Motion Of The Day...Once Again Nicholas Sheley Wants To Go Pro Se- Updated

Updated 4/17/2011 at bottom of post

 original post April 4

Newest mugshots at Pontiac Correctional Center

When I left home on March 29, 2011 for the Knox County courthouse to attend a case management hearing in the capital murder case of  Nicholas Sheley, accused of killing Ronald Randall,65, in Galesburg, IL., I told Mr. Katfish not to expect me back for several hours as this might turn out to be a long hearing.

This will be the first trial that Sheley faces related to the June 2008 killing spree of eight people that he is accused of. He also faces first degree murder charges in Whiteside County, IL for the deaths of 5 people and Festus, MO for the death of 2 other people. You can read about the killing spree here if you aren't familiar with the case.

I'm not sure what to expect today because this is the first hearing since IL Governor Patrick Quinn signed off on legislation to abolish the death penalty in IL on March 9. That legislation doesn't take effect until July 1, 2011, so unless the state decides to take the DP off the table before then, this will continue as a capital murder case until the legislation takes effect. At the last hearing, on February 4, there was discussion of discovery and evidentiary issues that may be argued at today's hearing, March 29. I wasn't able to blog about that hearing but
will reference it some in this post.

At a hearing on February 4, both parties argued a

 DEFENSE MOTION TO VACATE COURT ORDER AND FOR OTHER RELIEF
 and
 THE STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENSE MOTION TO VACATE COURT ORDER AND FOR OTHER RELIEF.

According to the Defense Motion To Vacate, There was a closed hearing on September 14, 2010  where the parties argued the State's First Motion in Limine to Admit Course Of Conduct Evidence and the Defense Response. After the Court reviewed the written and oral arguments of both parties, the court made a ruling as to what evidence would be allowed and ordered the state to prepare an order reflecting the court's ruling. On December 15, 2010 the state presented the order to the defense for review and the next day the state submitted the order to the court. The defense argued they had not been given sufficient time to review the order and the court allowed 2 weeks for resolve the issue with the state. It seems when the defense responded to the office of Bill Elward on December 28th so they could resolve any disputes to the language in the order, he was out of the office and he didn't return until January 2. On January 3 the court issued the ruling without further input from the parties; therefore, the defense sought to have the order vacated and reissued.

I can't tell you much about the order because it was under seal along with the original briefings. It was disclosed in the Defense Motion To Vacate that during the closed hearing the state conceded that even though they previously had stated in open court that they would seek to admit every prior bad act in Sheley's history, they had decided they would not seek to use every prior bad act, but just those relevant to this case....that is unless the defense opens that door at trial.

On February 4 Judge James Stewart said he held the order for 2 weeks and no one objected or let him know there was a problem so he issued the order on January 3. The state contends they tracked the court's ruling from the transcript of the September 14 hearing word for word.  Judge Stewart ordered both sides to file a redacted motion in limine with an offer of proof and a defense response within 2 weeks to be placed in the public record. (redaction's to eliminate any course of conduct evidence not allowed to be used). If I understand it correctly in the defense motion to vacate they contend, on September 14, the judge didn't make a ruling on the evidence but would tailor the courts ruling to was what specified in the the hearing by the state.

 Last week I picked up the redacted copies of the motions and pleadings, however I didn't see a new order in the file. It's possible I missed it, that is a heavy file. I linked all of the motions and pleadings mentioned in this post that aren't sealed on my docstock account so you can read them. As it turns out the course of conduct evidence wasn't even discussed in the March 29 hearing but I have been told it will be dealt with in the future.


PEOPLE'S OFFER OF PROOF IN SUPPORT OF ITS FIRST MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT COURSE OF CONDUCT EVIDENCE 
and the  
DEFENSE RESPONSE TO THE PEOPLE'S FIRST MOTION OF LIMINE AND OFFER OF PROOF.

I was expecting an interesting hearing....and man ~ o ~ man interesting is an understatement.

Here is my in the courtroom report from the March 29 hearing:

When I came into the courtroom I wasn't surprised to see there were several from Ronald Randall's family here, they always arrive early and sit in  front row behind the prosecution. In the second row behind them is Shirley Pringle, the Knox County Victims Rights Advocate and a woman I have seen in court with Shirley before although I have never met her. The front row behind the defense table was reserved for the accredited press and there were already three members of the press seated.

In the second row behind the press was lead defense attorney Jeremy Karlin's administrative assistant and another young woman who looked familiar but I couldn't place.(I later learn she is Marissa Pendergrass from the CBS channel 4 (WHBF) in the Quad Cities. I embedded Marissa's video of Sheley leaving the courthouse and interviews with the State's Attorney, John Pepmeyer and Lead Defense Counsel, Jeremy Karlin at the end of my "in the courtroom" report...be sure to check it out.)

 I went behind Shirley and the other woman to my regular seat against a pole at the farthest end of the second row. After I took my seat, Shirley introduced me to the woman with her, her name is Stacy Dutton. Stacy is a very pleasant woman. I learned that Stacy is Shirley's replacement as Knox County Victim's Rights Advocate. Shirley tells me she retired last Fall. How the heck did I miss that? I did miss some hearings in November and December but the Shirley has been at every hearing I have attended so I didn't realize she was gone. LOL! Congratulations to Shirley and to Stacy!

The attorneys for both sides are standing at their tables. On the far right going left for the state is Michael Atterberry Assistant Attorney General, then Knox County State's Attorney John Pepmeyer, and closest to the defense is Bill Elward Assistant Attorney General. At the defense table right to left is court appointed Lead Attorney Jeremy Karlin and next to him is Co-counsel Anthony Vaupel, there is an empty chair next to Vaupel for the defendant.The court reporter and clerk are in place. It looks like everyone is ready to go to work. All we need now is the defendant and the judge. The clock is gone in the courtroom so I won't be able to track time. I see the Bailiff get confirmation they were ready for Sheley and shortly after he is escorted into the courtroom by several IL Department of Corrections officers and several Knox County Sheriff's deputies and bailiffs.

Nicholas Sheley is wearing a white button down short sleeve shirt and black pants. His hair seems to have grown out even since the latest mugshot at Pontiac shown above and is slicked back reminiscent of a 60's greaser. I wonder why his clothing has changed ? He used to wear a tan scrubs when coming from Pontiac. Has his status changed at the prison or have they just had a uniform change? If anyone knows I would like to hear. Last I knew he was in protective custody....has he been moved to general population? The waist and ankle shackles are louder today as he walks in and they look a little heavier...another hmmm. As soon as Sheley gets seated he says fairly loud, "What the fuck you looking at?" Vaupel touches his arm as if to say calm down. Sheley's comment seems to be directed at Bill Elward. For some reason Mr. Elward seems to be on Sheley's 'list'. He wrote a long scathing letter to the Ninth Circuit Judge James Stewart on Christmas Day 2009 about Bill Elward that was made a part of the public record. I have the letter posted here. Sheley motions for Jeremy Karlin to come over and then Sheley, Karlin and Vaupel go back to the holding area outside of the courtroom with the security detail.

Judge Stewart enters the courtroom and calls court to order then notices that the defense table is empty so we wait, the attorneys and those of us in the gallery go ahead and sit down.. It didn't take long before Sheley, his security detail and attorneys come back in. Sheley doesn't look happy. I can't see either attorney's face.
Stewart acknowledges both parties for the record and says," This case management hearing has been scheduled per Supreme Court rules." He mentions that the new law passed by the Governor takes away the death penalty, effective July 1, and notes that will effect this case.

John Pepmeyer stands to address the court and says that counsel for both parties have met prior to the hearing and agreed to September 19, 2011 for a trial date. That lightens the atmosphere in the courtroom a bit....it's about time. When Judge Stewart confirms that date with Jeremy Karlin, it's apparent Mr. Karlin is frustrated. (I don't think he even rose to address the court, which is unusual for him) Karlin replies he has no authority to set a trial date because of the document Mr. Sheley has just handed him. 

John Pepmeyer once again addresses the court and says 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. (So it's official this is no longer a death penalty case as of today.) Judge Stewart makes sure the defense has a copy from the state. Pepmeyer also said he wants to make a record the people have tendered discovery labeled 14, contains enumerated fingerprint evidence. (Anthony Vaupel brought up this fingerprint evidence at the February hearing. I also remember Vaupel saying something about a deposition but I can't remember if that had to do with the fingerprints. My notes do say the state response was if the Governor signed the legislation the defense would not be entitled to the deposition. Moot point now I guess.)


Jeremy Karlin approached the bench and presented the court with a motion handwritten by Sheley stating his intention to represent himself.  This motion seems to have caught defense counsel by surprise as much as everyone else. Karlin gave the thick stack of papers to the judge and said they have not even read the motion yet and Sheley had advised the court this was the only copy. Karlin continued speaking as he returned to the defense table.....Mr. Sheley has instructed by his Pro Se Motion to bar any court appointed defense or any further mental health evaluation.

Bill Elward stood and said, " If he wants to play lawyer let him, and he can follow the rules. I apologize, this is just one more tactic from this defendant. If he wants to represent himself he must follow procedure. In order to file a motion he must provide copies to all parties, the court should not accept the motion until then."

Sheley is whispering to his attorneys. Judge Stewart says he will give 30 days for the defense to read the motion and decide how they will proceed. Stewart gets a date from the clerk and says April 25 at 9:30 a.m. adding there already has been an expert who has filed a report.

Elward addresses the court again, "For the record two Doctors evaluated and filed reports. (He says something about funding that I missed.) At what point do we get a copy? We are abundantly aware this is a delay occasioned by the defendant."

Sheley asks to address the court. Judge Stewart tells him he can't at this point. One of his attorney speaks for Sheley, " There are no copies because the exhibits included with the motion are under seal. There is no expectation of privacy in the DOC library anyone could see them. Not trying to play a game."

(My notes say he still has the obligation. It is what it is - remains un-filed. Sorry this is so cryptic, my notes don't say who said this, whether it is the judge or the state, likely it was Mr. Elward because my notes do show he spoke next.) 

Elward addresses the court again, " Ask Mr. Sheley if he is aware of the consequences? (of filing the motion)  We will be able to read and review."

Sheley then acknowledges that he understands.

( I have a few cryptic notes again  with no mention of who spoke....about a Motion to Extend, a Motion to Compel, additional discovery or affirmative defenses, trial testimony from his brother's trial. I believe these are issues that would have been addressed today until Sheley dropped his latest bombshell. I drew an arrow to the April 25 date, so evidently these issues will be addressed then.)

  
Judge Stewart says," We do still have to address this change in the law as to Mr. Vaupel. This should end Mr. Vaupel's services. " Stewart then ended the hearing.

  
Jeremy Karlin stands and asks the court to go back on record. Once we are back on record Karlin says, 
" Those documents were filed under seal to preserve the jury pool."
Elward is on his feet my notes just say NO.
Judge Stewart says he will not protect Mr. Sheley from his decisions, most were filed under seal because this was a capital case .(Emphasis mine)
John Pepmeyer asks the court to make copies of Sheley's motion....(which makes the motion public record).
I honestly didn't hear the judge end the hearing again...my thoughts were more along the lines of I want a copy of that motion. And $73.00 later I have it! I will address Sheley's motion and the exhibits he included in another post...this is long enough. A few thoughts from skimming the motion is that Sheley says over and over again how well he has conducted himself in court....well...except for that one time when he wasn't allowed to represent himself earlier in the case. I guess starting out this hearing with "What the fuck you looking at " just might count as a second example where he couldn't control himself. Included in the exhibits with Sheley's motion are his psych evaluations....it is noted he has impulse control problems....well yeah, ya think?! Stay tuned and be sure to watch Channel 4's video under this paragraph.



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



UPDATE 4/17- Here is are  links to  Nicholas Sheley's handwritten Pro Se Motion. I am having trouble loading it on Docstock as a whole document, so I have split it into 3 parts. Be advised that on part 1 page 22 shows up first because I missed it when scanning. I can get page 22 in it's proper spot as a whole document  but not when separated as Docstock is requiring. grrrr...I WILL figure this out!

Nicholas Sheley Handwritten Pro Se Motion part 1
Nicholas Sheley Handwritten Pro Se Motion part 2
Nicholas Sheley Handwritten Pro Se Motion part 3 Sphere: Related Content

Jailhouse Connections And Investigations - Continuing.... The Justice For Caylee Anthony Saga -

Casey Marie Anthony  is a 24 year old Orlando, FL woman who has been held without bond at the Orange County Florida Jail since October 14, 2008 when an Orange County Grand Jury handed down a seven count Bill of Indictment . The charges brought in the indictment against Anthony  in relation to the Death Investigation of her 2 year old daughter, Caylee Marie Anthony  are as follows :

CMA #08049710

  

1 count - First-Degree murder

1 count - Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child

1 count - Aggravated Child abuse

4 counts- Providing False Information to a Law Enforcement Officer

The first degree murder charge is a capital offense and the possible penalty is Life In Prison Without Parole (LWOP) or the Death Penalty.

Casey Anthony is housed in what the Orange County Florida jail calls Level 1 protective-custody in Dorm L. When Casey was arrested for the murder of her daughter Caylee, the Orange County Sheriffs Office (OCSO) decided that she needed additional protection above and beyond what other prisoners that are housed there require. Most prisoners in a high profile case are held in protective custody, but  no doubt the public's hostility towards Casey Anthony after learning most everything she told law enforcement about Caylee's disappearance was a  lie and that she didn't report her daughter missing for a month  factored into her Level 1 Protective Custody status.

We have been told when it comes to protective custody, few people are guarded as closely as Casey Anthony. She resides in her jail cell for most of the day and is not allowed contact with any other prisoners. She is also not allowed to watch TV in her cell, but she is allowed one small transistor radio, which she bought at the jail commissary. The short time each day prisoners in protective custody are allowed out of their cell  is to shower, get books, make phone calls, or watch TV in a "community" day room  for individual use by those in protective custody (other than visits with their lawyer or court hearings). There is also scheduled visitation time (once or twice a week?) but Casey refuses all visitors.


While no contact with other prisoners is an important part of protective custody, in all of the cases I have followed ( not just in the OCJ ), prisoners find a way to break the rules and communicate. Let's face it, all they have is time to try and figure ways around the rules. This case is no exception.

During a pretrial hearing on March 18, 2010, Ninth Judicial Circuit Judge Stan Strickland unsealed an
  IN CAMERA SEALED MOTION TO DELAY DISCLOSURE   that he has allowed the State to keep under wraps for the previous month while they conducted an investigation.Judge Strickland unsealed the motion because he said that the investigation into this information has almost concluded.

The State's motion (link provided above) advised the court that the State had been informed the defendant, Casey Anthony has made a few friendships while in jail and had written and passed 50 letters to one of the inmates against jail rules, possibly with a guard's help. The State's Attorney Office (SAO) said the letters are not a confession, but appear to contain relevant statements of the Defendant. The motion also advised that based upon the past history of this case and in anticipation of accusations of misconduct by the Orange County Sheriff’s Office, the State Attorney requested that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (F.D.L.E.) take over the investigation of the communications between the Defendant and these witnesses.

Under the FL Sunshine Law, once the state turns over discovery to the defense, the discovery becomes public documents, unless ordered sealed by the judge ( for example: the video in the jail medical clinic of Casey's reaction to Caylee's remains being found has been withheld ). Judge Strickland gave the defense 15 days to look over the letters and decide if they would seek to have them remain under seal.
Anthony's defense chose not to fight the release of the documents. I'll discuss what's in the jailhouse letters and my thoughts on the contents of the letters in my next post that will be titled "Muffin and Cookie Plan A Road Trip".

In the rest of this post I'd like to give you a better understanding of the physical layout of Dorm L where Casey has been bunking for most of the last two years.  I did some research so that I can give you a more complete introduction to Casey's jailhouse friends and also got some of the legal documents involved in Robyn Adams case which I have linked in this post  It also seems important we cover some of the background of the F.D.L.E.'s investigation.  Most of the information about the investigation can be found in the OCSO Supplemental Report to Jailhouse Letter


~The Investigation~

A Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigation found that Casey Anthony, Maya Derkovic and Robyn Adams became friends while they were in protective custody in the female detention center, Dorm L, which is where jail guard Silva Hernandez worked.  Here is a copy of the floor plan for Dorm L :

Orange County Jail, Woman's Detention Center, Dorm L

The dorm consists of a control center at one end of the dorm and facing the communal day room that resembles a classroom. The inmates cells are lined around the day room and consist of two levels. Inmates that are in close proximity to each other are able to communicate through the ventilation system. Robyn Adams explained it is possible for communication through the vents between any of the cells but the further away you are the louder you had to speak, so she and Casey didn't communicate "via the vents ".

 Casey Anthony was originally arrested and placed in protective custody on July 17, when she was arrested for lying to law enforcement  in the days after Caylee was reported missing. Adams was arrested on July 21 and placed into protective custody because her husband was a police officer.( I'll tell you more of the details of Adam's arrest in a bit.) Anthony remained in jail for about a month until California bounty hunter, Leonard Padilla assisted in getting her released on August 20, 2008. This is the first time when Adams and Anthony were in Dorm L together, but didn't form a relationship beyond a wave. ( For the sake of being thorough I should tell you
Anthony was arrested again, this time on economics charges on August 29 and bonded out on September 5. Anthony was arrested for more economic charges September 15 but was out the next day.) Adams wouldn't see Anthony again until she was arrested on October 14. During the time Anthony was out, Adams decided to agree to a plea deal in her case on September 25, 2008. Adams was sentenced in January 2009 and moved to a federal prison in August of 2009. Maya Derkovic was housed in the Orange County Jail with Casey Anthony during the latter parts of 2008 to the beginning of 2009.

   ~ Friends Made In Jail, May Turn Out To Be "Friends From Hell"~

Maya Derkovic mugshot

Maya Derkovic, then 18, was originally arrested on January 28, 2007 for armed carjacking. Derkovic identified herself as a full member of the 3rd World Rolling Sixties gang (a spin off of the West Coast Crips ) within minutes of her arrest.You can read more here about her arrest for the armed carjacking and how she came to be involved in and charged for the death of a 15 year old girl, who Derkovic admitted she choked
while two fellow gang members held the victim's arms in an act of crude gang justice.. "Maya is a pretty established member of this group and has been for long time," said sheriff's homicide Detective Brian Cross of the lanky, 6-feet-2 teenager with a "Daddy P" tattoo on her neck, a souvenir of her time as a prostitute in Miami. Derkovic first joined a street gang several years ago when her family lived in South Florida. Born in Bosnia, she went by the nickname "Luda," which means "Crazy" in her native language,
Derkovic's mother, who did not want to be named to protect her younger children's identity, has visited the jail regularly since her daughter's arrest. After years of trying to control her daughter's misbehavior, she said her daughter must accept responsibility for her actions, whatever they were and whatever punishment faces her. " Taking somebody's life is something I cannot imagine any child of mine doing. I can't imagine what that other girl's mother is feeling," she said. "For my child it is too late. If she did it, she's going to have to deal with herself. Someone else may learn from what happens to her."  (Hmmmmm, no comment!)
Derkovic, 21, is serving a 30-year sentence at Lowell Correctional Institution in Ocala, FL for murdering 15 year old  Jackie "Angel" Curtis three years ago.

Robyn Adams mugshot

Robyn Adams and her husband Clay were arrested on federal drug and gun trafficking charges on July 22, 2008.Clay Adams lived two lives: one as an Altamonte Springs cop of nine years, the other as a painkiller-addicted, marijuana grow-house operator who was scheming to kill a former supervisor.

That's how authorities described it when Adams, 36, and his wife, Robyn, 32, were hauled into federal court in Orlando on drug and weapons charges. Assistant U.S. Attorney Rob Bodnar sought to have the couple  (who could face up to life in prison if convicted on all charges) held without bond, noting both made threats to a police informant and others.

The 35-page Criminal Complaint describes in detail how investigators say the Adams' stockpiled weapons, sold drugs and gave sensitive police secrets to criminals.

According to the complaint,  Robyn Adams used her position at an orthopedic surgeon's office to get Oxycontin which was then sold across the state. The complaint also detailed how Adams approached an informant to partner in a marijuana-growing operation. That person tipped off City-County Investigative Bureau (CCIB) agents, who brought the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and ATF into the case. After the informant rented a home for the operation, Adams and his wife set up hydroponic equipment in the residence and provided marijuana seeds.Adams provided the informant with drivers-license photos, undercover aliases and real names of drug agents and CCIB officers, along with the descriptions of their vehicles. Adams also supplied weapons and prescription drugs to the informant, a convicted felon.
Gunning wrote, Adams told the informant that he joined CCIB earlier this year to learn investigative methods on how to detect marijuana-growing operations.

When Clay Adams was  removed from a position on an undercover unit, investigators say he snapped. Adams advised [the informant] that he will let the issue cool off for a couple of months and then 'take [the supervisor] out' when he least expects it, utilizing a .308-caliber rifle equipped with a silencer," Gunning wrote.
Both husband and wife confessed and entered into plea agreements.He pleaded guilty to five federal charges, including conspiring with his wife to grow 2,200 pounds of marijuana. Robyn Adams pleaded guilty to two charges: conspiracy and a weapons count. The pair were sentenced on January 9, 2009. She is now serving an eight year sentence at a Federal prison in Tallahassee, FL and will be on supervised release for ten years after. Clay Adams was sentenced to seventeen 1/2 years and is serving his time in a Texas federal prison.

 More Of The Investigation~

It was Derkovic who first approached law enforcement about her and Adam's contact with Casey Anthony.
In Derkovic's sworn statement, she told authorities she and Anthony would talk through the ventilation system. (I haven't been able to determine exactly which cell Derkovic was in from the floor plan, but her cell was on the same side as Anthony.) I won't go too far into Derkovic's claims about those vent talks in this post, mainly because I'm not sure I believe her and really want to devote more space to Adams and Anthony, and just how their relationship developed.


Adams told the F.D.L.E. investigator her cell (#19) was across from Anthony (#12) and they would smile,  wave and give hand signals through the window on their cell doors, or when one was out in the day room. She said it was just a way of offering support to each other. They would signal if they were ok or not, that they were praying for each other, that sort of thing was the extent of their communication at the time. Adams said that she felt Anthony came to trust her because she smiled and didn't yell taunts at Casey like the other inmates did.

Shortly after they began their communication, Adams was moved to another cell (#27) on the same side of the dorm as Casey but on the upper level. Shortly after the move, Anthony signaled to Adams (from the day room) that she would leave her a note in a green hardback book called, " Do Away With August", from then on they used that book to pass notes (same type of stuff as they had communicated by hand signals before) and eventually the letters.
.

When asked by the investigators to elaborate on how her communication with Casey evolved into talking to each other, Robyn Adams explained that the even number cells took their turns coming out for showers, day room / TV time, etc. during the day and the odd numbers were let out night. She said after a while she started helping the guards out a bit, cleaning showers, fold laundry, whatever and as much as the guards would allow her to do. When Adams was folding laundry in the day room they were able to " kinda lip talk" and hand signal as they had before, but in closer proximity.

Adams says she started asking "Shannon", (this was the name she and Casey assigned Sylvia Hernandez because her uniform said," S. Hernandez" ) " Hey, can I go give her a book? Can I, can I just go over there you know talk to her through the glass?" Adams said after a while this just became a routine when "Shannon" was working. I would say, "Hey, I can't hear her, can I just go see what she's saying? Can I go closer, that type of thing."

Adams said it never got to the point that she just took it for granted she could approach Casey's cell, and "Shannon" did not receive any type of compensation for allowing the communication between the two. There was no gain in it for her, she just treated us as "people". People in confinement for a long period of time who needed human interaction. When asked point blank if there was any type of sexual relationship between any of the three (Anthony, Adams, Hernandez) Adams replied, "I strongly believe it was strictly that she just felt bad. She felt bad. There was nothing for her to gain from it except for being human and having someone to talk to." ( I guess that means no sex. LOL)

Next the investigators asked Adams how frequently she and Anthony were allowed to spend time together, how long were they allowed to talk, and were there times you were allowed in the same cell together? Adams told them the contact with Anthony took place after the other inmates were done showering and placed in "lock". The contact took place every night that Hernandez was on shift (4-5 nights a week) and they were allowed to talk anywhere from a few minutes to hours. Their contact ranged from speaking through the bean hole (food tray slot) in the cell door to spending time in the same cell. (Hernandez allowed Adams to cut Casey's hair on one occasion. WTF?)

On March 9, 2010 F.D.L.E. conducted an interview of Sylvia Hernandez about the communication between Casey Anthony and Robyn Adams. This interview was independent of any investigation being conducted by OCSO. Hernandez told investigators she hired on with Orange County Corrections in January of 2008 and worked the "B" two shift (6pm-6am) with the standard law enforcement rotation of 3 days on 2 days off in the Female Detention Center (FDC) Lima Dorm (Dorm L).

Hernandez explained that Lima Dorm is basically a confinement dorm where you have inmates for disciplinary, protective custody, special management (medical or pregnancy), psychological  inmates for evaluation counseling and suicide precautions.There were usually 30-35 inmates in Lima dorm while Adams and Anthony were both in custody there, although they were the only two who were in protective custody status. Most inmates came and went , but Adams and Anthony as protective custody, were stationary.

Hernandez admitted she was aware of written communication between Anthony and Adams, but made no attempt to stop the communication.Hernandez also allowed Adams and Anthony to have face to face contact at Anthony's cell door, but denied allowing them to spend time together in the same cell. Hernandez admitted she allowed Adams to cut Anthony's hair on one occasion.

When Hernandez was questioned about having a relationship (sexual) she denied that but admitted she had written to Adams after she was sent to Tallahassee. She also admitted she attempted to assist Adams in retaining counsel for her case by providing her with names of local attorneys and on one occasion approached Anthony's counsel on behalf of Adams.

Hernandez told investigators that she spoke to Anthony "a few times" about her case. One conversation took place when it was being reported that Caylee's bones may have been found in the water at Blanchard park, but turned out it wasn't Caylee. According to Hernandez, Anthony told her investigators were "not looking in the right place" and it's right in their face but they're"not looking in the right place".

At the end of the report F.D.L.E.Investigators stated they thought Robyn Adams seemed to be truthful and forthright about her involvement with Casey and her role in creating and maintaining the evidence in question. Adams showed a great deal of emotion associated with her current sentence, her friendship with Anthony, the loss of Anthony's child and the moral dilemma of providing information pertaining to Sylvia Hernandez, because they had formed a friendship. The information was also consistent with the information in the letters between her and Anthony. The investigators stated in their report they think Hernandez was less than truthful during her interview but her actions didn't rise to the level of violation of Florida statutes. Wonder which one if any of them the State will use in the trial?

When Casey Anthony was arrested on July 16, 2008, little did she know even though her daughter was gone forever that she would soon have a " new sister". A sister who she could share (most) all of her confidences with and not be judged because in her own words, “We have so very much in common , both the good and the bad”.
Check back and we'll talk more about the information in the letters and the conversations between Casey Anthony and Robyn Adams, there is a LOT to talk about.
 :)
wesh
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

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

Motions and Orders in case against Nicholas Sheley

I was able to get some of the motions and orders that have been filed in the case of IL v. Nicholas T. Sheley. I was happy to see that I did a pretty good job of getting down most of the information, it's more meaningful to see the actual documents with the dialogue though IMO. Now my challenge is to get them to you. I'll be honest, this is a learning curve for me....any computer skills I possess are self taught. Of course nothing is as easy as you would hope. Here is where I'm at on this:
When I scan the documents onto my computer they upload as jpg.files. Docstoc (a document holding site) doesn't accept jpg file format so I had to teach myself how to convert a jpg file into a pdf file. I used a free trial on Adobe to do it. I really need some feedback about this. This post will be a test. If I get good feedback I will purchase Adobe to do the rest. I don't want to spend the money if there isn't interest or if it's too hard for you all to access them. I haven't figured out how to upload a multi-page document as a single file (believe me, I have tried LOL). Click here for the link. As I said before, I need to hear from you people if you want to see more of the motions and orders from the court cases I follow. If you don't want to post a comment (anonymous posting welcome) you can e-mail me from my profile page (put Sheley in the subject line). Sphere: Related Content