Free Ken Middleton

Christopher Carter

To affirm Mr. Middleton’s assertion that his defense attorney had abandoned him, his attorney brought an expert witness to the stand. Mr. Christopher Carter has experience as a prosecutor, public defender, judge and has even been called upon to teach others in the bar about ethics. He was recognized by the court as an expert in the rules of professional responsibility with regard to both defense and prosecutorial ethics.

Before the hearing commenced, Mr. Carter carried out an evaluation of Robert Duncan’s performance as Ken Middleton’s defense counsel during the original trial. To reach a substantive conclusion, Mr. Carter had read virtually every pleading, document and case file of every case involving Ken over the prior 14 years. This would include both civil and criminal proceedings. Christopher Carter’s conclusion was as follows:

“Based upon everything that I have reviewed and my experience in criminal law, I found that Mr. Bob Duncan violated the standards set forth in Strickland versus Washington. He was, in essence, ineffective to the point that his omissions, if corrected, would have resulted in a different verdict than what was handed down by the jury in Mr. Middleton’s case.”

Mr. Carter’s further testimony elaborated very specifically with regard to Robert Duncan’s failures.

• Robert Duncan’s failure to interview witnesses.
• Robert Duncan’s failure to take a single deposition.
• Robert Duncan’s failure to have experts review the forensic evidence.
• Robert Duncan did not give an opening statement. He reserved opening and then never took advantage of it. This is critical as it defines for the jury how you (the defense) will proceed with the case.
• Robert Duncan did not call a single witness on Mr. Middleton’s behalf.
• Robert Duncan advised Ken Middleton not to testify. Per Mr. Carter, if a defendant has no priors and claims their innocence, then there is NO reason why that defendant should not be put on the stand to testify.
• Robert Duncan never retrieved the medical records that would have clearly resolved the issue of Ken’s commitment to a mental hospital following Katherine’s death.
• Robert Duncan was representing at least 4 murder defendants concurrently. Per the American Bar Association, no defense attorney should handle more than two capital cases in a year. During that time, they should not be handling any other litigation. Mr. Duncan’s caseload was clearly in violation of that standard. Mr. Duncan specifically asked for a continuance for Mr. Middleton’s trial as he was in court representing another client in a death penalty case at the same time (Ed Reuscher). Clearly Mr. Duncan was not actively working on Mr. Middleton’s case at the same time… just one week prior to Ken’s trial. Ultimately this specific case was REVERSED when the State confessed to ineffective assistance of counsel on the part of Robert Duncan with respect to Mr. Reuscher.
• Robert Duncan never called into question the issue of the gunshot residue analysis performed on Katherine’s hands.
• Robert Duncan’s failure to specify that the photographs presented to the jury were RECONSTRUCTED. They were NOT the actual scene.
• Robert Duncan failed to play for the jury the tape of the 911 calls placed by Mr. Middleton. This audio would have clearly shown Mr. Middleton’s hysteria immediately following the accident. Instead, he agreed to a READING of the transcripts of the calls which clearly did not convey the emotions of Mr. Middleton at the time.

In summary, Mr. Carter stated that “…there is no evidence to support that Bob Duncan was competent in this case whatsoever. In fact it’s all to the contrary.”

Following a discussion of the defense counsel’s performance, Mr. Carter was asked to review the actions of the prosecutor, Mr. Peters. Chris Carter specifically addressed the following with regard to this prosecutor’s behavior.

• Mr. Peters secured a bond order following Ken Middleton’s arrest. Mr. Peters stipulated a bond requirement that Ken could not get rid of any marital assets without seeking permission of the prosecutor and the probate court. Note that at the time there was not a probate proceeding taking place – none had been filed. Thus, there was no appointed administrator. The probate court had, in essence, no authority. Thus, in order to finance his own defense, Mr. Middleton would be forced to go to the prosecutor for “permission”. This is at minimum, a conflict of interest and potentially unethical.
• Mr. Peter’s father was counsel of the law firm that filed the civil action against Mr. Middleton. (Ultimately, in a civil court, a wrongful death judgment was issued in the amount of $1,350,000. Obviously, a substantial portion of this money is issued as fees to the firm representing the complainant.)
• Four days after Ken Middleton’s assets are effectively “tied up” by Mr. Peters, his father’s law firm files an action in probate court.
• Three days after the conviction of Kenneth Middleton and prior to sentencing, the Blue Springs Police Department was directly instructed by Mr. Peters to release $18,500 worth of jewelry to Katherine Middleton’s sister, Mildred. Mildred was the one member of Katherine’s family to testify against Ken at trial, however, she was NOT the only heir. The release of this jewelry was clearly improper as it gave the appearance of a “gift” to a witness.
• In Mr. Peter’s closing arguments at time of trial, he makes specific reference to the marital assets of Ken and Kathy Middleton. In effect, he states that we’ve got to do something to him so he doesn’t go out and spend her money.

In summary with regard to the prosecutor’s behavior with this case, Mr. Carter stated that as a judge, had he known all the facts with regard to the prosecutor’s clear conflict of interest, he would not have allowed Mr. Peters to proceed as the prosecutor. He indicated that the line between the individual and the State was clearly blurred in this case. The prosecutor’s conduct was “REPREHENSIBLE”.