CONVICTION OVERTURNED AK - Kent Leppink, 36, murdered, Hope, 2 May 1996

[flourish]

Mechele's husband has written a short post on the free mechele blog page. He states (paraphrased) that he wishes everyone could see and hear all the evidence because it absolutely clears Mechele without a doubt. He then reiterates his feelings that the case shouldn't be "tried in the media."

So if the case doesn't end up being tried in court (again), does that mean he will make available this evidence that so clearly shows her no-question-about-it innocence? I'd sure like to see it. I'm open to her actually being completely innocent, but there would have to be some pretty dang compelling evidence that leaves absolutely no room for twisting and reinterpretation. Doubt any of us will ever see it, though.

 

[Turtlepace]

Flourish: I don't particularly think Kent's real killer is going to come forth and say he did it and Mechele had nothing to do with it. But other than that, what evidence would you accept as proof that Mechele did not conspire to kill Kent?

Understand that I don't think Mechele has to prove her innocence. I don't believe the circumstances used against her prove her guilt. It's all suspicions that doesn't even connect her with Kent's death.

 

[Turtlepace]

In reflection on my own question, I think I have answered it myself. Both suspicion and doubt are emotions that cannot be answered. Neither can prove anything to the other. The advantage of a trial is that a decision is made that is legally binding, but public opinion will rage on anyhow.

 

[flourish]

Turtlepace, I don't know what evidence would be convincing enough for me. However, Colin is claiming there is enough evidence to prove without a doubt that Mechele is innocent. If that's so, I'd like to see it. Whatever it is may very well be enough for me to change my opinion, but without knowing what it is, I can't say if it would be enough or not.

I do think a new trial would be incredibly helpful in that sense, but in lieu of that, the release of this alleged convincing evidence would be great. If the case isn't going to be re-tried, then releasing evidence that "proves her innocence" would go a long way to clearing Mechele's name in the public eye.

I realize that Mechele and her family don't want to "try the case in the media," but if the case isn't going to be tried in court, I just don't see how releasing the evidence (if they have possession of it/are legally able to release it) could hurt Mechele worse than the current general public opinion, which seems to lean in favor of her guilt. In fact, claiming that this evidence exists and then never attempting to bring it to light could very much work against her. IMO.

 

[Turtlepace]

I think that when Colin said there's evidence to prove Mechele innocent, he was talking about a trial. I don't think there will ever be enough evidence to convince some people, but it won't hurt Mechele if the evidence is never presented to the public. Mechele has her husband, daughter, family, in-laws, church, neighbors, friends, and complete strangers like me who already accept her innocence. Inquiring minds might demand to know and scoffers will continue to suspect, but beyond a certain point they are invading her privacy. If they don't back off, they will be stalkers.

 

[flourish]

I think that when Colin said there's evidence to prove Mechele innocent, he was talking about a trial. I don't think there will ever be enough evidence to convince some people, but it won't hurt Mechele if the evidence is never presented to the public. Mechele has her husband, daughter, family, in-laws, church, neighbors, friends, and complete strangers like me who already accept her innocence. Inquiring minds might demand to know and scoffers will continue to suspect, but beyond a certain point they are invading her privacy. If they don't back off, they will be stalkers.

If Mechele is interested in clearing her name in the general public, then releasing evidence would be helpful in that aspect. If she isn't interested in that, then she can just continue to insist upon her innocent and see if that begins to work better at some point, or I suppose she can just ignore the entire episode for the rest of her life. That's her choice, but to announce to the public that there's evidence that prover her innocence beyond doubt could be seen as caring about what the public thinks. *shrug*

I know how some feel about the State of Alaska providing some sort of written exoneration for Mechele. I wonder what Mechele thinks of that. Since the public doesn't matter and all, why the need for the piece of paper? She's home...that's proof enough for her and her family and supporters...or is it?

Colin mentioned recordings. If there was an authenticated recording of Kent speaking with the alleged shooter, clearly setting up his own death simply to spite Mechele, that would certainly give me a big pause.

Or if there are any emails or faxes between Kent and Mechele where they flat-out discuss the marriage as being a mutually agreed-upon sham--I mean, there's no reason they couldn't have discussed that amongst themselves via email, but there doesn't seem to be anything except for discussion of what sounds like an actual impending marriage.

Those are just a couple of thoughts...

Scoffers and stalkers? Do you think people who don't believe her are going to "invade Mechele's privacy" and "stalk" her?

 

[Turtlepace]

I wrote that beyond a certain point the people who will never accept Mechele's innocence would be invading her privacy and if they didn't back off, they would be stalking. I believe some people would believe they have a right to cross that line. They might even think they're obligated to do that.

It's one thing to ignore gossips, but it's another to have the State of Alaska forever holding the eventuality of another indictment and trial over Mechele's head. It's not in Mechele's best interests to broadcast her potential defense for hecklers to attack and discredit before she has a chance to use it. Mechele should not risk hecklers' poisoning the jury pool just to placate public opinion.

But even if the State of Alaska exonerates her, it's still in her best interests to let popular interest die down. Some people are never going to accept her innocence, and it does no good to keep them agitated. Colin was probably not sending a message to the nay-sayers so much as to the prosecutor. Mechele's defense is ready.

 

[flourish]

I do think a new trial would be incredibly helpful in that sense, but in lieu of that, the release of this alleged convincing evidence would be great. If the case isn't going to be re-tried, then releasing evidence that "proves her innocence" would go a long way to clearing Mechele's name in the public eye.

Quoting and snipping my own my post.

A new trial would be the best way to bring all the information out there.

No one stated this alleged material should be released if it would hinder Mechele's defense in a new trial.

No one has any obligation to anyone to release anything to anyone except law enforcement. However, not releasing information then complaining that people are making decisions based on only part of the information seems counter-intuitive.

The State of Alaska's (possible) decision to not continue to pursue the case is not a continued cast of suspicion upon Mechele.

No one here has ever mentioned anything like past, present, or future sleuthing of Mechele's life beyond what is posted in the media and the public blogs/pages and public records.

 

[otto]

Mechele's husband has written a short post on the free mechele blog page. He states (paraphrased) that he wishes everyone could see and hear all the evidence because it absolutely clears Mechele without a doubt. He then reiterates his feelings that the case shouldn't be "tried in the media."

So if the case doesn't end up being tried in court (again), does that mean he will make available this evidence that so clearly shows her no-question-about-it innocence? I'd sure like to see it. I'm open to her actually being completely innocent, but there would have to be some pretty dang compelling evidence that leaves absolutely no room for twisting and reinterpretation. Doubt any of us will ever see it, though.

I don't believe it. If the evidence absolutely cleared Mechele, she wouldn't have been convicted. By eliminating strong evidence of guilt, not introducing strong evidence of innocence, she has managed to skate free on appeal.

 

[Turtlepace]

The State of Alaska has not announced that it will not indict and prosecute Mechele. The prosecutor has only said that it has not re-indicted Mechele yet. The prosecutor just leaves Mechele hanging. Why do that if he doesn't have the evidence to indict and prosecute?

It still doesn't make sense for Mechele to broadcast her defense strategy for gossip to ridicule and scorn in the public media. She may never make known what her defense would be in a new trial, but she sure won't do it until the trial starts or the State of Alaska makes clear that it won't indict and prosecute her again.

The first conviction was due to mistaking Kent's spite letter for actual knowledge he could not have had anyhow. He wasn't an eyewitness at the time he wrote the letter. The letter was not an artifact of the murder scene. Kent gave no reason for suspecting Mechele of conspiring to have him killed. The accusation was just the last of smears to discredit Mechele because she wouldn't marry him. The letter was just presented to prejudice the jury since Kent's state of mind was already demostrated from other evidence.

Keep in mind that Websleuths is not the only part of the media.

 

[flourish]

Websleuths isn't the world? Well, I'll be! That must be what all that noise and light outside my apartment is! I've got a lot of exploring to do!:great:

Her case is currently listed as "closed" on the courtview site. http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/pa/pa.urd/pamw6500.display

It would be helpful for everyone for the DA to make a formal announcement as soon as possible.

 

[flourish]

New item on the public court docket, found at:
http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/pa/pa.urd/pamw6500.display

So I don't claim to understand what any of this means, but on 12/27/11, Mechele's lawyer(s) filed a motion for the Presiding Judge to Examine Potential Grand Jury For Bias.

Looks like the following was filed on 1/24/12 (my bold added):

Order Denying Motion for reassignment as moot and ordering state to file opp or status report if it non-opposed motion re: grand jury procedures (response due in 10 days)....

Best I can decipher is that there was a motion, presumably filed by Mechele's lawyer(s) asking for a reassignment (of judges, of jurisdictions, I don't know), which was denied as "moot," so either it's moot because there's no need to reassign if there's no new trial, or it's moot because there was already a plan to reassign whatever it is they wanted reassigned or it's moot for some other reason of which I have no idea...I don't know...I'm not a lawyer.

The second part seems to indicate that the state has been ordered to file, within ten days, an opposition to the motion regarding grand jury procedures, or a status report if they are not opposed to the motion regarding grand jury proceedings. ???? Maybe that means the state has ten days to file whatever it is they need to file to indicate whether or not they will be moving along with taking the case to a new grand jury. ???

So perhaps this is a little more up in the air than previously thought? Or perhaps this is just final "housekeeping" type of paperwork. Guess we'll find out more within about ten business days.

At this point, I'm considering this case a loss for justice, but will keep my eye on it and keep you all apprised.

Peace out :seeya:

 

[Turtlepace]

That the prosecutor only had unprovable suspicions that he cannot bring to trial does not make Mechele's freedom a loss for justice. Punishing the wrong person is not a victory for justice. Looking for Kent Leppink's real killer would be the right step toward justice. All the prosecutor had going for him was that Mechele was socially vulnerable and convicting John was a means to punishing her for being able to manipulate men into giving her money.

 

[flourish]

New item on the docket today:

01/26/2012 Order: Approving Stipulation and Ordering Release of Records to Attorneys

http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/pa/pa.urd/pamw6500.display

 

[flourish]

New item on the docket listed today:

02/03/2012 Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Presiding Judge to Examine Potential Grand Jurors for Bias. Attorney: Miovas Jr, Paul Joseph (0808051) Patrick J. Gullufsen (Attorney) on behalf of State of Alaska (Prosecution) Case Motion #62: Motion For Presiding Judge to Examine Potential Grand Jury For Bias, As Required by Criminal Rule 6(s)(2), Alaska Rules of Court

http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/pa/pa.urd/pamw6500.display

Interesting. So it looks like the prosecution opposes Mechele's motion for potential grand jurors to be examined for bias.

I would think that they wouldn't oppose it if they weren't planning to take the case to a new grand jury. However, I am not a lawyer and have no idea what the protocol is in general and certainly not for possible re-trials. The motion specifies an Alaskan law which indicates that a presiding judge is required by criminal rule to examine potential Grand Jury for bias....or maybe it just means that that rule requires a motion to be filed asking for grand jury examination...I'll see if I can find out.

Someone on the "Free Mechele" facebook page posted asking about the docket items which were posted last week, but no one has offered any further explanation thus far.

Curious.

 

[flourish]

Okay, so here's some more information on Alaska Criminal Rule 6(s)(2).

(2) If the prosecutor is made aware of a grand juror’s potential prejudice or bias that could affect the grand jury’s impartial deliberations, or if the prosecutor seeks to challenge a juror for cause, the prosecutor shall present the information as to prejudice or bias or the challenge to the presiding judge. The judge shall provide the juror with notice of the prosecutor’s action and shall question the juror concerning the potential bias or challenge. After hearing from the juror, the judge may request additional information from the prosecutor, other jurors, or other sources. If potential bias or cause is shown, the judge may excuse the juror permanently or for a particular case. The judge may impanel an alternate juror in place of the juror excused. If no potential bias or cause is shown, the judge shall allow the juror to remain and may take other appropriate action.

From http://courts.alaska.gov/crpro.htm#6

Hmm, so it looks like that rule concerns prosecutors, not defense attorneys. Also, it appears that the examination for bias is not only initiated by the prosecution, but deals with individual jurors as opposed to an examination made for all potential grand jurors prior to the selection of the jury, which, if I understand correctly, seemed to be what Mechele's lawyers were asking for--a pre-selection examination. It's also possible that the motion wasn't asking for a pre-selection examination, but for an examination of all the grand jurors once they were chosen. Either way, it does not appear that the above rule, which was the basis for the motion, is even applicable. No wonder the prosecution opposed it.

 

[Turtlepace]

The motion by the defense would make the prosecutor aware of the accusation that a juror on the Grand Jury may be prejudiced. Wouldn't the prosecutor be compelled to make the accusation known to the judge for the action prescribed? The law states that if such prejudiced juror is made known to the prosecutor, the prosecutor shall present the information to the judge and the judge shall ask the juror about the matter. The judge has certain choices to make if bias or cause is shown, but the bottom line is that the defense gets a biased juror off the defendent's case.

 

[flourish]

The motion by the defense would make the prosecutor aware of the accusation that a juror on the Grand Jury may be prejudiced. Wouldn't the prosecutor be compelled to make the accusation known to the judge for the action prescribed? The law states that if such prejudiced juror is made known to the prosecutor, the prosecutor shall present the information to the judge and the judge shall ask the juror about the matter. The judge has certain choices to make if bias or cause is shown, but the bottom line is that the defense gets a biased juror off the defendent's case.

Hmm, this motion was filed by Mechele's lawyers on 12/27/11, prior to the court hearing where the prosecution stated they don't have an answer yet as to whether or not they will be seeking a new indictment.

The Alaskan code cited in the motion refers only to the potential bias of individual jurors, not entire juries. So in order for Mechele's lawyers to have knowledge that there was potential bias of a grand juror, which isn't even how their motion is listed...it's listed as a "Motion For Presiding Judge to Examine Potential Grand Jury For Bias", then the grand jury would have already convened prior to the hearing where the prosecution stated they hadn't decided whether or not to seek for a re-indictment. I know grand juries are secret, but isn't the convening of one an indication of the prosecution seeking a new indictment? How could that not have been discussed at that hearing, if that were the case? The judge would know if they had already convened a grand jury, so their stating they were still working on a witness would be an obvious lie...in open court...yet there was no indication that was the case.

So if Mechele's lawyers are aware of a juror with potential bias, and their motion was to indicate to the prosecution that there was a juror with potential bias, then can't Mechele's lawyers move for the finding of the grand jury to be released?

What am I missing here?

Note the many time the code states "grand juror," but never once states "grand jury." :waitasec:

If the prosecutor is made aware of a grand juror’s potential prejudice or bias that could affect the grand jury’s impartial deliberations, or if the prosecutor seeks to challenge a juror for cause, the prosecutor shall present the information as to prejudice or bias or the challenge to the presiding judge. The judge shall provide the juror with notice of the prosecutor’s action and shall question the juror concerning the potential bias or challenge. After hearing from the juror, the judge may request additional information from the prosecutor, other jurors, or other sources. If potential bias or cause is shown, the judge may excuse the juror permanently or for a particular case. The judge may impanel an alternate juror in place of the juror excused. If no potential bias or cause is shown, the judge shall allow the juror to remain and may take other appropriate action.

http://courts.alaska.gov/crpro.htm#6

In any case, the judge hasn't ruled on this issue yet.

 

[Turtlepace]

Hmm, this motion was filed by Mechele's lawyers on 12/27/11, prior to the court hearing where the prosecution stated they don't have an answer yet as to whether or not they will be seeking a new indictment.

The Alaskan code cited in the motion refers only to the potential bias of individual jurors, not entire juries. So in order for Mechele's lawyers to have knowledge that there was potential bias of a grand juror, which isn't even how their motion is listed...it's listed as a "Motion For Presiding Judge to Examine Potential Grand Jury For Bias", then the grand jury would have already convened prior to the hearing where the prosecution stated they hadn't decided whether or not to seek for a re-indictment. I know grand juries are secret, but isn't the convening of one an indication of the prosecution seeking a new indictment? How could that not have been discussed at that hearing, if that were the case? The judge would know if they had already convened a grand jury, so their stating they were still working on a witness would be an obvious lie...in open court...yet there was no indication that was the case.

So if Mechele's lawyers are aware of a juror with potential bias, and their motion was to indicate to the prosecution that there was a juror with potential bias, then can't Mechele's lawyers move for the finding of the grand jury to be released?

What am I missing here?

Note the many time the code states "grand juror," but never once states "grand jury." :waitasec:

http://courts.alaska.gov/crpro.htm#6

In any case, the judge hasn't ruled on this issue yet.

It seems to me you are arguing a lot from just the titles of the motions. There's a lot more legaleze in the bodies of the motions than on the covers. I only commented on the code as you cited it. Are you saying that Mechele's lawyers cannot file the motions that you say that they did file?

 

[flourish]

It seems to me you are arguing a lot from just the titles of the motions. There's a lot more legaleze in the bodies of the motions than on the covers. I only commented on the code as you cited it. Are you saying that Mechele's lawyers cannot file the motions that you say that they did file?

I'm just trying to make sense of it by discussing it...this is a discussion board, after all.

Mechele's lawyers can file any motions they want to. Anyone who followed the Casey Anthony trial knows the flurry of motions lawyers can file...it doesn't mean they are automatically valid or filed with the best of faith, nor does it mean the motion will be ruled upon in anyone's favor until the judge rules on the motion.

I'm not suggesting that Mechele's lawyers file anything without good faith, I'm just saying the filing of a motion doesn't automatically mean it's appropriate, correct, or going to be granted.

I don't have the actual motions, obviously. And apparently you don't know the answers to the questions I pondered about above. Thanks, anyway

I am curious how the judge will rule--either way might offer some clarity to the status of the case.