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.