified that he has spent about 2,500 hours 
on the case (adding he hadn't really kept track??), and has been paid an estimated $89,454.

Attorney Andrea Lyon testified she has received $22,500, but all of that money went back into costs associated with the case.  She also added that she has raised about $70,000 (less the $22,000) through charities and as as the Supervisor of the Death Penalty Legal Clinic has enlisted the help of her students at DePaul University College of Law, in Chicago,  IL . The students assist in legal work in exchange for grades. Lyon concluded her testimony about the funds she has handled saying, "There's not a dime" left.

A third defense attorney, Linda Kenney Baden, testified that she is working pro bono on the case. After some questions she added she had torn up a prior retainer agreement because there was no money to pay her.

Cheney Mason told the court, it wasn't as though he and the other attorneys were seeking (their normal bucket of gold)  fees, they were all doing this pro bono (for free).The defense is only seeking help with costs that include service of subpoenas, investigative costs, travel, fees charged by experts to interpret forensic evidence, expert witness fees and the cost of depositions. Mason added, the renowned expert Dr. Henry Lee has been known to work for a crate of oranges.(So that should save some money, eh?)

 Judge Strickland deferred ruling until he had an itemized accounting of money spent so far by the defense.(That's right, the defense brought no proof of expenses to court for a hearing to rule their client indigent.)  Ninth Circuit Judge Stan Strickland ruled on Friday, March 19 that he would grant the motion to declare Casey indigent. So "Princess Casey" is officially a "Pauper" once again.

There was much more to this hour long hearing. If you would like to view the video click here.
The link will take you to the first 3 clips of the video. These first 3 were taken before court started , so is mainly attorneys arriving, Casey rubbing her hands, fixing her shirt, playing with her hair, etc. that page will link you to the rest of the clips, there should be 9.
CNN 

The other surprise announcement in this hearing was the unsealing of an IN CAMERA SEALED MOTION TO DELAY DISCLOSURE that Judge Strickland has allowed the State to keep under wraps for the last month.The State learned that Casey had been communicating with a couple inmates in jail. After interviewing the inmates it was learned Casey had written over 50 letters to one of the inmates. The judge allowed the defense 15 days go over the letters and decide if they would ask the court to seal the letters. I'll tell you more about these letters and friendships in an entry I'm working on that I'll title  "Cookie and Muffin Plan A Road trip". I have more than a few thoughts about Casey's correspondence and choice of friends.

  ~ Casey's New Knight In Shining Armor Or Court Jester?~

The Casey Anthony defense has a new addition to the team, Veteran Orlando Attorney J.Cheney Mason, P. A.  
He has created quite a stir since entering his appearance at the indigency hearing on March 18.

J. Cheney Mason is considered a distinguished member of the Florida Bar Association. According to his website, Mason has been in private practice in the Orlando since 1971. His areas of practice include Criminal Defense, Marital and Family Law (Divorce Law), Entertainment Law and Trial Practice, with a strong emphasis on Marital and Family Law and Criminal Law. Mason is a Board Certified Criminal Trial lawyer certified by both The Florida Bar and the National Board of Trial Advocacy.
Mason is also a frequent guest lecturer before various Bar and Legal Associations and has published numerous legal articles and authored books.
He is currently an "AV" rated lawyer (highest possible rating) by Martindale Hubbell and is listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers. It seems he has had an esteemed career.

It's reported that Mason’s first love is his criminal defense work.“It’s been a special thing to defend the rights of the accused and fight the government for 36 years,” he says. Criminal defense is probably also the work that generates the most attention for Mason. Cheney has tried several criminal jury trials that were televised by national and local news media. He's been linked to the defense of astronaut Lisa Nowak, and several years ago, he defended businessman Nelson Serrano in a quadruple-murder case in Polk County, FL.

My first impression was that Casey Anthony is very lucky to have an attorney of Mason's stature willing to work her case pro bono. Mason is nearing  retirement as he joins this defense team. I think it is safe to say that admirers and detractors alike look forward to Cheney Mason getting this defense team on track.

This defense team, specifically Jose Baez, has come under fire for his inexperience, less than adequate presentations in court, lack of decorum in the courtroom, and mostly for his professed hate of the media but evident love of the camera. These qualities have garnered Mr. Baez some choice nicknames that I prefer not to use but I do understand those who are inclined to do so. Let's face it, few "love" a defense attorney until they need one. I think to be fair he should be commended for building a defense team made up some very high profile lawyers and experts, a caliper of defense you might see in a case for a rich celebrity not some "Party Princess" from Orlando..

My second impression of Cheney Mason was that he is full of bluster and actually rude. In an effort to create a light-hearted moment during the indigency hearing, Judge Strickland pointed out that SA Jeff Ashton had laughed at something he said (about appointing a special master instead of divulging to the court where Casey's money had gone) Mason turned and looked at the prosecution and said, I don't care what the "ignorants" say. Ashton whispered to the others at the state table, "he's joking". There is a time and a place for everything, and a light hearted moment can go a long way in easing tensions inside the courtroom for everyone. Name calling is another matter, frankly this isn't a school playground.

In an impromptu press conference after the same hearing Mr. Mason was asked why he took on this case. His response to one who asked that question was something like," this (defending a death penalty case) is the greatest honor a defense attorney can achieve". That seems a noble response. But when Mason said he took this case on because he thinks it will be "fun" adding he expects to one day walk out of court with Casey Anthony on his arm I thought WTH?
There has been discussion out in blogosphere that this having "fun"comment shouldn't be offensive because everyone should enjoy their work. I agree that it would be sad for someone to spend almost 40 years doing work that they didn't enjoy, and frankly don't think I would want someone to represent me who didn't enjoy what they do. Beyond that I found the remark offensive and inappropriate. This is about a precious child who is dead and a young woman who has spent the last 2 years in jail and it's possible she will spend the rest of her life in jail, if she doesn't end up with the same fate a another 'high profile" client you represented. Mr. Mason, did you have "fun" representing Nelson Serrano? If so, I'm sure he is very appreciative of that from death row.

J. Cheney Mason is often invited by the news media to provide expert commentary on legal issues involving family law and criminal law. Here are a few quotes from one of those commentaries from Mr. Mason about the Casey Anthony case before Caylee's body had been found or Cheney was a member of this defense team :

Defense attorney Cheney Mason said claims made by Casey Anthony and Baez that Caylee was alive will now work against them at trial

“Then all the talking, all the press interviews and the parents going on this show and that show and the lawyer going on different shows establishes they have no credibility whatsoever,” Mason said.

“You can pretty well predict there’s going to be a life sentence, either a plea and get it over with or have a circus trial and then be convicted and get life,” Mason said

These quotes are excerpts from an  November 2008 article by Local 6 News reporter Tony Pipitone as he continued his investigation into the Casey Anthony murder case, discussing its merits with former prosecutor, Elizabeth Rahter, and  prominent defense attorney J. Cheney Mason.

Casey and the rest of the defense may see Cheney Mason as a "Knight In Shining Armor", but after his remarks and the attitude he displayed in his first appearance in this case, katfish is left to ponder......his performance thus far puts me more in mind of a joker, or more appropriately a "Court Jester".

Check back for the continuing Saga of the Quest for Justice for Caylee......        

WKMG
MyFoxOrlando

Sphere: Related Content

Judge Orders Mental Fitness Hearing for Sheley

Today was another hearing at the Knox County Courthouse for Nicholas Sheley, 29, a Sterling, Illinois man accused of a two-state killing spree that left eight dead.

Sheley faces a 17 count indictment in Knox County for kidnapping, killing, and robbing 65 year old Ronald Randall of Galesburg, and stealing Randall's 2007 Chevy pickup. If convicted Sheley will face the death penalty.

I got to the courthouse early to be sure I could get a seat in the courtroom. The only spectators in the courtroom are three women sitting in the front row. I sit right behind them in the second row. (same seat I had last hearing). We spoke a bit before the hearing and I learned they are the victim's, Ronald Randall, sisters. This was an exceptionally brutal crime perpetrated against their brother; however, they seemed very composed and I could sense their resolve in seeing that justice is served.

When I told them I was blogging about the case, I think they were a little surprised that there are people from all over that are following this case. They seemed interested and got my name and blog address. I also directed them to a few other blogs where I had seen coverage. A few moments later Ronald's daughter came in with a friend, followed by Shirley Pringle, a victims rights advocate. I'm really glad to see this family has a strong support system. I asked if they were being kept up to date by the prosecution and they said yes, they are.

I really don't want to impose on the family so I try to just sit and watch who is coming in the courtroom. It looks like the hearing won't start early this time, it's 1:15 before most people start coming in and sitting. Two men in suits come in. I don't recognize them but one of them stops to say hello to Ronald's family and the other sat somewhere behind me. After the first man moved on, one of the sisters told me he was Whiteside County State's Attorney, Gary Spencer.

I had read in the local paper that Spencer was at the September 11 hearing as well ( I missed that hearing). Evidently, as the prosecutor in Sheley's regular stomping grounds, he and Sheley are quite familiar with each other. It was reported in the Galesburg Register-Mail that at the end of the hearing, Spencer caught Sheley’s eye on his way out of the courtroom. “Mr. Spencer, it’s a pleasure to see you,” Sheley said.“I wish I could say the same,” Spencer replied. LOL, yep I'd say they have a history.

After Sheley's case is resolved in Knox County, Spencer will have the next crack at prosecuting Sheley. In Whiteside County, Sheley faces an indictment with 5 counts of first-degree murder in the death of a 93 year old man from Sterling and another 15 counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of 4 people found bludgeoned to death in a Rock Falls apartment, including a 2 year old boy. I haven't heard how these cases will be handled, whether 1 trial or 2 since there were 2 separate incidents. The 15 count indictment includes aggravating factors in three of the counts that will make Sheley eligible for the death penalty in Whiteside County too. The state has 120 days from September 18 to decide if they will seek the death penalty.

Over the next few minutes the courtroom fills up and Sheley is brought in. As usual he is fully shackled and sporting that jailhouse orange. He's clutching an expansion folder in his arms as the deputies lead him to a seat at the defense table. He looks very tired today. IMO, if indeed he is guilty of the brutal crimes he is accused of, he doesn't deserve a good nights sleep ever again.

Ninth Circuit Judge James Stewart enters the courtroom and the hearing begins. This hearing was scheduled to hear Nicholas Sheley's concern about the effectiveness of his counsel. Stewart asks Sheley if he has made a decision about his representation. Sheley replied," At this time I would like to represent myself or have other counsel appointed." Stewart told Sheley that is two options and he has to decide one way or the other. Sheley said," At this time I will defend myself."

Defense co-counsel Jeremy Karlin tells the court they have doubt of Sheley's fitness to stand trial, his competency to knowingly wave his right to counsel and represent himself. Judge Stewart says Sheley must undergo a fitness hearing to determine whether or not he is fit to stand trial and can knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently wave his right to counsel and represent himself.

The judge then asks the prosecution for a response and Knox County State's Attorney John Pepmeyer told him, "The prosecution has no position on the motion." Stewart responds, "thanks" in a manner that made for a rare light moment in the courtroom.

Sheley speaks up again and says he has the written motion the court had requested at the last hearing describing how he wants to proceed. Sheley also said he made copies for the attorneys.

Karlin objects to the court accepting the motions before Sheley's fitness is determined. Karlin says, '' We have a bonafide concern about his fitness to stand trial and his competency to represent himself. Either we are his attorneys, or we're not''.

Public Defender James Harrell requests that Sheley's motion be sealed until fitness is determined. Stewart grants that request and then addresses Sheley, he says that concern has been raised about his competency and that the defense attorneys have an obligation to the state as well as the defendant. The Illinois Supreme Court has guidelines and the work being done by the attorneys will be subject to review. Stewart also told Sheley if he is found to be fit to stand trial, he will ask the Chief Judge to appoint a different judge to decide the competency of the defense.

Pepmeyer requests they tie up some loose ends. He says on September 12, the people filed their answer to discovery. They were in compliance with the discovery order and everything was included except the DNA testing.

Harrell says the defense hasn't had the opportunity to go through all of the discovery volumes.
The judge asks the defense about the DNA expert they plan to hire and Karlin said that they do have an order that identifies their expert. Someone on the prosecution side commented that the expert the defense mentioned before wasn't available soon enough.

Things got a little confusing here because Sheley tried to interrupt and address the court. Judge Stewart told him that he would not be allowed to address the court until after a fitness hearing.
After being silenced by the judge Sheley became visibly upset, his face turned red and he scooted his chair around so that his back was to the judge and his attorneys. The sound of Sheley trying to scoot his wood chair on the floor while fully shackled and rustling the papers he held brought all attention to him. He closed his eyes for a bit and eventually turned himself back around. For the remainder of the hearing he took some notes and rustled papers occasionally but otherwise stayed quiet.

Pepmeyer tells the court he would like to have a firm date for the DNA testing so that the trial can go ahead. Harrell responds it's a moot point because fitness needs to be determined first.
Pepmeyer shoots back that the DNA testing should occur regardless of fitness.

Assistant Attorney General Michael Atterberry enters a motion to attribute the delay to the defense. The defense moves that the count of the delay shouldn't start until September 3.

My notes show the issue of protocal for appointing a fitness expert was raised. I didn't note who brought it up but it is agreed there are three issues to be determined:
1. fitness for trial
2.competency of counsel
3. competency to represent himself.

Pepmeyer moves to vacate the hearing scheduled for September 24. The next hearing will be September 26 at 10 a.m.. The hearing was over.

Sphere: Related Content

Nicholas Sheley charged in 4 more deaths.

Nicholas Sheley has now been charged in all 8 deaths connected to an alleged two-state killing spree in late June.


According to the Illinois Attorney Generals office, a grand jury has indicted Sheley in the deaths of four people found in a Rock Falls, Illinois apartment on June 30, 2008.


The indictment consists of 15 counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of Kilynna Blake, 20, of Cedar City, Utah - her son Dayan Blake, 2, of Cedar City, Utah - her fiancé Brock Branson, 29, of Rock Falls - and Kenneth Ulve Jr., 25, of Rock Falls. They all died of multiple blunt force trauma to the head. Three of the 15 counts allege that one of the victims was younger than 12 years and his death resulted from exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior indicative of wanton cruelty. Spencer has 120 days after arraignment to decide whether to seek the death penalty. Bond in Whiteside County has been set at $100,000,000.

Sheley previously had been charged with four other killings.

Sheley is facing 17 charges in Knox County in the beating death of 65-year-old Ronald Randall and faces the death penalty if convicted.

He also is charged in Whiteside County with five counts of first-degree murder in the death of Russell Reed, 93, of Sterling and faces murder charges in Missouri in the deaths of Jill and Tom Estes of Sherwood, Ark.

After telling the court at a Sept. 11 hearing that he was dissatisfied with current defense attorney’s Jim Harrell and Jeremy Karlin, Ninth Circuit Judge James Stewart told Sheley to write a motion specifically detailing the issues he has with his attorneys and whether he wishes to represent himself.
As of noon Thursday, that motion had not been received in the Knox County Circuit Clerk’s office. A hearing in anticipation of that motion and a matter of what side the delay will be attributed to is scheduled for today. I will be attending this hearing and will let you know what happens.
http://www.galesburg.com/news/x1374606771/Sheley-indicted-in-4-Whiteside-County-deaths

http://www.wrex.com/global/story.asp?s=9034195

Sphere: Related Content

Will Nicholas Sheley represent himself in Knox County Case?

Accused spree-killer Nicholas Sheley told Ninth Circuit Judge James Stewart he is unhappy with his lawyers during a hearing in Knox County, IL. on Thursday.

Reading from a prepared written statement, Sheley told the court he was concerned about how his case was being handled. “I am not looking for advice or sympathy,” he said. “I have questions in regards to the law and my understanding my rights.”

Sheley said he has been “blown off” by his public defender Jim Harrell and co-counsel Jeremy Karlin. He accused his attorneys of “fast lawyer talk” and said he wants his lawyers to adhere to his request for a speedy trial and not their own wishes. “My lawyers will do anything to continue this. It is their choice not mine."

Sheley asked the court for guidance in three matters: do his attorneys have the legal right to do what they want in this case or does he have a say in decisions; is he allowed his own copies of discovery documents; and should delays such as a fitness hearing be allowed if it interferes with his speedy trial demand.

Sheley argued a fitness hearing was unnecessary. “I am fit. I have knowledge of the charges and consequences. I feel my social abilities are above more than normal,” he said.

Judge Stewart told Sheley he has the right to make decisions on pleas and plea agreements but legal decisions are made by the lawyers. He told Sheley his only options are to hire a private attorney certified by the Capital Litigation Trial Board or represent himself.

Stewart requested Sheley draft a hand-written motion describing how he wants to proceed.

After the court receives the motion, Stewart will schedule a hearing.

This hearing had been scheduled as a status hearing about the defense team's hiring of a DNA expert. The issue of hiring a DNA expert was not decided. Karlin said the defense has found a DNA expert they intend to hire but he isn't available until October 20. The state said the DNA testing has been scheduled and they are ready to proceed.

The state also turned over more discovery documents to the defense on Thursday. There are now over 4,300 paper documents in this case. Knox County State's Attorney John Pepmeyer said another 1,000 pages of documents are in the process of being copied.

When asked after the hearing if he planned to represent himself, Sheley said people would “have to wait and see.”

Sheley faces 17 charges in connection with the bludgeoning death 65-year-old Ronald Randall of Galesburg and faces the death penalty if convicted.

He also is charged with the murders of a Whiteside County man and a husband and wife in Missouri.

Sheley is suspected of killing four people in a Rock Falls apartment but has not been charged in that crime.

I really don't know what to make of all this. I don't for a minute think that Sheley isn't aware of his rights. He is quite familiar with the legal system. Of course he is entitled to a speedy trial and if that is what he wants, that is what he should get. However; it's doubtful that he can afford his own lawyer so he has a big choice to make. I haven't heard of any response from his lawyers. I'll let you know if I do.

resources...

http://www.galesburg.com/news/x55301469/Sheley-not-happy-with-his-lawyers

http://www.saukvalley.com/articles/2008/06/27/news/local/588792a7b9b8a728af665e19e15597b6.txt

Sphere: Related Content