Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 23, 2017, 12:39:57 AM
75132 Posts in 1768 Topics by 359 Members
Latest Member: nic4real
Home Help Login Register
TalkLeft Discussion Forums  |  Topics  |  Crimes 'R Us: Crimes in the News  |  Current Cases  |  Steve Gilmore 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Steve Gilmore  (Read 17516 times)
S.G.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #30 on: October 22, 2008, 08:00:46 AM »

New trial date set for June 10, 2009
Logged
S.G.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #31 on: October 23, 2008, 07:56:28 AM »

I read this on front page and was wondering how there could be such a huge differance in rulings?

"No Second Trial For Watada"
"U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle ruled today that Watada cannot be tried on those charges again. The government rested without proving its case, and Watada did not request or provoke the mistrial. Under those circumstances, the protection against double jeopardy bars a second prosecution."
-----------

Yet in my case:

Judge Jon Websters Ruling on Motion to Dismiss held June 9, 2008

No. 3 The Court should prohibit the State from proceeding to retry Defendant on Murder

"There is no Indiana authority which allows a trial court to dismiss a charge on an essentially equitable or best interest of justice standard. The first trial was a hung jury on both counts, and thus there was no conviction and no acquittal. The State, and the State alone, decides whether to retry Mr. Gilmore for murder and/or reckless homicide.

Resolution of this case lies with an interpretation of Indiana Rule of Evidence 606(b), and the Court declines to permit the original jury to be impaneled for even one (1) question regarding their verdict(s) or lack thereof."
---------------------

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=76&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=40&S=1
Private investigator John Mann was the only witness at the hearing. He stated he had personally interviewed each juror and they had unanimously agreed Gilmore was not guilty of murder

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=21&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=42&S=1
While the jury was considering Gilmore's fate, all of its members agreed that the defendant was not guilty of murder, according to the jury foreman, Robert Kennedy, in a statement to this newspaper following the August 2005 trial.
John H. Mann, a former state police officer and now a private investigator, was the only other person to take the witness stand for the defense.

Mann served all the summonses to the jurors and stated he asked them about their deliberations.

"All 12 were unanimous," he said, as he noted their comments that Gilmore was not guilty of murder.

Logged
Sydney Carton
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1577


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #32 on: October 24, 2008, 02:03:44 PM »

  SG:
    New trial date set for June 10, 2009

  SC:
    Is this good news or bad news for you?
     Was the expert deposed  as scheduled?
    Lots of people are interested in your case.But do not revile anyone,despite your frustration, not even trolls.It could account against you later.
     Otherwise please keep us informed.
   
Logged
S.G.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #33 on: November 03, 2008, 04:47:37 PM »

Allan Marshall, one of the attorneys that was supposed to represent me during my first trail is campaign calling for the prosecutor (Gary Smith) who is running for Superior Court judge here in jennings county, in.

He actually had the nerve to call me and tell me it was my best interest to vote for him.

The expert (Aaron Westrick) was deposed and told them it had to have happen the way I said it did, I was amazed to learn that everything we taked about was not covered under attorney / client priviledge even though my attorney was there. (Not that it mattered, for there's nothing for us to hide) Mr. Westrick told them everything I told him coinsided with what I said at trial.

Sydney you also asked if the new trial date is good or bad, well another 8 months with an 800 pound gorilla on my back 24/7.  ??
Logged
Sydney Carton
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1577


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #34 on: November 03, 2008, 06:55:18 PM »

   Steve,
     As I suspected would happen, this obviously very much law and order guy is backing you.It sounds like your lawyer did know what she was doing in taking his testimony in advance.At the least a great public relations move.
   If your expert was  being put on the stand  early (as I recollect you wrote that he was ) because the prosecution was now admitting that their  their expert(and the only expert called at the first trial) wasn't the best forensic expert  imaginable  in the case  and they actually wanted to get your man's evidence.Well,as you report it,they heard him,so why don't they either proceed to trial or drop the case?
    You have been in limbo for years.Is this postponement  o.k. with your attorney?Since you have exculpatory testimony from the only full fledged forensic expert now figuring in the case and the guy's right in front of her,why not start the trial posthaste?The prosecution has had over four years to prepare side of it. Does the State want even more time to challenge expert,a man whom you have made available to them since before  since before your first trial.
   If you answer this, do not bcome abusive or castigate anyone(unless you have direct documented quotes to back you up)in particular.However,I am sure we are all anxious to view exactly what is going on.
   Any chance we could see some news reports of the expert's testimony?
     Then take good,and well deserved, break.
     I'll be off until after the election.
      I would advise anyone who has a tape oof "I Clauudius" to view it before voting.
       
 
Logged
S.G.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #35 on: November 22, 2008, 07:09:32 AM »

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?SectionID=3&SubSectionID=40&ArticleID=7141

Alan Marshall was one of my attorneys during the trial.
Logged
S.G.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #36 on: February 24, 2009, 12:24:01 PM »

Barry S. Brown
P.O Box 6596
Bloomington, IN. 47408

Designated Special Prosecuting Attorney
As of now trial date is still set on June 8,2009

Please forgive the self promotion but does this make sense?
----------------

Remember THE LAW:
IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
     Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
        (1) is justified in using deadly force; and
        (2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.    (b) A person:
        (1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
        (2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
-------------------------------
pg 929 transcript / Final Instructions
"The question of the existence of an apparent danger and the amount of force necessary to resist force can only be determined from the stand point of the Defendant at the time and under the then existing circumstances."
 
pg 930
"Actual danger is not necessary to justify self defense. The question of the existence of such danger, the necessity or apparent necessity to act as well as the amount of force necessary to employ to resist the attack can only be determined from the standpoint of the accused at the time and under all the then existing circumstances. (Now check this out) There has been evidence introduced in this case that the accused was exercising his right of self-defense."
----------------------------------------------
"There has been evidence introduced in this case that the accused was exercising his right of self-defense."
No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

 
The judge admits there is evidence of self-defense, shouldn't it be over as per the LAW?
Logged
Sydney Carton
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1577


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #37 on: February 26, 2009, 02:41:11 PM »

   Good to hear from you,Steve.It has been a long time.
     Getting citations from the law and the transcripts is exactly what we like to get here.That is one of the things which makes it difficult when one is arguing one's own case.
   I presume the judge's statement was made when( or after) your attorney presented expert forensic testimony on your behalf.As I recollect your expert ,who is very much a law and order man,was available earlier but your earlier attorneys didn't utilize his services.I hope I have this right.I tried to find the newspaper  account of your man's testimony but failed to locate it.
   By the way,I suspect  you may have caught the nail  end of the stick when TL and I pulled you up a few months back.You were being bitterly assailed by some of your adversaries for having allegedly given two incompatable accounts of how the shooting occurred.Looking back,I believe that your outburst must have  directed against the policeman who says that you gave a contradictory account and you were forcefully asserting that he prevericates and that you have always given the version of the shootiing which your forensic expert now corroborates.
Unfortunately,it was by no means clear  in your communication (certainly not to me) why you accused an (apparently) unidentified cop of  lying.
   The correct(and non libelous) form would have been,"I absolutely deny that any such statements were ever made  but can't discuss it further while the case is in progress." I can understand why you weren't in a mood for legal niceties but you have to be in your present situation.
   I think you have a supporter,Katmandu,who has transcripts of at least part of your  proceedings,it would always be great for him(or her) to post the actual documents  here.
   
Logged
S.G.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #38 on: March 02, 2009, 01:21:29 PM »

These jury instructions are from the first trial to the first and only jury.
So we have a LAW that states: "No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting..."
Then the judge says there is evidence of self-defense in his instructions to the jury, so if he understands the LAW then he should of tossed this before it went to trail, but this judge says Indiana does not allow judges to dismiss cases for the best interest of justice.

The juror said he thought I was guilty of reckless homicide because I should of ran and hid.
Where did he get the right to decide that aspect?

I'm still wondering how with a law so exact and precise, how a lesser charge is even allowed? Either I have the right to protect myself or not, how do you throw an accidental shooting into this? How do you go from an intentional act to oops it was an accident?

I've never responded to Drake or any adversary on this site so I do not know what outburst your talking about. Go to pg 3, post 34 on other thread to see where I mentioned the ex-sheriff.
"I have a witness that puts the now ex-sheriff in jail for perjury but she hasn't spoke to her."
I was simply pointing out that a witness is willing to testify that discredits the sheriffs character/ testimony and "my" atty. refuses to this day to speak to her.
Logged
S.G.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


Re: Steve Gilmore
« Reply #39 on: March 03, 2009, 07:01:11 AM »

He who has nothing to hide, Hides nothing.

As all of you know if the jury spent most all of their time contemplating the lesser charge (which should of never been allowed in) then they had to of voted unanimously not guilty on the murder charge.

Why would a judge not allow for the jury to "validate their verdict" when they were ALL present and ready to do so?

What is he hiding?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Advertise Here