1. A Summary of Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea and Law Enforcement.

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea, like every law enforcement officer in Minnesota, lives by her oath to uphold the Constitutional rights of every person . . . and by her commitment to keep society safe from lawbreakers.

She has ruled to keep our worst murderers in prison for life . . . not because they are the worst murderers . . . but because  their legal appeals are not in line with the laws written by our Legislators and defined by our courts.  See here.


For the same reasons, Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea has upheld the sentences for men who have murdered law enforcement officers.

• The murder of Sergeant Gerald Vick in St, Paul.  See here. 
• The murder of Officer James Sackett in St. Paul.  See here. 
• The murder of Officer Richard Walton in St. Paul.  See here.
• The murder of Officer Jerry Haaf in Minneapolis.  See here. .
• The murder of Officer Scott Patrick in Mendota Heights.  See here.
• The murder of Deputy Christopher Dewey in Mahnomen.  See here.
• The murder of John Liebenstein near Faribault.  See here.
• The murder of Officer Shawn Silvera near Lino Lakes.  See here. 
• The murder of Probation Officer Howard Porter in St. Paul.  See here.  

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea also ruled twice that it was improper for Minneapolis to require Police Officers to purchase their own professional liability insurance.  See here.

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea ruled that an MPD Officer should be given a hearing to determine if he had been the subject of age discrimination.  See here.

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea ruled that firm prosecution should be imposed on a person who threatens on computer to kill law enforcement officers with a hand grenade.  See here.

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea ruled to disbar a lawyer for lying to a police officer under specific grounds.  See x.

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea ruled that a conviction for assaulting a law enforcement officer should be upheld when a convict lunged at a Deputy with a handgun.  See here.

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea ruled that law enforcement officers should be given fair hearings in promotion proceedings.  See here.

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea ruled that not all evidence on drug crime should be excluded from the St. Paul Crime Laboratory.  See here.

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea ruled that "test refusal" should remain a crime.  That decision was upheld by the United States Supreme Court,  See here.

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea ruled that the Minnesota version of the Fourth Amendment does not give broader restrictions than the federal version of the Fourth Amendment.  See here.

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea ruled that reasonable standards should be set to evaluate applications to judges for warrants.  See here.

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea ruled to preserve the personal immunity of most law enforcement officers from lawsuits in most traffic colisions.  See here.

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea ruled that a law enforcement officer should be given a fair hearing if he claimed that he had been defamed by a superior officer.  See here.

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea ruled that the law prohibiting fleeing from police on foot was constitutional.  See here.

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea ruled that it is criminal to make false statements to police which defamed another police officer,  See here.

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea ruled that only a qualified Peace Officer can exercise the full authority of a Licensed Peace Officer.  See here. ,

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea ruled that assaulting five Law Enforcement Officers during an arrest can lead to a served sentence of over 10 years.  See here.

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea upheld the dismissal of a complaint against a trial judge who ordered a defense counsel to apologize for insulting a police officer in open court.  See here.

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea has issued over 1,000 rulings on police investigations and interrogations in criminal cases.  One favorite one is dismissing a murderer's claim that he did not get to cross-examine a declarant on her dying declaration to police.  You don't get to cross-examine a witness if you killed her.  See here.

2. Four Appeals on The murder of Sergeant Gerald Vick in St, Paul.

THE MURDER: St. Paul Sgt. Gerald Vick was a hero.  He won his first Medal of Valor for crashing through flames twice to save two toddlers from a burning home in 1990.  He won his second Medal of Valor in 1997 by saving a robbery victim and surviving a gun battle with the robber.  He won his third Medal of Valor for facing drug kingpin and gang enforcer Harold Jerome Evans during an undercover vice operation when Evans murdered him.

At 2:20 a.m. on May 6, 2005, Sergeant Gerald Vick was working undercover on a human trafficking case with his partner Sergeant Michael Strong at Erick's Bar on East Seventh Street in St, Paul.  When they emerged from the bar, they saw Harry Jerome Evans and another man confronting patrons as they emerged.  The officers told the men to move along and went to their cars.  When the two men confronted Sergeant Strong at his car, he chased them into an alley, where they were joined by Sergeant Vick, who was not wearing a vest because of the undercover assignment.  Evans shot Sergeant Vick several times.  Evans was caught seven hours later hiding on the porch of a house in the adjoining Dayton's Bluff neighborhood.  Evans had thrown the murder weapon with his fingerprints and DNA in the next yard.

Evans was convicted of first-degree murder of a peace officer for the 2005 murder of Sergeant Vick and sentence without the possibility of release.

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea has denied Evans' appeals from his conviction and life sentence four times.

First, in 2008, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected Evan's direct appeal.  See here.

     First, the Supreme Court rejected Evans' claim that the trial court has improperly contacted a juror to find out if he had made a racially-prejudiced comment.  The Supreme Court had directed the trial court to make such an inquiry after an unidentified caller made such an allegation.

     Second, the Supreme Court held that Evans' second claim was unfounded because he provided no proof that a juror had made a racially-prejudiced comment or that the trial court had seated a racially-prejudiced juror.

     Third, the Supreme Court rejected Evans' third claim that he was not given enough information about a witness' trip to the hospital on the night of the murder.  The Supreme Court noted that Evans' lawyer exercised a full opportunity to question the witness on the stand about the hospital visit.

    Fourth, the Supreme Court held that Evans need not have known or have had reason to know that Sergeant Vick was a peace officer to be found guilty under the law against murdering a peace officer.

     Fifth, the Supreme Court held that the trial judge did not err in declining to give a specific instruction about a witness as an accomplice to the crime because Evans' entire defense had been a claim that the accomplice had shot Sergeant Vick and that Evans had not done the shooting.

     Finally, the Supreme Court rejected Evans' complaint that he was prejudiced by evidence about Sergeant Vick's past heroism and three medals of valor.  The Supreme Court first noted that the trial judge had barred the direct introduction of this evidence.  Second the Supreme Court noted that the evidence was only introduced after Evans' lawyer had opened the door by claiming that the victim
was not on duty as a police officer when he was killed.  Third, the Supreme Court noted that the district court limited the State's introduction of such evidence so that it was not unduly prejudicial.

Second, in 2010, Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea wrote for the Supreme Court in rejecting Evans' first post-conviction appeal of his conviction and sentence.  See here.

     First, the Supreme Court rejected Evans' claim that his trial lawyer was ineffective because, even if such a claim was true, such a claim would have had to be raised on his first and direct appeal.

     Second, the Supreme Court rejected Evans's claim that his appellate lawyer had been ineffective in presenting the direct appeal.  The Supreme Court reviewed the lawyer's work and held it effective.

     Third, the Supreme Court rejected Evans' claim that a witness had recanted his testimony.  The Supreme Court held that Evans had not proved that a jury would have found differently if the witness had not offered the evidence which he allegedly recanted.

     Fourth, the Supreme Court denied a new trial for Evans on the basis of Evans' claim of newly-discovered.  The Supreme Court held that the evidence was known to Evans at the time of the original trial.

     Finally, the Supreme Court held that any error in denying petitioner's motion to compel discovery of a hearsay statement to a police officer was harmless.

Third, in 2015, the Supreme Court rejected Evans' second post-conviction appeal.  See here.

Many states do not allow a convict to have multiple appeals of the same conviction.  Minnesota does allow subsequent post-conviction appeals after a direct appeal.  However, by bot statute and court precedent, there are procedural limits and time limits on such appeals.

Here, Evans had filed a second post-conviction appeal nearly ten years after the murder of Sergeant Vick.  The district court held that this appeal was untimely, denied a hearing for Evans, and dismissed the appeal.

Evans asked the Supreme Court to review this dismissal.  The Supreme Court held that "the district court did not err when it concluded that appellant’s claims were untimely."


Fourth, in 2016, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's order that Evans pay restitution of $7.500 to the Crime Victim Reparations Board as part of his original sentence.  See here.

In March, 2015, Evans moved for an amendment of sentence and reversal of the order to pay restitution,  The district court ruled that the amount had been authorized by law, the time limit had expired for challenging the restitution order, denied a hearing and dismissed the motion.

On those grounds, the Supreme Court upheld the district court and ordered Evans to pay the restitution for the murder of Sergeant Vick.

3. Two Appeals In The Murder of Officer James Sackett in St. Paul

THE CRIME:  On May 22, 1970, activists in St. Paul were trying to draw the attention of the national Black Panthers movement.  Constance Trimble placed a fake 911 call which drew St. Paul Officer James Sackett to a house, where sniper Ronald Lindsey Reed waited with conspirator Larry Clark to murder Officer Clark.

Trimble was acquitted of murder.  She did not name her conspirators for 35 years.  Clark agreed to plead guilty and served five years for his role.  Reed was convicted and sentence without the possibility of release.

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea rejected two appeals by Reed.

First, in 2007, the Supreme Court rejected Reed's 13 claims on his direct appeal.  See here.

     First, the Supreme Court the Supreme Court held that the district court had original jurisdiction over a defendant who was 19 years old when he committed an offense in 1970.

     Second, the Supreme Court held that the district court did not commit reversible error when it instructed the jury that a defendant indicted for aiding and abetting and conspiring with a named individual could be convicted upon proof that he aided and abetted or conspired with any individual.

     Third, the Supreme Court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions for first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.

     Fourth, the Supreme Court held that the district court’s failure to give an accomplice corroboration instruction sua sponte was not plain error.

     Fifth, the Supreme Court held that the district court’s failure to give an instruction sua sponte limiting the use of evidence of other bad acts was not plain error.

     Sixth, the Supreme Court held that the district court did not err by replaying an audio tape of a 911 phone call at the request of the jury.

     Seventh, the Supreme Court held that of the seven remaining claims that Reed filed without the support of a lawyer, none constituted reversible error.

Second, in 2010, the Supreme Court rejected his first post-conviction appeal.  See here.

     First, the Supreme Court rejected Reed's claim that he was denied his constitutional right to self-representation is barred by Knaffla because appellant argued the same issue on direct appeal.

     Second, the Supreme Court rejected that his 2005 trial for a 1970 murder was time-barred by the statute of limitations. 

     Third, the Supreme Court rejected Reed's claim that he should not have been tried for both murder and abetting murder because he claimed that the 35-year delay for charging the abetting crime was time-barred by the statute of limitations.  The Supreme Court noted that there is no distinction between liability as a principal and liability for aiding and abetting for the purpose of calculating the limitations period under a statute of limitations.

     Fourth, the Supreme Court held that the post-conviction court did not commit reversible error when it denied appellant’s ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel claims.

     Fifth, the Supreme Court held that the post-conviction court did not commit reversible error when it denied appellant’s recanted-testimony claim.

              

.

4. Two Appeals in the Murder of Officer Richard Walton in St. Paul.

THE CRIME: Timothy Eling, Harold Gustafson, and Guy Hathaway decided to rob the pharmacy at Mounds Park Hospital in St. Paul.  On October 25, 1982, they donned ski masks and entered the pharmacy.  Behind her window, the pharmacist called the switchboard to warn of the men's approach.  While the men forced their way into the office with three guns drawn, Oakdale Officer Richard Walton emerged from an elevator.  Although Officer Walton shot Eling in the leg, the killers shot Officer Walton in the head several times.  He died the next morning.


Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea never got to hear an appeal from Timothy Eling because of a simple twist of fate.  After serving 29 years, Eling was released from prison by Governor Mark Dayton's Corrections Commissioner Tom Roy because Roy said he was impressed by Eling's conduct in the second half of his time in prison and his counselling of younger prisoners against drug abuse.  But in March, 2017, Eling was returned to prison to complete his life sentence because his probation-required urine test showed that he was now using methamphetamine.  See here. A police officer who arrested an armed Eling as he fled a 1972 pharmacy robbery now says he wishes he had shot Eling ten years before Eling killed Officer Walton.

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea did get to reject two appeals from Hathaway and Gustafson.

First, in 2007, The Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's second post-conviction appeal.  See here. 

     First, the Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's claim that he should be excused from killing Officer Walton because Hathaway was illiterate at the time of the murder.

     Second, the Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's claim that he should be excused from killing Officer Walton because the citations to the law were wrong at some points in the trial.

     Third, the Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's claim that he should be excused from killing Officer Walton because the prosecutor referred to the victim as "Officer Walton" during the trial.

     Fourth, the Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's claim that he should be excused from killing Officer Walton because the trial violated his rights to due process, equal protection, and a ban on cruel and unusual punishment.  The Supreme Court noted that there was no factual basis for this claim.

     Fifth, the Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's claim that he should be excused from killing Officer Walton because was improperly denied the ability to attend the hearing on his first post-conviction petition.  Hathaway did not, however, have a right to attend that hearing.

     Sixth, the Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's claim that he should be excused from killing Officer Walton because newly-discovered evidence could have led to an acquittal.  The Supreme Court noted that the evidence was new was actually known to Hathaway at trial or should have been known.

     Seventh, the Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's claim that he had ineffective assistance of counsel.  The Supreme Court scrutinized the record and found counsel to be effective.

     Eighth, the Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's claim that he should have been guaranteed taxpayer-funded counsel for this third appeal.  The Supreme Court noted that Minnesota law only guarantees taxpayer-funded legal representation for the first appeal.

Second, in 2008, the Supreme Court rejected Gustafson's second post-conviction from his conviction and sentence.  See here. 

     First the Supreme Court rejected Gustafson's claim that he should have a new trial because of newly-discovered evidence.  The Supreme Court noted that this claim was time-barred because the allegedly new evidence should have been known and asserted at the time of the direct appeal.

     Second, the Supreme Court rejected Gustafson's claim based on the assertion that a State witness provided false testimony at trial because petitioner failed to allege facts sufficient to entitle him to relief.

     Third, the Supreme Court rejected Gustafson's claim based on the assertion that the State made a secret deal with a witness in order to obtain testimony against petitioner because petitioner failed to provide factual support for his claim.

     Fourth, the Supreme Court rejected Gustafson's claim for taxpayer-funded counsel because he is not entitled to appointed counsel in these post-conviction proceedings because he has already had a direct appeal and a prior post-conviction proceeding.

.

.

5. Two Appeals in the Murder of Officer Jerry Haaf in Minneapolis.

THE CRIME:  On September 25, 1992, Minneapolis affiliates of the Vice Lords gang Adl El Shabazz (A.C. Ford). Montery Willis, Samuel "Shariff Willis, Mwati “Pepi” McKenzie, and Shannon Bowles (Nantambu Kambon) met to discuss a plan to kill a bus driver or a police officer.

Officer Jerry Haaf was shot in the back four times by two or three young men as he sat and drank coffee at the Pizza Shack on Lake Street that might.  It is suspected that Ed Harris and other Vice Lord associates were subsequently murdered by Vice Lord affiliates to cover up liability for the murder of Officer Haaf.

McKenzie was convicted and sentenced to life in 1993.  See here. ;

Shannon Bowles was convicted and sentenced to two life terms and 180 months in 1994.  See here.

Montery Willis was convicted and sentenced in 1995 and sentenced to life plus 220 months.  See here.

Samuel "Sharif" Willis was convicted and sentenced to twenty-nine years by a federal court on unrelated terrorism charges related to the Vice Lords gang and The City in Minneapolis.

Ford was convicted and sentenced to life plus twenty years in 2005.  See here.

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven ruled on two appeals by Mwati "Pepi" Mckenzie.

First, in 2005, the Supreme Court rejected McKenzie's fifth appeal.  See here.

     The Supreme Court held that McKenzie's two claims regarding the Hennepin grand jury process and ineffective assistance of counsel were barred because he did or should have known about these claims but did not raise them in earlier appeals.

In 2006, the Supreme Court rejected McKenzie's sixth appeal.  See here.

     First, the Supreme Court rejected McKenzie's claim that his sentence violated the Blakely doctrine because because Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), does not apply retroactively to petitioner, and further, petitioner’s mandatory life sentence does not violate the rule of Blakely.

     Second, the Supreme Court rejected McKenzie's claim that the Department of Corrections violated his due process rights when it withheld money from his wages for the Crime Victims Reparations Board fails because it was improper to bring the claim in a petition for post-conviction relief.

.

.

6. Two Appeals in the Murder of Deputy Christopher Lee Dewey in Mahnomen.

THE CRIME: After a night of drinking, firing a handgun in a trailer home, a drunken car crash, and two visits by police officers, Fairbanks and a friend went to a neighbor’s home to seek more alcohol in the pre-dawn hours of February 18, 2009.  Mahnomen County Deputy Christopher Dewey rolled into the driveway, left his unit and asked the two men to raise their hands.  The friend tried to tackle Deputy Dewey, and as the officer twisted away, Fairbanks fatally shot Deputy Dewey in the face.  Dewey died of his wounds 18 months after the shooting.

Fairbanks was convicted by a Polk County jury in nearby Crookston and sentenced to life without the possibility of release in 2011.

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea upheld Fairbanks' conviction and sentence twice.

     First, in 2014, the Supreme Court rejected Fairbanks; direct appeal.  See here. 

     First, after Fairbanks had requested a change of venue from Mahnomen County, the Supreme Court upheld the district judge's decision to move the trial to nearby Polk County for proper reasons.

     Second, the Supreme Court held that the traditional common-law rule regarding a death more than a year after the proximate cause of the death did not bar Fairbank's conviction and sentence for first-degree murder when Deputy Dewey died 18 months after he was shot.  The Supreme Court ruled that the year-and-a-day rule did not apply to the homicide statute.

     Third, the Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence autopsy and “spark-of-life” photographs of the victim.

     Fourth, the Supreme Court held that the evidence is sufficient to support defendant’s convictions on three counts of first-degree assault of law enforcement officers.  But conviction on a fourth
count must be reversed because the evidence is insufficient to prove that defendant fired
in the direction of the law enforcement officers.

     Second, in 2016, the Supreme Court rejected Fairbanks' post-conviction appeal.  See here.

     First, the Supreme Court rejected Fairbanks' claim that he did not cause Deputy Dewey's death and that the "causation in fact" was some situation at the hospital in the 18 months between the shooting and the death.  The Supreme Court held that Dewey had waived that claim when he did not raise it during his direct appeal.

     Second, the Supreme Court rejected several other claims that had been drafted by Fairbanks himself because "none of them have any basis in law or fact."

7. The Murder of Deputy John Liebenstein near Faribault.

THE CRIME:  On May 6, 1996, Timothy Patrick Chambers stole a car in Prior Lake and led a  chase for 35 miles through three counties that exceeded 115 miles per hour,  When Deputy John Liebenstein tried to end the chase by blocking an off-ramp with his squad on Interstate 35 along the Rice and Dakota Counties line near Faribault, Chambers deliberately crashed into the squad car and crushed to death Deputy Liebensteiner.

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea has not ruled on any appeals by Chambers who lost most of his appeals before she joined the Supreme Court.  He is currently serving his life sentence in the Oak Park Heights Correctional Facility near Stillwater.