What the Wisconsin Supreme Court did in this case was create new evidence rules, and while they cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s earlier decision, the state court has misread the law.

And that’s why Mark Jensen may get a new trial. That would be justice, if not for Julie — justice for all of us.

How did the state misread the U.S. Supreme Courts dicision? Please explain that to me.

Thanks Dave

Jamie,

How can you expect Mark Jensen to confront his accuser when he killed her? Is not there a law that says you have the right to cross examine the accuser unless you have caused the demise of that person? Is everyone not guilty because you are a defense attorney??

To continue to support a person who lied about being at work, did not take his wife to the hospital as requested by the doctor and his children, to feed her abien and ethyene glycol all day, sit on her back, push her head into the pillows smothering her and rearranging her nose, keep the children in the car in freezing weather while he went in the house to make sure she was dead, and ask a friend the next day if it would look okay if he had Kelly move in to his house and also take her to the funeral is outrageous. Mark Jensen has earned all the black stars he needs to grant him a long prison sentence.

Even without the letter, common sense told them she didn’t kill herself. However, I’m disgusted with lawyers and lay people who try to twist every piece of evidence into something unconstitutional. Shame on you Jamie….again.

Give me a break. JUSTICE WAS served in this case. Murder is a crime here in Wisconsin.

How offensive that you disregard so casually the “justice for Julie” because her own words were used to help convict the man who murdered her. How could “justice for all of us” be served by this?

Why do you value the rights of a murderer over a murder victim? Your comment only continues her victimizastion after her death.

I pray the verdict stands and that precedent is set for future victims.

Jamie Floyd would not convict a person even if there were video of the crime. She would claim the video “too prejudicial” for admittance. Thank goodness there are people who understand that justice is a search and a finding of the TRUTH! The verdict in the Jensen case was just(ice). That means it is a win for all of us!!
If Jensen gets a new trial it will be a loss for all of us! The good people of Wisconsin will have to pay again to see justice done. Jensen himself silenced his accuser and it is ridiculous to believe that her words should no longer matter.
Wouldn’t it be great if those who commit crimes would ADMIT it? The problem today is that those of Jamie’s ilk have perverted justice to the point where suppression of truth is OK- especially if it improves the chances of getting your client off.

assume that julie jensen gave herself all that the toxicologists say were in her body–the question that needs to be answered did she suffocate herself? nooooo–it had to be the person whom they found guilty , mark jensen.

Like Nancy Grace thinks everyone charged is guilty, Jami Floyd thinks they are all innocent. Jami do something with your hair!!!!!!

Mark may not be innocent but he darn sure should receive a new trial. The first one has reasonable doubt stamped all over it and that’s not what I call justice for all.

Wow, your title says” In Session anchor”, but it sounds like you think you are an attorney. If you are one, then you are not very proficient in Supreme Court law. Besides, it’s moot, the letter is now a “dying declaration”–which is a hearsay exception.

I can’t stop wondering why a woman that tells the police and a neighbor that she fears her husband is poisoning her would not pick up the phone when she is feeling ill in bed. The phone was less than 12″ from her in bed.

This letter is a maze not a road map to her killer.
.
Afterall, Julie did see the post it note and could
have adapted her letter to make the post it look
more ominous then it was.
First of all why be so cryptic about it , if the two
are related . Why not systematically go down
the list one by one and explain why these items
made her suspicious he was trying to kill her.
for example; 1. Nicotene , if you find lots of this
in my body I don’t smoke. 2. If there is lots of
alcohol in my body I don’t drink . 3. Razor blades
if you find me with my wrists slit I would never
so that because my brother had attempted suicide that way and saw what that did to my family.etc. etc.
She could have pointed out in a clear fashion
what it all could have meant.
Instead she did sound unstable and rambling.
If your going to use this as evidence the photo
of the post it note , you don’t stop halfway. You
explain it in a clear rational way what it means

The ruling to allow the letter is correct. No suspect should be allowed the freedom our forefathers imagined because they would slay the very one that could finger them. If a ruling for a new trial is, however, made I sincerely hope the state of Wisconsin views the expert evidence used to convict Lynn Turner of anti-freeze poisioning.

I could not agree more, Julie wrote that letter two weeks before she saw her doctor, saw her doctor two days before she passed. I would think that her last thoughts would be more of what she said to him knowing he would not say anything to Mark. When you were playing the high-lights of the trial the prosecution in closing arguments kept saying who took the post-a-note out of Marks day planer, there was a witness for the prosecution that said Julie told her she (Julie) took the note. I also did not agree with all the mess with Kelly, The only purpus I could see in that mess was to try and make the jury dis like Mark as much as the acting D.A. seems to. Saying This email is from you to Mark @ this time and his response is @ this time would have been enough. This trial was so full of REASONABLE DOUGHT its a shame the jury didn’t use the law instructions.

When the Julie Jensen letter was allowed into evidence, a jury of twelve criminal defense attorneys would have found Mark Jensen guilty. I thought Mr. Albee was excellent.

Jami, Jami, Jami—There is no reasonable doubt! Julie, her family and friends are the victims–not Mark Jensen. While I believe an appeal is forthcoming and perhaps, even a new trial. The ruling regarding the letter is correct.

Kathie, are you the illustrious Katherine??? Please tell us all if you are related to the Jensen family. It would appear so…!!! I think the jury did a fantastic job and came to the right decision!

OH the letter NEVER should have come in I agree Jamie and that will be ONE reason for the new trial. However MOST of the jury members that were interviwed on YOUR Station said “the letter had little bearing on us.” Most had other reasons for his guilt. Like the fact he didn’t take his wife to the doctor. He was putting his wifes clothes out to the curb just a couple of days after her death. The jury was even smart enough to forget what the “snitches” had to say and look at better facts. I APPLAUD this jury and say WAY TO GO. Mark Jenson is and will be guilty of Julie Jenson’s DEATH. I know that the people of WI will pay AGAIN for a trial and Mr Jambroise to prosecute him. I will place odds on the fact though that Mr Albee won’t be at Mark’s re-trial. Albee got his money and will do the apeal then WALK like an egyptian to the bank while Mark is sitting at trial.

By the way Melissa MAYBE you should read Jamie’s BIo. Jamie IS a licened attorney.

Jami,
How can you defend a guilty man? Do you have no morals or ethics? Mark Jensen had no regard for Julie Jensen’s rights. How can you have regard for his?

Jami, I agree that a writing whose author is not subject to cross-examination should be disallowed as inadmissible hearsay, but if Julie Jensen had placed the writing in the hands of the police before her death, it would have been admissible. What is the difference?
Also I think such a writing should be admitted anyway since it was corroborated by other evidence which is subject to cross-examination.

Jamie,
If a witness is killed by the defendant, prior to trial, doesn’t the court is allow pre-trial hearing testimony, to be presented at trial
That this wasn’t under oath, is the only difference. As this Defendant, cause the witness to be unavailable for this trial.
From the press conference of the jury, I
saw that the letter was read along with
the photo that the police had developed
caused them to make sense of the
letter. but the computer search was a
big problem with several of the undecided
that 3 Ambien in less than 24 hrs, in her weakened condition, as one juror stated “she was out of it” could not have gone to the computer to search and double delete those searches. His own words from the interview
video, that the search for Antifreeze for a pool
in mid Nov. was another factor, as it was
over a month too late, for a pool in WI.

I think the ruling from the Wisconsin Supreme Court was not just good, but vital to our justice system. How many times have drug dealers, Mafia bosses and others of their ilk had witnesses killed to keep them from testifying. I think that victims of violence must have a voice. It would be nice if everything could be neatly tied up with the rule of law, but murder is messy and murders don’t usually follow rules. I don’t think children who murder their parents should receive mercy because they are orphans. I don’t think husbands who murder their wives should walk because she can’t testify against him.

Puh-leeze! The jerk got what he deserved. The jury deliberated long and hard considering every scrap of testimony and evidence. He couldn’t face his accuser because he killed the lady. Funny how they now grab onto that Constitutional Right to try and get a new trial - but it was okay for him to crap all over her Right to just LIVE!

It is said my many that the window to a person’s soul is through his eyes. I watched Mark Jensen’s eyes throughout the entire trial and all I saw was hate and cruelty. He has received exactly what he deserves as a sentence and I sincerely hope that he is not able to get a new trial. It would be a waste of taxpayers money. Both the jury and the judge gave him every chance to defend himself and they weighed the evidence carefully before reaching their decisions. The bottom line is that he had no defense.