7/27/2009Today InSession on TruTV showed the verdict and sentencing of Mark Jensen for the murder of Julie Jensen. We knew that the verdict was guilty and he was sentenced to Life without Parole. I still found it very compelling to watch this all unfold again. Like I say in my introduction to my blog, criminal trials show the very best and the very worst of mankind, IMO this case exemplifies that.
A couple of the key players in this trial called into the coverage on InSession today which I found very interesting. Special prosecutor Robert Jambois called into "Courtside" with Jack Ford and the jury foreperson called into "The Best Defense" with Jamie Floyd. Unfortunately, I missed "Open Court" with Ashley Banfield so I can't tell you any updates from that show.
Robert Jambois pointed out that his co-counsel Angelina Gabrielle had a very strong role in developing the state's case, much more so than accredited in the media. So kudos to Ms. Gabrielle as well! One thing that I found most interesting about Mr. Jambois comments was that in this day and age a conviction by a jury is only a step in the process of a case, particularly this case. Jambois fully expects this case to go through the State of appeals court, The Wisconsin Supreme Court and eventually the US Supreme Court.
The jury foreman who called into "The Best Defense" didn't have a lot to say, but he did reconfirm that this jury took their jobs very seriously and they painstakingly came to a verdict they all could live with. I must say I have never heard of a jury as thorough and dedicated as this one...they came to court through horrific Winter weather for almost 8 weeks. When it came time for deliberation, they deliberated for 3 days, but in those 3 days they deliberated some 36 hours (until almost midnight the first day) and asked for over 80 items of evidence to review.
In closing, When I followed my link here to the WSCCA to check on the appeal in this case, the link didn't work. Did we burn it out ? hehe.. I have corrected the link, so if you previously had problems it should work now. What I found was that the attorney for Jensen, Christopher Rose, filed a Motion Response July 23 to the state's Motion Response to his Petition To Bypass. The state's Briefing is still pending and due July 30. This is going to be a long process. Katfishponders will continue to follow the appeal and update what is found. I have heard several defense attorney's say they think the conviction will be overturned on case law....we'll have to wait and see. In the mean time all the best to Julie Jensen's loved ones, and a sincere wish that you do not have to go through another trial.
7/22/2009I'm bumping this article up because TruTV is re-airing their coverage of this trial. If you have a chance to catch any of it, I recommend it. Of course they will condense the coverage this time around but I would think it will still last a week or two as the original trial lasted for over a month.This case included some fine examples of advocacy by both the state and the defense. Craig Albee is actually one of the finest defense lawyers I have seen in all of the trials that I have watched. If I were accused of a crime (not likely) this is the guy I would want.
To see the complete coverage of this case on Katfishponders click here.
I also wanted to give an update on the progress of the appeal in this case. As of this writing the case is in briefing, the Appellant (Defendant) have filed their briefs and the Respondent (Plaintiff) are expected to file their briefs (legal arguments) by July 30. Attorney for Jensen, Christopher Rose, filed a Petition to Bypass on July 7, and the attorney for the state, Marguerite Moeller, filed a Motion Response the same day. The case is On Hold while the Motion and Petition are pending.
For those who (like me) aren't legal eagles, a Petition to Bypass is a document filed with the Supreme Court during the pendency of an appeal in the Court of Appeals asking the Supreme Court to take jurisdiction of the appeal prior to the issuance of a decision by the Court of Appeals.
Katfishponders will continue to monitor the appeal and keep you posted as it progresses.
UPDATE 1/12/2009I have done some extra digging and found this information at the Wisconsin Court of Appeals website:Summary of Appeal- This shows the status of the case as closed.
Case History- This shows an Attorney Change on 10/16/2008.
Also shows that on 12/22/2008 the time for filing transcripts
in this case is extended to 1/19/2009.
UPDATE 4/08/2009Memorandum of Dying Declaration-I
came across this memorandum written by Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder to further explain his decision to admit Julie Jensen's letter as her Dying Declaration.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mark Jensen is a Kenosha WI. man who sits in jail, facing life in prison with no chance for parole. Jensen, 48 was found guilty on February 21, 2008 for the 1998 poisoning death of his wife Julie Jensen, 40. Prosecutors alleged that Jensen was having an affair and poisoned his wife so he could be free of her. The defense says Julie Jensen was despondent about the affair, killed herself and tried to frame her husband.
This trial was notable for many reasons, the length of time it took to bring this case to trial, the excellent representation by both the prosecution and the defense, the dramatic evidence of his-and-hers flings, X-rated e-mail exchanges and Internet searches for poisons. Prosecutors also presented testimony from a co-worker of Mark Jensen who said Jensen had told him he was looking on the Internet for poisons to kill his wife and from a jailhouse snitch who said Jensen had made incriminating remarks behind bars. The drama lasted up to the final moment of testimony, when a prosecution forensics expert dipped her fingers into a Styrofoam cup of antifreeze, tasted it and described the flavor as "sweet."
A few weeks before her death, Julie Jensen had given a neighbor a letter pointing an accusing finger at her husband should anything happen to her. She also made foreboding comments to police and to her son's teacher, saying she suspected that her husband was trying to kill her. The letter, read aloud in court, said in part: "I pray I'm wrong + nothing happens ... but I am suspicious of Mark's suspicious behaviors + fear for my early demise," the letter says. " Click
here to read the letter.
Legal wrangling over the letter and Julie Jensen's statements delayed the trial for years.
Using such evidence in court has for years been blocked by strict hearsay rules giving criminal defendants the right to confront their accusers. In March 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a 1980 case,
Crawford vs. Washington, that laid out complex rules for when statements can be used without the opportunity for cross-examination. The court said the case complicated a part of the Constitution (sixth amendment) that guarantees a criminal defendant the right to confront his accusers.
Kenosha County Judge Bruce Schroeder then ruled the letter and voice mails to police were inadmissible, but testimony of the neighbor and teacher could be allowed. Prosecutors appealed and the case went to the state Supreme Court, which said such previously inadmissible testimony could be used if a judge determined the defendants' actions prevented the witnesses from testifying. The Wisconsin Supreme Court based its decision on the "doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing." Essentially, it said that Mark Jensen forfeited his Constitutional right to face his accuser, because his alleged actions (murdering his wife) made it impossible for her to appear in court. Judge Schroeder decided it was reasonable to believe that Mark Jensen's actions prevented his wife from testifying.
For years, authorities said Julie Jensen had died of multiple doses of ethylene glycol, commonly used as antifreeze. But testimony during the trial also indicated that she might have been smothered with her pillow. Inmate Aaron Dilliard, an admitted con man, testified that Mark Jensen indicated to him that he suffocated his wife when the poison did not appear to be working fast enough. Dillard testified that Jensen said he sat on Julie's back and pushed her face into the pillow. Crime scene photos show Julie's nose and mouth pushed to the left side. Her face was found deep in the pillow, according to testimony.
Another inmate, bank robber David Thompson, testified that Jensen told him last year that he killed his wife and asked him to help kidnap and "sit on" a witness until after the trial. The conversation was overheard by a third inmate, Bernard Bush. Bush said he heard a total figure of $100,000 being discussed, with $50,000 up front and $50,000 at the completion of the abduction. The would-be target was Ed Klug, Jensen's former co-worker.
Ed Klug was an investment broker who worked under Mark Jensen. He said that a month after they met, they drank together at a work conference and complained about their wives. Mark Jensen said he wanted to poison his wife and he went to Web sites that featured hard-to-trace poisons. Klug told his wife and several co-workers. One co-worker told another co-worker who went to authorities, who contacted him this year. Klug said he didn't come forward nine years sooner because he was afraid for his job since Mark Jensen was his boss.
Prosecutor Robert Jambois called experts who say they found evidence of suffocation. The defense experts disagreed. Defense attorney Craig Albee called his own poison expert to say Julie Jensen could have taken repeated doses of poison herself, contradicting the prosecution's poison expert and called mental health experts as well. Mark Jensen did not take the stand.
A jury of seven women and five men deliberated for 32 hours over a three day period before reaching a guilty verdict. After the verdict, jurors told reporters that the letter gave them "a clear road map" to conviction, as one female juror phrased it. Another female juror said he believed Mark Jensen was trying to push his wife over the edge. "He tortured Julie hoping she could be classically diagnosed as a nutcase," she said.
Through out all of this trial, Julie Jensen's four brothers attended court everyday in support of their sister. They also constructed a web site called
oursisterjulie.com . The website is a wonderful tribute to their sister and the woman that she was. They have also made a timeline of this case that is invaluable to those who might be interested in this case and provided a lot of information about domestic abuse and poisoning. Just click on the link above to go there.
In all fairness, Mark Jensen's family also supported him. His parents, his current wife (the woman he was having the affair with ten years ago) and Mark and Julie's two sons. They too have developed a web site in support of Mark, which I will not link to because I feel he is guilty.
Here is a message they posted on the site:
We are appealing for a new trial. Mark is broke and cannot pay for a new trial. His attorney is asking for $40,000 for past trial expenses. Mark sold his paid-for home of $240,000, liquidated his IRA, his 401k, his stock portfolio, and savings to pay for this trial. His attorney got it all. The attorney will not defend an appeal unless more funds are forthcoming.In June of 2008 there was another Supreme Court ruling,
Giles vs. California, that may enable Mark Jensen to have his conviction thrown out.The Supreme Court ruled that defendants must be able to cross-examine the person who is accusing them of a crime even in cases where the defendant killed that person. That means the letter Julie wrote to police, in which she said Mark was trying to kill her, and her statements to friends about the same thing, could not be used as evidence in court.
This ruling does not guarantee Mark Jensen’s freedom, or even a new trial. The judge in his case ruled that Julie’s letter and statements were a dying declaration, evidence of her state of mind at the time of her death. The state appeals court is reviewing that. If they rule the statements were a dying declaration, the Supreme Court decision will not apply and Mark will remain in prison. Otherwise, he might become a free man.
sourcesCNNTMJ4
Sphere: Related Content
Posts
