|
by Dawn Slade
After being convicted of premeditated first degree murder, Jeremy Hull took his case to the Minnesota Supreme Court. It’s an automatic appeal and Hull did not waive his right to appeal.
Hull, 26, was convicted in 2008 of killing Lewis Wilczek of Little Falls in April 2007, then dismembering, burning and burying Wilczek’s body outside of Foreston. (Hull was living in St. Cloud at the time of the murder but previously lived in Foreston and attended Milaca High School.)
After killing Wilczek, he stole the 21-year-old’s identity.
Hull’s defense attorney, state public defender Jodi Carlson, was first to go before the seven-member court on Tuesday, Feb. 2.
The reason the defense is appealing the case has to do primarily with their belief that the Mille Lacs County District Court should have granted a Frye hearing in regards to fingerprinting and handwriting evidence.
A Frye hearing is used to determine whether scientific evidence (produced by an expert witness) is admissible in court.
In the 1923 federal Court of Appeals case Frye v. United States, the court held that expert testimony is admissible when the technique or theory it is based on has gained “general acceptance” in the relevant scientific community.
In a Frye hearing, the trial court determines whether or not given testimony is, in fact, generally accepted (a Frye hearing is typically called after prosecutors or defense lawyers move to exclude the testimony of an expert witness).
The appeal is in regards to a pretrial decision by Mille Lacs County District Court Judge Steven Anderson to limit Hull’s challenge of the scientific reliability of fingerprint and handwriting identification.
Hull also challenged the admission of statements made by Wilczek to others before his disappearance.
The defense contends that despite expert testimony from BCA analysts who testified at Hull’s trial, and that fingerprinting and handwriting are generally accepted for evidence, that fingerprinting and handwriting analyses should not be considered generally accepted.
Carlson bases her argument on a report by the National Academy of Science (which came out after the trial) that states those methods are not specific enough.
The defense argued that “science is fluid.”
Carlson said the prosecution presented the evidence in a way that “wowed” the jury.
“There’s also the horrific evidence of what your client did,” one judge pointed out.
He noted the overwhelming evidence in the case, without regard to handwriting or fingerprints. (There were over 300 exhibits and over 50 witnesses who testified during the trial).
Carlson argued that, “just because the courts have accepted, doesn’t mean the scientists have. Maybe we got it all wrong and these techniques aren’t as valid as we once thought.”
One of the judges said fingerprinting has been accepted and it’s generally considered reliable.
Carlson rebutted with, “I do not consider it reliable. I question whether this is really science.”
“It’s not voodoo science, they follow a procedure,” the judge noted.
Regardless of the fingerprints and handwriting analysis by the BCA, there were witnesses, including Casey Jo Oldenburg (Hull’s girlfriend) who confirmed the handwriting in “The Plan” to kill Wilczek was that of Hull.
The defense also briefly touched on the hearsay testimony that was given at Hull’s trial. Specifically, a message from Wilczek stating that he was going to meet Hull to get his money and if his friend didn’t hear back from him, he should call 911.
At the end of Carlson’s allotted time, she requested an evidentiary hearing and a new trial.
Assistant Minnesota Attorney General Kimberly Parker went before the court next.
Parker noted that the fingerprints and handwriting were only “a sliver of the evidence” in this case.
She reminded the court that evidence included checks and receipts from items purchased by Hull using Wilczek’s identity, store clerk witnesses, Oldenburg’s testimony that Hull told her he killed Wilczek, and “The Plan,” which Oldenburg turned over to police.
Parker noted how Hull followed through according to “The Plan.” He wrote that he was going to kill him, bury him, take his stuff (i.e. wallet, keys, truck, credit cards), and put a sign on Wilczek’s business door. Hull did all those things, then stole Wilczek’s identity, purchasing items, obtaining insurance and applying for a job in Wilczek’s name.
Parker pointed out that Hull even tried to pose as Wilczek in front of police and Wilczek’s sister.
She argued that a Frye hearing is for novel or emerging techniques and that the report Carlson referred to is not novel or emerging.
“Science is always emerging,” one judge noted. “The National Academy of Science is saying this is junk science. That article is very disturbing to me and for us to say it doesn’t matter...”
“That’s only if the court is going to decide if fingerprinting and handwriting is generally accepted,” Parker stated.
“If the courts won’t do it, who will?” a judge asked.
The judge read from the report which stated the technique used is a valuable technique but not specific enough to qualify as a validated manner to produce reliable results.
Parker said it’s the burden of the defense to prove there is novel or emerging techniques.
“There’s nothing new here,” she said.
But a judge countered that the report is saying the technique is in question and not necessarily valid.
The assistant attorney general also pointed out that the defense had an opportunity at trial to attack the handwriting issue, but they did not provide witness testimony to say it wasn’t his handwriting.
And finally, she reminded the court that Hull conceded he caused Wilczek’s death. Hull denied that he did so intentionally.
The Supreme Court is taking the arguments under advisement. It could take anywhere from three months to a year for the court to make a decision.
Hull is currently at the Minnesota Correctional Facility Oak Park Heights serving a life sentence without parole.
Editor’s note: The information regarding the appeal was obtained from video of the court proceedings. Supreme Court Justices include, Chief Justice Eric J. Magnuson, Justice Alan C. Page, Justice Paul H. Anderson, Justice Helen M. Meyer, Justice G. Barry Anderson, Justice Lorie S. Gildea and Justice Christopher J. Dietzen.
 |
