Mark Jensen 2008 Murder Conviction Affirmed !

On December 29, 2010 the Wisconsin Supreme Court of Appeal filed their decision in  Mark Jensen's appeal of his 2008 conviction for the 1998 murder of his wife, Julie Jensen.

In it's decision the court stated, "Mark D. Jensen appeals from a judgment of conviction for the first-degree intentional homicide of his wife Julie Jensen contrary to Wis. Stat.  Jensen presents many arguments on appeal, none of which persuade. We affirm."

I included a link to the court's decision above for those anxious to read the decision for themselves. I do intend to write more about the ruling, after pondering it a few more times. It is lengthy. I just wanted to let you know that Mark Jensen's conviction and life sentence stands!

This case's status is now listed as PR, Pending Remittitur, due by January 28,2011.
(PR is case status indicating that a decision has been issued and the case is waiting for the case record, where one was filed, to be returned to the circuit court, or the file to be closed, if there is no case record.)

Given that the loss of Julie's life so outweighs any victory this ruling provides to Special Prosecutor Robert Jambois and his co-counsel Angelina Gabriele or Julie's loved ones, I don't know if congratulations are appropriate, but I hope that they all will have a long earned respite from the stress of this quest for justice that's been battled for over a decade. You have all done Julie's memory justice!
I will never forget the statement given by the prosecution after Jensen's conviction in 2008 and want to share it with you:

.
The Associated Press reports that Mark Jensen's attorney, Christopher Rose, says he'll ask the state Supreme Court to take the case.....not a big surprise. Sphere: Related Content

Mark Jensen Awaiting Opinion/ Decision From Appellate Court

Mark Jensen

update 12/29/2010
 MARK JENSEN LOSES APPEAL


ORIGINAL REPORT:
Mark Jensen filed to appeal  his  first-degree murder conviction back in June 2008 but the appeal wasn't opened until April 2009. This week the appeal has finally been assigned to a three Judge panel with the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District 2. On June 24, 2010 all briefs were submitted and the case is now pending an opinion/decision.

Julie Jensen

 Jensen was convicted of first- degree murder in February 2008 for the Ethylene Glycol (antifreeze) poisoning of his wife Julie in December 1998. The case took 10 years to come to trial because of evidentiary issues, including a letter written by Julie several weeks before her death.

Julie gave the letter to a neighbor with instruction the letter was to be given to police in the event of her death. The letter detailed her suspicions that Mark may have been planning to kill her.This case has become widely known as "The case of the letter from the grave."

At the end of the murder trial Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder  ruled the letter was Julie's Dying Declaration. The WI Supreme Court had already ruled the letter was admissible under the "Forfeiture of Wrong Doing Clause" if Judge Schroeder, after conducting a forfeiture hearing,  found by a preponderance of evidence that it was likely Mark had killed Julie to keep her from testifying. With that ruling Mark forfeited his right to confront his accuser. Special Prosecutor Robert Jambois said in 2009 that he won't be surprised if this case makes it to the US Supreme Court because of the constitutional issues involved.

Katfish...ponders doesn't know how long it will take for an opinion/decision to be reached but I'll continue to keep a close eye on the case. Both parties have requested they be allowed oral arguments,  I assume that will be considered and hope it is allowed. There is a mountain of evidence to be considered in this case, so it may take some time. Mark Jensen was sentenced to life in prison with no chance for parole and is serving his sentence at the Dodge Correctional Institution in Waupun, WI.

Click here to see earlier coverage at Katfish...ponders of this case and the appeal of the conviction. Throughout these entries are links to various legal documents, Julie's letter and the WI Court of Appeals website and media coverage. Here is a link to a site constructed by Julie Jensen's brothers in her memory. oursisterjulie.com It is a lovely tribute and a great one-stop place to learn about this case..

A final note, many have asked where Mark and Julie's son's are and about Mark's marriage to Kelly (LeBonte) Jensen.( Mark's mistress at the time of Julie's death and wife soon after.) On the memorial website Julie's brothers have a time line where they note that in April 2008, Kelly Jensen was named as legal guardian of Mark & Julie’s youngest son. (The older son is of legal age.) Julie’s brother was  granted co-guardian of his estate to insure money is properly set up for his future. In May 2009, Kelly filed for divorce from Mark. There are links to some of the legal documents about the divorce in the older entries here at Katfish....ponders. Sphere: Related Content

Mark Jensen Appeal - The State's Response

UPDATE 12/29/2010- MARK JENSEN LOSES APPEAL 

UPDATE: 2/19/2010
The defense has filed a Reply Brief to the State's Response Brief that was addressed in the entry below. I don't have time to go through it right now but wanted to get it posted.

Mark Jensen 50, is a Kenosha WI man who was convicted on February 21, 2008 for the 1998 poisoning death of his wife Julie Jensen, 40. He was sentenced to life in prison with no chance for parole and now calls the Dodge Correctional Institution in Waupun, WI home.

Of course Jensen is appealling his conviction. The appeal which was opened in April of 2009 is slowly making it's way through the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. Christopher W. Rose is the attorney who has been representing Mark Jensen/ Defendant/Appellant. Marguerite M. Moeller has been taking care of the filings for the State/Plaintiff/Respondent. To see the case history of the appeal click here. As of this writing the case is "In briefing".

Here is a little background on this case and some of the issues from the trial that are being raised on appeal:

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.

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.

The Appellants Brief was filed with the Wisconsin State Court Of Appeals on 6/30/09. The Appellants Brief wasn't published, but on 2/01/10 the state filed their 79 page Brief of Respondent with the court and it was . It addresses the issues the Appellants raised and references some of the arguments made by the Appellant in their brief. I recommend that you follow my link to the Respondent's Brief for in depth explanation of the state's responses.

The issues raised by the defendant are presented in black italic.
The state's responses are presented in capital letters and a summary of the arguments to support their responses are in regular script, the page number to the in depth argument is included. In responding, the state addressed more than one issue in some of their responses so I arranged them accordingly here.

1. Were Julie Jensen's letter to the police and her oral statements to Officer Kosman admissible under the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Giles v. California because one of Mark Jensen's reasons for killing Julie was to prevent her from invoking the judicial system by initiating divorce and child custody proceedings against him, thereby satisfying the intent element of Giles? The trial court did not address this question because when it found that Jensen by killing his wife had forfeited
the right to confront her, the court did so under the version of forfeiture by wrongdoing ("FBW") the Wisconsin Supreme Court had adopted in Jensen's pretrial appeal,
and that version lacks an intent element.

2. Alternatively, should this court remand to the trial court to determine this issue? This question was not raised below. (lower court)

I. JULIE JENSEN'S LETTER AND HER TESTIMONIAL STATEMENTS TO OFFICER KOSMAN ARE ADMISSIBLE UNDER GILES'S VERSION OF
FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING BECAUSE ONE REASON JENSEN KILLED HIS WIFE WAS TO PREVENT HER TESTIMONY IN ANY FAMILY COURT PROCEEDING..................................5
A. Post-Giles, proof that one reason Jensen killed Julie was to prevent her from testifying in a family court action is sufficient for forfeiture. .............6
1. Cases applying Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(6) support this position. .......7
2. Jensen's narrow view of forfeiture conflicts with the view of the entire Giles Court........11
B. The record shows that one reason Jensen killed Julie was to prevent her testimony in a divorce/child custody action......................................................12
C. Alternatively, this court should remand for a determination on the
intent element of forfeiture. ...................16

3. Assuming this court answers the first two questions "no," was the admission of Julie Jensen's letter to police and her testimonial statements to Officer Kosman harmless error? This question was not raised below.

II. ANY ERROR IN ADMITTING JULIE'S TESTIMONIAL STATEMENTS WAS
HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. .............................17
A. The test for harmless error. ....................17
B. Most of the information in the letter and in Julie's statements to Kosman was duplicated by other admissible evidence. ................................................18
C. Even if the letter had not been admitted in the State's case-in-chief, the jury still would have learned of its existence and some of its content. .........22
D. The case against Jensen was strong even without Julie's testimonial statements...............................................24

4. By failing to raise it below, has Jensen waived the argument that his right to a fair trial was violated when the judge who found Jensen had forfeited his right to confront the victim presided at his murder trial? Alternatively, did Judge Schroeder's pretrial finding that the State had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Jensen killed Julie render the judge biased against Jensen? These questions were not raised below.

III. JENSEN HAS WAIVED THE ARGUMENT THAT HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL WAS VIOLATED WHEN THE JUDGE WHO MADE THE FORFEITURE FINDING PRESIDED AT
JENSEN'S MURDER TRIAL; ALTERNATIVELY, JENSEN HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE
JUDICIAL BIAS............................................32
A. Jensen has waived the claim that the trial judge was biased.............................32
B. Judge Schroeder's pretrial forfeiture ruling is not tantamount to a pretrial
finding of guilt and does not constitute judicial bias............................33

5. Did the trial court erroneously exercise its discretion when it allowed the State to present evidence that Jensen, during the years preceding his wife's death, had repeatedly and surreptitiously placed pornographic photos on and around their property to punish Julie Jensen for a brief extramarital affair? The trial court ruled that this evidence was admissible to prove one of Jensen's motives for killing his wife, i.e., his bitterness toward her and his need to punish her for the affair.

6. Relatedly, did the trial court erroneously exercise its discretion in admitting evidence of Jensen's sex talk with Kelly Jensen, including a discussion of the size of her former lovers' penises, to show that Jensen searched the home computer for "John Jock Joseph" in October 1998 and that he was the source of the photos left around the Jensen home? The trial court admitted the evidence.

7. Did the trial court erroneously exercise its discretion in admitting testimony that penis photos were found on Jensen's home computer in 1998 and his work computer in 2002, to establish that Jensen was the person who had left pornographic photos around the family home for years? The trial court admitted the evidence.

IV. EVIDENCE THAT JENSEN HAD FOR YEARS LEFT PORNOGRAPHIC PHOTOS ON THE JENSEN PROPERTY TO PUNISH JULIE FOR A BRIEF AFFAIR WAS PROPER OTHER-ACTS EVIDENCE DESIGNED TO PROVE MOTIVE AND TO EXPLAIN THE DYNAMICS OF
THEIR MARRIAGE; PORNOGRAPHY RELATED EVIDENCE FROM JENSEN'S COMPUTERS AND EVIDENCE OF JENSEN'S SEX TALK WITH KELLY WAS NOT OTHER ACTS
EVIDENCE BUT WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED FOR OTHER
PURPOSES. ...................................................37
A. Only Jensen's conduct in leaving the pornographic photos should be analyzed as "other-acts" evidence..........37
B. Evidence that Jensen had for years left pornographic photos around the house to punish Julie for her brief affair was relevant to prove motive and to explain the dynamics of their
marriage. ................................................42
C. Storing penis photos on his work computer in 2002 made it more likely Jensen had accessed similar pornography on the home computer in 1998, which in turn helped prove he was the one who left pornographic photos around the home and accessed poisoning sites before Julie's death........45
D. Sex talk between Kelly and Jensen helped prove he searched for John Jock Joseph in October 1998 and also helped identify Jensen as the source of the pornographic photos....................48
E. Jensen failed to prove that the probative value of any of the challenged evidence was
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. .....................50

10. Was the seizure and search of Jensen's home computer a valid consent search? The trial court said yes.

V. THE SEIZURE AND SEARCH OF JENSEN'S COMPUTER DID NOT EXCEED THE SCOPE OF HIS CONSENT. ....................................................53

8. Assuming Jensen killed his wife in part to prevent her from initiating family court proceedings, did he thereby forfeit any hearsay objections to the admission of her testimonial statements?This question was not raised below.

9. By killing his wife, did Jensen forfeit any hearsay objections to the admission of her nontestimonial statements to other witnesses, regardless of his motivation in killing her? The trial court said yes.

VI. BECAUSE JENSEN HAS FORFEITED HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONT JULIE'S TESTIMONIAL STATEMENTS UNDER GILES, AND HIS STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CONFRONT HER NONTESTIMONIAL STATEMENTS UNDER JENSEN, JULIE'S STATEMENTS DID NOT HAVE TO SATISFY A HEARSAY
EXCEPTION. ................................................57
A. A defendant who forfeits the right to object to a witness's testimony on Sixth Amendment grounds also forfeits the right to object on hearsay grounds...................................................58
B. This court is bound by the supreme court's determination that, by killing Julie, Jensen forfeited any confrontation objection to her nontestimonial statements under the Wisconsin Constitution, and that forfeiture ruling should extend to any hearsay objection..........................61
C. Most of Julie's nontestimonial statements were admissible for nonhearsay purposes, i.e., as
circumstantial evidence that she was not suicidal.............................................64
　
11. Should this court grant Jensen a new trial in the interest of justice?　
VII. JENSEN SHOULD NOT RECEIVE A NEW TRIAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE........................................................65

CONCLUSIONThis court should affirm the circuit court's judgment.
STATEMENT ON ORAL ARGUMENT AND PUBLICATIONAlthough Jensen provides no reason for requesting oral argument, the State joins in his request because argument would allow the parties to focus their attention on issues the court may find troubling or in need of additional development, a situation likely to arise given the sheer volume of the record and the number of issues raised on appeal. The State also requests oral argument
because due to the word-count limitation established in this court's order of December 14, 2009, the State's brief is not as comprehensive as it could be in addressing each of the issues Jensen has raised on appeal. Oral argument would allow the State to articulate its position in more detail.
If this court orders oral argument, the State respectfully requests that the court specify the issues it would like the parties to address. The State also suggests that the court consider enlarging the time allotted for oral argument from the typical thirty minutes per side to a
longer period, the precise time dependent on the number of issues targeted.
The State requests publication of the court's decision if it addresses the contours of forfeiture by wrongdoing under Giles v. California, 128 S. Ct. 2678 (2008), or if the court determines whether the version of forfeiture by wrongdoing adopted in State v. Jensen, 2007 WI 26, 299
Wis. 2d 267, 727 N.W.2d 518, still applies to nontestimonial statements.
Anticipated Due Date for the Appellant's Reply Brief is 2/16/2010.
This case will be heard by a panel of 3 judges.
Katfishponders will continue to follow the appeal and update what is found.
To see the details of the trial and coverage of this case on Katfishponders click

Sphere: Related Content

An Absence Of Blogging DOES NOT Indicate An Absence Of Interest

Happy New Year readers! Hope your holidays were merry!

You might have noticed it has been a while since Katfishponders has been updated. There hasn't been much time for the computer with the holidays and tending to a few "leaks in the pond", however, as I indicated in the title, the interest is still there. :)

This entry will summarize two of the cases featured on Katfishponders in 2009 and give you an update on where they stand at the beginning of 2010:


Mark Jensen

Mark Jensen 50, is a Kenosha WI man sentenced to life in prison with no chance for parole. Jensen was found guilty on February 21, 2008 for the 1998 poisoning death of his wife Julie Jensen, 40. Attorney General Bob Jambois argued that Jensen poisoned his wife with anti-freeze and then suffocated her so he could start a new life with his mistress. Indeed, Jensen's mistress, Kelly LaBonte moved into Mark and Julies home shortly after Julie Jensen's death, and she and Mark Jensen were married in 2002.


The 2008 trial was a high profile case covered on CourtTV and live streamed on the internet. To see the complete coverage of this case on Katfishponders click here.


Mark Jensen (also known as inmate# #525607) calls the Dodge Correctional Institution in Waupun, WI home as he awaits the appeal of his case. The appeal which was opened in April of 2009 is slowly making it's way through the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. As of this writing, the case maintenance is listed as "In briefing, Motion pending, Pending supplemental record". To see the case history of the appeal click here. Katfishponders will continue to follow the appeal and update what is found.


In 2009 this case continued to garner attention, InSession (formerly CourtTV) showed the trial again in July. On October 25, the Investigation Discovery Channel aired a 48 Hours Mystery segment entitled "The Letter" about the case. The segment featured interviews with many involved in the case including family of both Julie and Mark.


A reader recently commented that Kelly was granted a default judgment of divorce from Mark Jensen in October. The divorce was published in the newspaper on December 27. Here is another link with details of the divorce case. Is anyone surprised by this development?



Stacey Barker

Stacey Barker is a 24 year old woman from Lancaster CA accused of suffocating her 18 month old daughter, Emma Leigh Barker, to death on March 18, 2009.


Stacey Barker initially told police Emma was abducted from her car in the parking lot of a Lancaster, CA park as they prepared to leave. She claimed she was knocked out by the kidnapper and woke up six hours later, several miles away at the Palmdale Park-n-Ride. Detectives said Barker had injuries consistent with a struggle, including bruises on her head and was taken to the hospital for treatment.

Authorities say Barker later admitted making up the abduction story and inflicting the wounds on herself. She said the little girl died accidentally, but the fear of being blamed caused her to panic and leave the girl's body near the freeway. Barker led police to Emma’s body 12 hours later, dumped in a grassy lot near the Golden State Freeway in Sylmar, CA.


On April 27 Barker was arrested and the charges filed against the young mother include murder, assault on a child causing death and child abuse. The complaint alleges that Barker willfully caused and permitted the child to be injured and harmed and that injury resulted in death.


After a two-day preliminary hearing, Judge Carlos A. Chung ruled on July 27 that he found probable cause to hold Stacey Barker over for trial in the murder of Emma. On August 10, Barker formally pled Not Guilty to all counts. She is being housed in the Century Regional Detention Facility in the city of Lynwood on $1 million bail.


There has been numerous pretrial hearings in this case, most recently on December 29. Friends of Katfishponders have been attending these hearings and keeping us posted. (Thanks! You guys are the best!) Deputy District Attorney (DDA)S. Kelly Cromer is representing the people and Stacey Barker is being represented by Public Defender (PD)Roberto F. Dager. It appears that Judge Hayden Zackey will be presiding over the trial, he has handled most of the pretrial hearings.


At the latest hearing the public defender handed over his witness list to the state. (Our friends report DDA Cromer sounded unhappy when she was overheard telling another DA none of the names on the list include addresses.)


PD Dager also told the judge he would like to "run the Pitchess" motion at the next court date.
Pitchess is the partial name of a California court case that established a criminal defendant's right to information about a police officer's misconduct or dishonesty when the defendant alleges in a declaration that the officer used excessive force or lied about the events surrounding the defendant's arrest. It was alleged during the preliminary hearing that Barker made some very incriminating statements to police....I guess we can see where the defense is going regarding those statements.

After a hearing on December 17th the AntelopeValley Press reported that according to the prosecutor the trial may start in as little as a few weeks....I guess that isn't happening as there is no court date set yet, check back for on going coverage of this case .

If convicted, Barker will face 25 years to life in prison.

For previous reports on this case at Katfishponders and links to media sources click here. Sphere: Related Content

Will Mark Jensen Get A New Trial? The Case of The Letter From The Grave

7/27/2009
Today 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.


7/22/2009


I'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 1/12/2009
I 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 4/08/2009
Memorandum 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.

sources

CNN
TMJ4 Sphere: Related Content

I'm Back, With Updates On The Casey Anthony, Stacey Barker, and Mark Jensen Murder Cases

Wow, I can’t believe it has been about a month since I did any blogging but that doesn’t mean I haven’t been paying attention. Just to get back in the swing of things, I’ll write a bit about some of the cases I have been following lately. First I‘ll give some background of the cases and then the latest reports in bold:

Casey Anthony-

This case is probably one of the most publicized murder cases in modern history. Florida has a law called “The Sunshine Law” which has to do with the release of legal documents to the public in an effort to maintain transparency of the court system in the state. The horrific and often bizarre aspects of this case, the unprecedented release of documents related to the investigation (released under the Sunshine Law), and the national media coverage of this case that was originally reported as a missing child case as well as the ongoing media blitz and strange behavior of Caylee‘s family have all contributed to the intense interest.

Casey Anthony is a 23 year old woman from Orlando, Florida accused of killing her 2 year old daughter, Caylee Marie. If convicted, Casey Anthony will face the death penalty. The child was last seen with her mother, Casey, on June 16, 2008 but was not reported missing for 31 days. Casey’s mother Cindy called the police because Casey wouldn’t produce the child. Casey then “confessed” the child had been kidnapped by her nanny. An international manhunt began for Caylee and the now infamous “Zanny the Nanny” and continued for 6 months until Caylee’s remains were found in the woods near the Anthony home on December 11, 2008. To read the earlier entries on Katfishponders about this case click here.

There has been 2 court rulings this week related to this case. The first had to do with a motion filed by Anthony’s defense. At the time Caylee was found in December, Casey had already been indicted by a grand jury for her murder and was being held in the Orange County jail without bond. Anthony was taken to a waiting room of the medical unit of the jail where her response to televised coverage of the discovery was video taped. Through depositions of jail employees taken by the defense we had already learned that Casey dropped to a chair and hyperventilated even though it had yet to be determined if the remains were her daughter.

On Wednesday, June 17, Judge Stan Strickland ruled that the jail video of Casey Anthony will be sealed. In his ruling, Strickland said, "While the Court is loathe to shield any public record, an argument can certainly be made that the contents of the video are highly inflammatory." (In other words the video makes her look guilty as hell and would possibly taint the jury pool so he sealed it.)

The second ruling came today, Friday, June 19. Judge Stan Strickland allowed a hearing so he could hear a motion filed June 10 by Bradley Conway, attorney for Caylee’s grandparents, George and Cindy Anthony. In his motion Conway argued the release of the autopsy report would cause undue duress for Caylee’s family because of the speculation and sensationalism it would create within the public and the media would taint Caylee’s memory.

Strickland said he agreed that the case is about Caylee, but justice was his focus. He also agreed that the media and the community have a right to monitor the costly case to make sure there is justice for Caylee and therefore he would allow the release of Caylee Anthony's autopsy report to the public. To see a video of the hearing and view the autopsy results at WFTV click here.

This case is scheduled to go to trial in October of this year; however, when death penalty qualified attorney Andrea Lyon officially filed the necessary paperwork to join the case, she stated that she would most likely not be prepared to start the trial that soon.

Stacey Barker-

Stacey Barker initially told deputies her daughter, 18-month-old Emma, was abducted from her car in the parking lot of a Lancaster, CA park on March 18th. She claimed she was knocked out by the kidnapper and woke up six hours later, several miles away at the Palmdale Park-n-Ride. Detectives said Barker had injuries consistent with a struggle, including bruises on her head and was taken to the hospital for treatment. Barker later admitted making up the abduction story. She said the little girl died accidentally, causing her to panic and leave the girl's body near the freeway.The child's body was found 12 hours later, dumped in a grassy lot near the Golden State Freeway in Sylmar, CA. Authorities said it appeared the girl's 25-pound body had been dumped sometime over the last 24 hours and showed no visible signs of trauma. Coroner's officials have not yet issued a final report on how the girl died but sheriff's detectives suspect she was suffocated.

On April 27 Barker was arrested and charged with murder, assault on a child causing death and child abuse. The complaint alleges that Barker willfully caused and permitted the child to be injured and harmed and that injury resulted in death. Barker is being housed in the Century Regional Detention Facility in the city of Lynwood on$1 million bail.

On May 11, through her lawyer, Barker pleaded Not Guilty to charges of murder and Not Guilty to the allegations of Special Circumstances. The maximum penalty Barker faces is 25 years to life in prison. To see other Katfishponders reports of this case and sources click here.

On June 15 Barker appeared in court to schedule a preliminary hearing. Katfishponders has been in contact with an internet poster named Toria who has been attending the pretrial hearings in this case. According to Toria although the courtroom was full there was no accredited press in the courtroom. (Hmm…no wonder I couldn’t find any media reports on this hearing!)

According to Toria the hearing was short, the reading of the charges and then the next court date was set for June 30 and it was over.
She said ,“Stacey was again in her lovely yellow scrubs, NO CORN ROWS TODAY! hair down. still with the stoic face.” (Toria reported earlier at the last hearing Stacey’s hair was done up in some convoluted cornrow ponytail bun with a fake sunflowers in it that matched her jail scrubs.) Thanks Toria for sharing! We look forward to your report on the preliminary hearing!

Mark Jensen -

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. Prosecutors said Mark Jensen fed Julie Jensen several doses of ethylene glycol--the sweet, syrupy but poisonous liquid commonly used in antifreeze--and then smothered her when she started to recover from the poisoning.

The defense said Julie Jensen was despondent about the affair, killed herself and tried to frame her husband.Several weeks before her death Julie wrote a letter detailing her fear that her husband may be planning to kill her. She gave the letter to a neighbor to give to police in the event of her death and told several people including the police of her fears. Because of that letter and the legal wrangling that followed to get the letter admitted into court, this case has come to be known as the “Case of the Letter From The Grave“. You can read earlier entries about this case on Katfishponders by clicking here.

A motion for appeal of Mark Jensen's murder conviction was entered with the Wisconsin Court of Appeal on April 6. The case is now in briefing.

The most recent activity with the appeal was a motion to extend the briefing filed by Mark Jensen’s attorney Christopher Rose on June 15. On June 18 the court granted the motion and ordered that the appellant may file a brief that does not exceed sixty-eight pages if a mono spaced font is used or 14,960 words if a proportional font is used and the time to file the appellant's brief is extended to June 30, 2009.

Katfishponders will keep an eye on these cases and keep you updated.
Sphere: Related Content

Appeal Pending for Mark Jensen In Murder Conviction-UPDATED 5/14

update 5/14-
There has been a little more activity in the Jensen appeal. I am just bumping this post up and will include the activity here:

5/4- Decision made for no action on Delinquincy Motion submitted 4/30.

5/13- Court received Record due 5/18. Case Maintenance- now in briefing

5/14- Attorney change for state, Gregory M. Weber- off,
Marguerite M.Moeller-on, Robert D. Zapf remains.

6/22- Brief and Appx of Appellant due date.

original entry-4/30
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. Jensen's case has come to be known as The Case of the Letter from the Grave .

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.

After years of legal wrangling, the admission of this letter was made possible when the Wisconsin Supreme Court (WSC) ruled such previously inadmissible testimony could be used if a judge determined the defendants' actions prevented the witnesses from testifying. The WSC 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.

Below the current appeal information (enclosed by red astericks) is more information about the basis for this appeal.

**********************************************************************************
A motion for appeal of Mark Jensen's murder conviction has been entered with the Wisconsin Court of Appeal on April 6. The motion is pending submission of the Statement on Transcript and the Record. Click on these links to read the actual Case Details and the Appeal History on this case at the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Access website.

I will provide a short summary here and a few definitions that this blogger had to look up. ( I have no legal training, just an immense interest. )

Summary of current activity:

The Statement on Transcript (SRT) was due on April 20, 2009.
A Delinquency Motion was submitted on April 30, 2009 by the Unassigned District 2 for the SRT that was due on April 20, 2009.

A motion was Filed/ Granted to extend the submission of NAP/PCM to May 9, 2009.

The anticipated due date for the Record is May 18, 2009.

Definitions:

Record-
All the papers filed with the circuit court including the decision of the circuit court judge. The record is sent to the Court of Appeals after an appeal has been initiated.

Statement on Transcript (SRT)-
A statement filed by an appellant or cross appellant notifying the court of the transcripts ordered for the appeal.

I could not find definitions for NAP/PCM. Here is a link to a glossary at the WSCCA site for more definitions. The glossary is towards the bottom of the page.

**********************************************************************************

In June of 2008 there was a Supreme Court ruling, Giles vs. California, that may enable Mark Jensen to have his conviction thrown out.

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.

Memorandum of Dying Declaration- this memorandum written by Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder to further explain his decision to admit Julie Jensen's letter as her Dying Declaration.

Katfishponders has done several entries on Mark Jensens case, you can find them here .
CNN Sphere: Related Content

Update on Mark Jensen Appeal

UPDATE 4/08/2009
Memorandum 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. Click on "Memorandum of Dying Declaration" to see the document.


Mark Jensen

Julie Jensen

There has been some recent filings with the Wisconsin Supreme Court of Appeal in the Mark Jensen Murder conviction. To date all filings have been pre-appeal motions. To see the filing click here. The due date for these next filings are May 19, 2009. Katfishponders will continue to follow this case as it moves through the appeal process and update this blog when there is any activity.

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.

For more katfishponders reporting on this case click here.

oursisterjulie.com

CNN

Sphere: Related Content

Justice Delayed Isn't Always Justice Denied

Most of us have heard the adage "Justice delayed is justice denied". According to Wikipedia it is a legal cliche meaning that if legal redress is available for a party that has suffered some injury, but is not forthcoming in a timely fashion, it is effectively the same as having no redress at all. This principle is the basis for the right to a speedy trial and similar rights which are meant to expedite the legal system, because it is unfair for the injured party to have to sustain the injury with little hope for resolution. This seems to apply to the civil side of the legal system and to the defendants side of the criminal system.

After looking back at a few of the trials from 2008 I think we can change that adage to "Justice delayed isn't always justice denied". As a matter of fact that could be the theme for 2 of the trials that come to mind, I will get to them in a bit. My hope is that it will also be the theme for the Phil Spector retrial that began this fall and should wrap up in the next month or so.

Phil Spector, an eccentric music producer of the 60's, is charged with killing actress Lana Clarkson on Feb.3, 2003. The prosecution contends that Spector, who has a history of pulling guns during alcohol fueled rages, repeated that behavior in the wee hours of that Feb.3 in a rage that ended in the death of Lana Clarkson by an intra oral gunshot wound. That's right folks they say he stuck the gun in her mouth and pulled the trigger.

Spector's lawyer at the time, Robert Shapiro (think OJ Simpson dream team and legalzoom.com), was able to get Spector released the same day on a million dollar cash bond. Phil Spector has yet to spend one night in jail. Spector was also able to postpone going to trial until 2007 by changing his defense team several times. For the victims of a crime or their survivors, when the accused decides to wave the right to a speedy trial, justice delayed can be misery...

When Spector did finally go to trial many say he was able to "buy" himself a hung jury by assembling his own "dream team" of forensic experts and 5 attorneys. The first trial, that lasted over 5 months, didn't buy Spector the acquittal he had hoped for, although the hung jury (10-2 in favor of guilty) did "buy" him another year of freedom.

For the retrial Spector has pared down his "dream team" to 1 lawyer. Whether he has a forensic "dream team" remains to be seen, the defense should begin presenting their case soon. Using the same defense theory as his first trial, Spector contends that Lana Clarkson in a moment of despair committed suicide. Whatever Phil! How that explains why Phil walked outside with the gun in his hand after the shot was fired and told his chauffeur "I think I killed somebody", I don't know. The defense claims the chauffeur is mistaken, but that is pretty lame, really. As I said in the beginning of this post, hopefully "Justice delayed isn't always justice denied".

OJ Simpson's robbery trial in Las Vegas was easily the most notorious trial of 2008. Whether deserving or not Simpson's case was definately given the most media coverage of any trial in 2008. Despite a valiant effort by his attorneys, Simpson was convicted on all counts and is expected to spend up to 33 years in prison. The verdict in this case came down 13 years to the day after OJ was acquitted for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. For many, this conviction atones for the denial of justice many felt when OJ was acquitted 13 years before. Once again "Justice delayed isn't always justice denied".

For me, the trial of 2008 that was the most interesting and appalling didn't include any famous names or tons of money, but best exemplifies the adage "Justice delayed isn't always justice denied" is the Mark Jensen murder trial in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Jensen's trial didn't start until the first week of January 2008, even though Mark's wife was found dead on December 3, 1998. The case had dragged on since Julie Jensen, 40, after having fallen ill and taken to bed, was found dead in her Pleasant Prairie, WI home. Mark Jensen wasn't charged until 2002 and legal wrangling over evidence delayed the trial another 6 years.

Several weeks before her death, Julie Jensen talked to local police, her son's school teacher and a neighbor, and told them that she suspected her husband was planning to kill her. She went so far as to give her neighbor a sealed letter that detailed her suspicions, and asked her neighbor to give the letter to the police if anything happened to her.

Prosecutors allege Mark Jensen fed Julie Jensen several doses of ethylene glycol--the sweet, syrupy but poisonous liquid commonly used in antifreeze--and then smothered her when she started to recover from the poisoning.

In his defense Mark Jensen argued that his wife was depressed and angry because he was having an affair, so she did Internet searches on poisoning in an effort to frame him, then committed suicide by poisoning herself.

At trial, prosecutors wanted to use Julie Jensen's statements to speak as a "voice from the grave" in an effort to prove that Mark Jensen had murdered his wife, but first they had to convince the courts to allow such evidence.

Using such evidence in court has for years been blocked by strict hearsay rules giving criminal defendants the right to confront their accusers. The Wisconsin Supreme Court created new rules, prompted by a US Supreme Court decision and this case, that laid the ground work for her accusatory letter and statements to police to be used as evidence in the trial.

On February 21, 2008, after a six week trial, Mark Jensen was convicted of murder, first degree intentional homicide, which carries a mandatory sentence for lifetime imprisonment under Wisconsin law.

Because of all the interesting twists and turns of this case, that I haven't even touched on here, I will take a more in depth look at this case in another post.


CNN Sphere: Related Content