Advertisement
The letter penned by Julie Jensen before her 1998 death can be admitted as evidence if prosecutors convince a judge her husband is likely responsible for her death, the court said.
Julie Jensen was found dead Dec. 3, 1998, in her bed in her Pleasant Prairie home about 40 miles south of Milwaukee. An autopsy revealed the 40-year-old mother of two died from at least two doses of ethylene glycol, commonly used as antifreeze.
In 2002, prosecutors charged her husband Mark Jensen with first-degree intentional homicide. But he claims his wife committed suicide and has pleaded not guilty.
Before she died, Julie Jensen told police and others that she feared her husband was trying to kill her and gave a neighbor a letter to give to police if she died.
In the letter, she wrote of her deteriorating relationship with her husband. She said she would never take her own life and “if anything happens to me, (my husband) would be my first suspect.
“I pray I’m wrong + nothing happens ... but I am suspicious of Mark’s suspicious behaviors + fear for my demise,” she added.
Mark Jensen had argued the letter and his wife’s statements to police, a neighbor and a teacher should not be used as evidence because they would violate his constitutional right to confront his accuser.
But the court said prosecutors can use statements Julie Jensen made to the neighbor and her son’s teacher.
She told the teacher she had found a suspicious list of drugs and syringes her husband wanted to buy and he might try to kill her with a drug overdose made to look like suicide. She confided to the neighbor that she feared he was trying to poison her.
As for statements to police and the letter, the court agreed they were testimonial evidence that Julie Jensen intended to aid prosecutors if she died.
The court adopted a new rule, saying such previously inadmissible testimony could be used if judges determined defendants’ actions prevented the witnesses from testifying. Criminal defendants should not benefit from eliminating witnesses against them, the court said.
A trial judge will have to decide whether to allow the letter and voicemail messages in which Julie Jensen told police she believed her husband was trying to kill her, the court said in its 6-1 decision.
A lone dissenting justice, Louis Butler, said allowing such evidence without showing the defendant intended to keep a witness from testifying “places the cart before the horse.”
Special prosecutor Bob Jambois said he would present evidence at an upcoming hearing to establish “that Mark Jensen was responsible for Julie Jensen’s inability to appear at the trial.” He acknowledged the letter and her statements were important to the case.
More broadly, he said the decision will give prosecutors another tool in domestic violence cases when witnesses often do not testify because they have been intimidated.
“In those circumstances, their prior statements will become admissible,” he said. “It’s a very significant decision for the criminal justice system in Wisconsin.”
Jensen’s defense attorney, Craig Albee, said he would continue to object to the use of the letters.
“The decision undermines the presumption of innocence in murder cases and deprives the right to confrontation and a fair trial,” he said. “I think the standard needs to be higher to prevent wrongful convictions.”
