Mark Jensen may get new trial in wife’s poisoning
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling Wednesday could improve the chances of a new trial for Mark Jensen, the former Pleasant Prairie man convicted this year of poisoning his wife in 1998.
One legal observer said a new trial is all but certain.
“I don’t see any possibility that (Jensen) will not get a new trial,” said Milwaukee attorney David Ziemer, news editor of the Wisconsin Law Journal.
At issue is whether a letter written by Julie Jensen implicating her husband in her death should have been used at Mark Jensen’s trial.
Several jurors said the letter, in which Julie Jensen told police to investigate Mark Jensen if something happened to her, was crucial in their decision to convict.
Before the trial, held in January and February, lawyers were watching the Dwayne Giles murder case in California, which had been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. They agreed that if the high court ruled in favor of Giles, Jensen’s chances for a new trial would improve.
Wednesday’s 6-3 high court ruling did go in Giles’ favor, as the justices reaffirmed defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses who testify against them.
Before Jensen’s six-week trial, the Wisconsin Supreme Court had adopted a new doctrine in the state, ruling that Jensen would forfeit his right to confrontation if it was likely that he was the reason Julie Jensen was not available to testify.
In turn, Jensen’s trial judge, Bruce Schroeder of Kenosha County Circuit Court, determined after a special hearing that Jensen was probably guilty. Schroeder allowed Julie Jensen’s letter, written about 10 days before her death, to be used in the trial.
Jensen’s lawyer, Craig Albee of Milwaukee, said he believes Wednesday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling will result in Jensen’s conviction being overturned.
“It’s hard to imagine it doesn’t mean a new trial,” Albee said.
With the high court ruling, it seems clear that Julie Jensen’s letter should not have been used at the trial because Mark Jensen’s defense had no way of questioning her about it, Albee said.
Albee had argued that Mark Jensen did not poison Julie Jensen by having her drink antifreeze, but rather that she committed suicide.
Jensen’s prosecutor, Robert Jambois, had agreed with other attorneys that a ruling in Giles’ favor would likely improve Jensen’s chances for a new trial. But he said the details of Wednesday’s decision, which he called complicated, led him to believe there was “high likelihood” that an appeals court would conclude the letter was properly used and Jensen’s conviction would be upheld.
If Jensen’s conviction is thrown out, prosecutors will re-try Jensen, even without the letter, Jambois said.
No appeal has been filed for Jensen, 48, who was sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole.
In the California case, a murder victim had told a police officer that Giles had threatened to kill her.
Two weeks later, in September 2002, Giles shot her dead, claiming self-defense.
Giles’ attorneys argued that the police officer’s statement should not have been allowed at Giles’ trial, which ended with Giles being sentenced to 50 years in prison.
The California Supreme Court rejected Giles’ appeals, ruling that “no person should benefit from his own wrongful acts.”
The decision was similar to the one articulated by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the Jensen case.
From the June 26, 2008 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Have an opinion on this story? Write a letter to the editor.
Don’t miss one more day of local news and money-saving offers! Subscribe Today!