Justice For All?
We have gathered a staggering number of FACTS to show that justice has not prevailed. Read for yourself how our system failed Ken Middleton
Thanks to the effective representation provided by Jonathan Laurans, Mr. Middleton finally received a reasonable hearing before a judge. Mr. Lauran’s 80+ page brief that was presented to the court outlined clearly and concisely all of the reasons the conviction should be vacated. (More information regarding the previously ineffective legal representation by Ken Middleton’s defense attorneys can be found on the Insufficient Counsel page.)
Ironically, the judge assigned to hear Mr. Middleton’s appeal was none other than the same judge that sat in on the original trial, Judge Edith L. Messina. For Judge Messina to rule in his favor following the hearing, she would in effect also be admitting that she was, in some way, deficient during the trial in ensuring that Mr. Middleton’s rights were protected. It is the presiding judge’s responsibility to conduct an orderly trial and to assure the proper administration of justice in their court. The fact that Judge Messina would sit on the hearing was definitely a potential strike against the defense.
Nevertheless, expert witnesses were lined up and Mr. Laurans was ready to proceed.
One of the witnesses brought to the stand was Joseph P. Teasdale. Mr. Teasdale served as the Missouri governor from 1977 – 1981. In addition to Mr. Teasdale’s political background, he has extensive trial experience as an assistant U.S. attorney, prosecuting attorney, and trial lawyer. In his testimony, Mr. Teasdale described the prosecutor’s conduct as “suspect” and the defense counsel’s performance as “ineffective”. At the conclusion of his testimony, Mr. Teasdale was asked what action he would have taken if this case had been presented to him in his capacity as governor. His response was unequivocal.
“I WOULD CLEARLY HAVE PARDONED MR. MIDDLETON OF ALL WRONGDOING.”
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.
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.
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”.
Additional expert testimony was brought on Mr. Middleton’s behalf during the hearing by Ralph Robert Tressel. Following a review of Mr. Tressel’s background, the court acknowledged him as an expert in the area of crime scene investigation. View Mr. Tressel’s CV by clicking here.
Prior to the hearing, Mr. Tressel was provided with extensive materials… affidavits, crime scene photographs, investigative reports, transcripts, depositions, medical examiner’s report, exhibits, etc. He was called upon to provide professional analysis of this information.
In his testimony, Mr. Tressel COMPLETELY DEBUNKED the prosecution’s theory with regard to the cause and means for Mrs. Middleton’s injury. The prosecution’s theory was not only illogical based on a layman’s scrutiny, it was clearly impossible according to the very thorough, professional research performed by Mr. Tressel. Mr. Tressel stated the following: “I don’t see any way that the state’s theory of this case is validated by the forensic evidence that is present and also not present.”
Some key points in Mr. Tressel’s testimony:
Refer to the following link for the police diagram of the scene
(referenced in Bob Tressel’s testimony):
Mr. Charles Gay is the proprietor of North Winds Investigations, Inc. Mr. Gay was called upon to examine the evidence presented in the case against Mr. Middleton based on his numerous years of experience in law enforcement and criminal investigation. Before he founded North Winds Investigations, Mr. Gay was a Detective Sergeant in charge of the Major Crimes Unit for the Long Beach, CA police department. While there, he formed that department’s first major crime apprehension unit. After retiring from the police department, Mr. Gay worked for the Defense Department as administrator over international intelligence programs in Communist countries. Clearly, Mr. Gay’s experience and background fully justified his acknowledgment by the court as an expert in Crime Scene Preservation and Evidence Collection.
During the time that North Winds Investigations was examining the evidence in this case, one of their investigators, Ms. Wilma Sallee, was sent to the Blue Springs Police Department to inspect the gunshot residue documents. She notified Mr. Gay that the copies she received from the police department appeared to be altered. Mr. Gay then instructed her to proceed to the crime lab to obtain the originals. The intent was to confirm whether the originals matched the copies that the police department gave her. Ms. Sallee, followed by Mr. Gay, viewed the originals that were presented to the Crime Lab. Both of their observations were that the document had been ALTERED. The form itself was green and was modified with White-Out. Beneath the White Out, Mr. Gay could clearly see the word “left” and in the area where it referenced the number of kits was the number “2”.
Additional key points in Mr. Gay’s testimony:
Mr. Gay indicated that the investigation entirely improper as far as crime scene preservation.
We have gathered a staggering number of FACTS to show that justice has not prevailed. Read for yourself how our system failed Ken Middleton