THE ONLY CASE IN AMERICAN HISTORY WHERE A JUDGE, PROSECUTORS AND COURT APPOINTED DEFENSE COUNSEL ARE SUPPRESSING A UNANIMOUS NOT GUILTY VERDICT.

One must keep in mind this law, the most precise ever written.
Then one must ask how, supposedly educated officers of the court,
Judge Jon Webster,
Prosecutors Gary Smith, Drew Dickerson, 
Court appointed attorney's Alan Marshall, Brad Kage, Mark Wynn and Mary Stotts,
are incapable of relating a jury reporting it was unanimous not guilty with the law when it can not be any more clear or precise:

"No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary."

Yet, the above named officers of the court have decided to completely disregard and reject the US Constitution as it relates to Due Process and Rule of Law and the written laws of the state. It is their sworn duty to uphold these values not to be the worse offenders of them.

Gary Smith and Drew Dickerson committed the worse offense possible by prosecutors by altering evidence, (which is a felony) not to mention suborning perjury and presenting a case based on pure fabricated innuendo, which is not possible without the assistence of the judge and court appointed counsel.

Then even though the jury was ready to testify, in open court, under oath they arrived at a unanimous not guilty verdict these "esteemed" officers of the court are doing everything possible to keep them from doing so. 

When the judge disallowed the jurors from "validating their verdict" (which is leagl and proper under the very law the judge used to disallow it) the judge stated he was in possession of two verdict forms given to him by the jurors which the trial transcript and a letter published in the local paper disproves.

After being disallowed to testify concerning their verdict a juror wrote to the local paper stating how the jury quickly arrived at a not guilty verdict and how the jurors never saw any verdict forms let alone present any to the judge blank.

What sort of a legal system can you have when the officers of the court refuse to recognize and have no respect for the laws they have sworn to uphold?

THE LAW:
IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
     Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
        (1) is justified in using deadly force; and
        (2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
    (b) A person:
        (1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
        (2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
-------------------------------------
http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=21&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=42&S=1

"While the jury was considering Gilmore's fate, all of its members agreed that the defendant was not guilty of murder, according to the jury foreman."

"John H. Mann, a former state police officer...served all the summonses to the jurors ...

"All 12 were unanimous," he said, as he noted their comments that Gilmore was not guilty of murder."

How can any educated person, let alone a sitting judge, not be able to relate: "We (the jury) were unanimous not guilty..." with "No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary."

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=76&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=40&S=1

"Murder charge stands
Judge: failure of jury to complete verdict form means Gilmore will have 2nd trial"

"This court had no way of knowing whether the jurors were deadlocked on murder or reckless homicide," Webster said. "Apparently, this information came to light after the jury was discharged."  (SEE JURY ENTERS COURTROOM BELOW)
---------------------
How could any sensible, unbiased judge not know "whether the jurors were deadlocked on murder or reckless homicide?" (which, by LAW, should of never been included, see below) before he dismissed them? 

How can an unbiased, honest judge state that due to the jury not signing the verdict forms is his reason for the retrial but when a juror goes public and states they never received any verdict forms this judge simply calls the jurors liars and refuses to correct his error.

How can any educated person not be able to relate: "We (the jury) were unanimous not guilty..." with "No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary."
---------------------------------------
pg 929 transcript / Final Instructions from judge Webster

"The question of the existence of an apparent danger and the amount of force necessary to resist force can only be determined from the stand point of the Defendant at the time and under the then existing circumstances."

pg 930
"Actual danger is not necessary to justify self defense. The question of the existence of such danger, the necessity or apparent necessity to act as well as the amount of force necessary to employ to resist the attack can only be determined from the standpoint of the accused at the time and under all the then existing circumstances. There has been evidence introduced in this case that the accused was exercising his right of self-defense."
----------------------------------------------
The judge points out in final instructions:

"There has been evidence introduced in this case that the accused was exercising his right of self-defense."

So what nullifies THE LAW?

“No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.”....

The judges own instructions disallow for any legal jeopardy of any kind what so ever, so how did this proceed to trial and WHY is he suppressing a NOT GUILTY VERDICT?
--------------------------
Not one iota of evidence was presented to refute what I say happened, none. NO eye witness, NO ballistic evidence and in fact the states "expert" forensic witness said it was possible to have happen the way I said it did, therefore refuting what the state says happen.
pg 400, transcript

Q.) And isn't it true that that turn could be because, because somebody was looking like this?

A.) Yeah, well you could get that angle upward like that that way, yeah.

pg 401,

Q.) Looking at whatever in a window or looking somewhere, but you could get that angle like that, isn't that true?

A.) Yeah, pretty close.

pg 407,

Q.) Well, I mean for instance his feet. He could have been originally facing and then bent over looking in the window. That could create the proper angle.

A.) It's possible, yes.
---------------------------------
He couldn't be turned looking in the window as the states witness says is possible AND be turned completely away from the house running away as the state said in closing.

How can a prosecutor present a shooting case when the trajectory of the wound does NOT coincide with what they say happen? Why does court appointed counsel allow it and a judge not recognize it?
-------------------------------------
From the Indiana / American Bar Association Professional Rules of Conduct
http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/mrpc_toc.html

"Model Rule 8.3(a)
Reporting Professional Misconduct

“Imposes a mandatory reporting obligation on every lawyer with respect to other lawyers’ violations of the professional rules. Probably no other professional requirement is as widely ignored by lawyers subject to it.”1

“Moreover, the lawyer’s duty to report professional misconduct is the foundation for the claim that we can be trusted to regulate ourselves as a profession. If we fail in our duty, we forfeit that trust and have no right to enjoy the privilege of self regulation or the confidence and respect of the public.”2"

“A lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

(b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge's fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority."

Rule 3.4. Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel
A lawyer shall not:

(a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;

* It is ILLEGAL to alter evidence. It is especially wrong when the state presents altered evidence not only without objection from defense counsel but with the knowlwdge and assistance of defense counsel.
-------------------------
Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities Of A Prosecutor

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause

(h) When a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor shall seek to remedy the conviction.
--------------------------------

**To this date they have not presented probable cause (thanks to Brad Kage, Alan Marshall, Mark Wynn and Mary Stotts)and they know the jury was unanimous not guilty, they are mandated to "remedy" the error.
----------------------------

Knowing this would include a prosecutor altering evidence, (see blog below) which is easily provable in my case, where Gary Smith / Drew Dickerson altered the taped sworn testimony of the pathologist.

I would like to know if a judge who has suppressed a jury from testifying so to refute his claim concerning blank verdict forms, which he is using to cause double jeopardy fall within the realm of obstruction of justice (a felony)?
------------------------------------

Letter by juror in local paper, Aug. 9, 2007, after the judge refused to let them testify, suppressing their verdict.

"Juror, judge differ on verdict form details"

Dear Editor,
Because of so many who do not understand the full story of the Steve Gilmore case, I write this letter.

The instructions given at the trial to the jury by the judge were to consider the innocence or guilt of the defendant for murder. If that consideration became not an option, we should consider his innocence or guilt of (the lesser charge of) reckless homicide.

It was a unanimous decision by the jury to not consider a murder conviction.

After hours of intense deliberation, we could not come to a unanimous decision for the lesser charge.

The judge was informed that the jury was at an impasse and we were recalled to the courtroom, polled and dismissed.

Never did we receive a verdict form or send a form back to the judge blank.

I hope this helps.
A jury member

(Editor's note: According to Jennings Circuit Court Judge Jon Webster, the jury that heard the Gilmore trial was given (a) verdict form that was returned to him unsigned.)
--------------------------------------

At the end of the jurors letter (above) which refutes the judges claim about the verdict forms existence, notice the "Editor's Note" where the editor talked to the judge about these forms:

"(Editor's note: According to Jennings Circuit Court Judge Jon Webster, the jury that heard the Gilmore trial was given (a) verdict form that was returned to him unsigned.)"

So there is public evidence that the judge knows about the jury refuting the existence of any verdict forms ever existing.

then the judge for a second time refuses to allow the jurors to testify so to 'Validate their verdict":

"ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS1" June 1 2008

"Defendant is again inviting this Court to impanel the original jurors in this case to ask them one (1) question, that being "Did you find the Defendant not guilty of murder?".

" The only way to answer this question with certainty would be to impanel the jury and ask them individually about their decision on murder."

" and the Court declines to permit the original jury to be impaneled for even one (1) question regarding their verdict(s) or lack thereof"
-----------------------------

So, even though he has discussed this matter (verdict forms) with the editors (more than once) and who knows who else, he declares:

"Defendant has alleged, without any credible evidence"

"There is no independent evidence the forms were not sent back. "

"The Defendant's unfounded assertion that no verdict forms were given to the jury is just that, unfounded."
------------------------------
So, even though the judge knows the jury is refuting the existence of the verdict forms, knowing the judge has read the reports the jury was unanimous not guilty as has been reported several times in a local newspaper in a community of only 6-7000 people, the judge then refuses to allow the jury to testify (suppressing, credible, independent evidence), he then declares there IS no independent evidence, basically, because he is suppressing the independent evidence.
--------------------------------

Then when I ask the court appointed counsel (this same judge has appointed to me) to please address these judicial misconducts by the prosecutor and judge, they drop from the case or declare it is "water under the bridge" and the judge then declares I am asking them to surmount some defense strategy they cannot in good faith perform and then threatens me with contempt of court if I have problems with any further ineffective counsel he appoints.

Brad Kage / Alan Marshall knew the jury was unanimous not guilty the night the jury returned their verdict but refused to file a Motion to Correct and refused to have the prosecutor investigated for obstruction, instead they dropped from the case.

Mark Wynn, refused to have the prosecutor investigated and when the letter from the juror hit the paper he dropped from the case immediately.

Mary Stotts, simply says their actions are "water under the bridge" and she could care less.
--------------------------------

JURY ENTERS COURTROOM

This is the trial transcript reporting how the judge handled the jury's verdict.

Nowhere did the judge retain any verdict forms. The judge called the jury back in upon receiving a "message" from the foreman.

The other jurors didn't even know they were coming back in to voice a verdict, as you will see. What sort of message did the foreman give the judge, if the other jurors were unaware of it? The jurors room is very small, how would a foreman tell a baliff something without the other jurors not knowing about it?

How did this foreman inform the judge they were at an impasse and ready to come in and relate so without the other jurors knowing about it?

If the other jurors were unaware of this, then how do we know the foreman didn't tell the judge they were not guilty on the main charge and only at an impsse on the lesser?

You will also see that after asking the jury if they were at an impasse and not asking which count they were at an impasse on, the judge calls the prosecutors AND the defense counsel into chambers for a meeting. Even then NO ONE, not even the defense counsel even thinks to ask which count the jury is at an impasse on. Amazing, absolutely AMAZING!!! How is this possible? 

Can defense counsel really be so incompetent that they know not to ask which count the jury is at an impasse on or to even poll the jury?

The bigger question is, though, why did the defense counsel even allow the improper lesser charge to be considered, considering the preciseness of IC 35-41-3-2 and how no one but the defendant has the right to determine the amount of force necessary to repel the attack against him. Why did they? Because they knew there was no way ANY jury was going to overlook the simple fact that there was not one iota of evidence presented during this trial to prove anything, other than my innocence. 

By the foremans own words after the trial, the only reason for the impasse on the lesser charge was because they were considering factors they shouldn't of. He stated I should of ran and hid or I should of called 9-1-1. He was not here, he doesn't have the right , by law, to consider those factors.
(See Law IC 35-41-3-2 and jury instructions above)

The judge NEVER collected ANY verdict forms and he says he is in possession of two forms the jury presented him. WHERE? 

JURY ENTERS COURT / FINAL INSTRUCTIONS / 8-22-05  pgs 938-944   END OF TRIAL

The Court:  Shortly before noon today, the jury began deliberations in this case. They ate lunch for approximately 30 to 40 minutes and actually began deliberations about 12:30. It’s now 11:30 PM and with the exception of about an hour and a half they took for supper, they’ve been deliberating continuously in the jury room. About ten or fifteen minutes ago, I received a message from the foreman, is that you, Mr. Kirkham, that he believed that the jury was at an impasse. Mr. Kirkham, is that in fact your message to the Court about ten to fifteen minutes ago?

Mr. Kirkham: Yes, Your Honor.

The Court: Is there anything the Court or the attorneys can do to help you in arriving at a decision in this case?

Mr. Kirkham: Personally, I see no way anybody could help.

The Court: Okay, do you believe that the jury is at an impasse in this case?

Mr. Kirkham: Yes sir, I do.

The Court: If you were to go back into the jury room and continue deliberations, do you believe that the jury could reach a decision in this case?

Kirkham: No sir

Court: Do you believe that you speak for your fellow jurors in making that decision?

Kirkham: yes, your honor

Court: Is there anyone on the jury that disagrees with Mr. Kirkham’s assessment? Ms Knight?

Ms Knight: Sorry, (inaudible) about him speaking for the jury. I didn’t realize that he had come to tell you we were at an impasse.

Court: Okay, do you believe that you are?

Ms Knight: Most likely.

Court: Do you think that if you were to return into the jury room and continue with your deliberations, that the jury could reach a decision in this case? And is there anything that this court or the attorneys could do in help you arriving at a decision?

Ms Knight: No

Court: Anyone else who wishes to speak on that issue? I would ask that you return into the jury room. I will have a brief meeting with the attorneys and then I will bring you into open court and let you know the court’s decision. Ms Knight, if you will lead them back in. No, we’ll go in the office.

(RECESS)

The Court: Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Everyone may be seated, including spectators. Mr. Kirkham, as foreman of the jury, has anything changed in the last ten minutes?

Kirkham: No, Your honor.

The Court: Alright, first of all, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I would like to thank you each of you very sincerely for your service as jurors in this case. I hope if you take nothing else away from this experience, you take away a better understanding of our system and the hard tedious work that’s involved, not only for you folks, as I’m sure you’ve experienced over the last ten hours, but the attorneys that are involved in this case. Uh, each of you have I know at great personal sacrifice served over the last six days and regardless of what has happened here, I think I speak on behalf of the attorneys and the citizens of this county and thank you for your service. Uh, the right to a jury trial, is something guaranteed by our constitution, but it would be meaningless without people like yourself willing to give up their time, their money, and disrupt their lives as you have done and I appreciate it. Based upon the statement of the foreman and confirmed by at least one other juror, the Court now finds that this jury is at an impasse that cannot be resolved and declares a mistrial in this case. You are discharged as jurors in this case and I thank you for your service. I remind you that if you wish to, you can speak to anyone, that is your choice and I’ll leave that up to you as each individual juror. Ms. Richart will give you your pay slip as you pass her and I thank you for your services.

Any Questions?

Juror: Judge, can you fill us in on what would happen now with Mr. Gilmore?

Court: The State of Indiana will have to make a decision on that and then they will let me know. Thank you all for serving. Ms Knight, for the last time, you can lead them out.

(JURY LEAVES COURTROOM)pg 942

Where did the judge collect any verdict forms and where did they poll the jurors?

How does a judge two prosecutors and two defense attorney's have a meeting and NO ONE thinks to ask which charge the jury is at an impasse on?

“… they were as good as the Court had.”

TRAJECTORY OF WOUND

So according to the state he’s 10 to 14 feet from the door and running away, which would indicate he was completely turned away from the door. (10 – 14 feet is a big difference since I’m supposed to be exact with every word when describing that night.)

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2002/oct2002/oct02leb.htm scroll halfway down to RESEARCH FORUM 

RUG BURN TYPE ABRASION

To begin with I want to point out on pg 380 Dr. Weekly Jones says Billy had a superficial abrasion on the left side of his forehead…consistent with a rug burn which means he had to of hit the concrete porch with a glancing blow and not the gravel when he fell. A 6’0”, 276 lb man falling face first into gravel will not simply have a rug burn type abrasion, he would be gouged and cut-up somewhat. This matter of fact disproves the states’ account of 10 to 14 feet away falling face first and was never pointed out to the jury.

BLOOD SPOT ON PORCH

There was a blood spot on the southeast corner of the porch that wasn’t brought up at trial and this blood spot disproves the state’s 10 to 14 feet and running away theory. If as the state says he was running easterly and is shot in the back, how does a 276lb man’s, running  momentum immediately cease from an easterly direction to falling directly to his right (south) but acquiring a rug burn abrasion on the left side of his forehead? It is ridiculously impossible and never pointed out to the jury.

Continuing with the state’s cross, they asked; “ Okay and if he’s shot from that doorway with a bullet path that’s going up into his body uh, he is bent over to some degree, is that correct?”

(http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/f587d7d10c34fff2852572b90069bc3c?OpenDocument

This narrative mentions nothing about me being evasive or giving numerous accounts even though it was typed and prepared two days after all interviews had been recorded. Yet the state was able to get the sheriff, Off. Turned and Off. Blevins to comment over and over how I changed my story every time I talked to them.

This is a metallic, plastic coated exterior door. It would be absolutely physically impossible to hit this door so hard so to crack it but not crease it, and then hit it again so hard as to crease it twice and not crack it any further. PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Yet they are able to get every officer that testified to say that these creases didn’t exist that night even though they admit to the crack.

BILL'S CHARACTER

Even though Rules of Evidence 404 says;

Kage/Marshall refused to use this to my advantage even though the state fabricated the scenario that I was the aggressor and initiated this entire event.

Another neighbor stated how Akers had pulled a gun on him and his father.

Another woman who had recently broke up with him said he was stalking her, she had caught him peeking in the windows, had slammed her new boyfriend up against a wall and she had friends stay with her and even left her own home because of him.

LURED HIM HERE

Then there is the asinine fabricated claim by the state that I lured Akers (again w/o anything to support their claim) back to my very secluded home when there is evidence that Akers may have been planning on doing me harm and Kage/Marshall refused to address this issue also.

Bill Akers walked to my secluded home ALONE which is three tenths of a mile off the road, just before dark with a pistol in his pocket, even though just three days prior he had gone to a sisters house to visit and without saying word about me while they are visiting, however, according to his sister “As Bill was getting ready to leave Bill said Steve was going to kill him. Bill did not go into details or say anything else just that Steve was going to kill him.”  The very day before this happen Akers told his brother, Gary, who lives at the end of our one lane drive approx. 300 yards away, that I was all upset and was going to block off the driveway and that Gary wouldn’t be able to get home. (It’s a one lane road; if he can’t get home I cannot either, also, Gary said nothing about threats toward Bill from me)

So the “luring” aspect of the state’s case is easily defendable and can much easier be turned against them if Kage/Marshall was attempting to defend me in the least. If this was in anyway believable why didn’t the state tell the jury I had supposedly just threatened Akers? Simple, it makes no sense and in fact proves more that Akers had malfeasance in mind when he walked back here alone that evening.

Oddly, as the state was giving this impossible theory, Alan Marshall turns to me and says they came out to the house and did a mock run of what the state was saying and it is virtually impossible, however, they never told this to the jury.

The judge has written in opening instructions that “the State must prove each element of their case with evidence that firmly convinces each of you and leaves no reasonable doubt”...”A defendant must not be convicted on suspicion or speculation”. A Defendant isn't suppossed to be tried on speculation and inuendo either, but that didn't stop these people.

If a prosecutor during their summary states that a defendant lured another to his house laid in wait and shot that person, doesn’t the State need to at least mention that during presentation of their case? Do they not need to prove how the person lured the other there and that it was even plausible? If the State is going to accuse the defendant that he laid in wait, shouldn’t the State be obligated to mention this during their case presentation and show where he laid in wait and what proves that assumption and that it is even plausible?

Wouldn’t one think that any competent counsel would make the State present such accusations during their presentation so they could defend and show how impossible their claims are? Yet, Kage / Marshall sat back and never made the State present simple probable cause.

COVERED IN GLASS

Another fact the state and my attorneys attempted to hide and only came to light thanks to a very alert juror (IN allows for jurors to ask a witness questions) is that Akers was covered in broken glass proving he was standing on the porch holding the outside glass door open when I shot the first warning shot. So since there was a warning shot, since Akers was covered in glass from this shot and since the trajectory of the wound proves he wasn’t turned and running away why was he still facing the house and only semi turned away when the second shot is taken if not going for his gun as I said he was?

How can the state present their entire case without one witness ever mentioning or implying in any way that I lured him back here, that I laid in wait and shot him as he was running away, yet the state only in their closing statement say this is what happen when the physical evidence actually proves differently and the defense counsel doesn’t object to anything?

Even though there were taped interviews of what I said happen and there is a typed narrative (above) by Turner, of my account, for some reason Kage/Marshall called me to the stand not once but twice even though I told them I did not want to and knowing the state was trying to say I kept changing my story which I never did.

The last day of trial Kage/Marshall  came to me stressing the importance of allowing for a lesser charge to be included, how they would be remiss if they didn’t allow for one to be introduced, I was quite ADAMANT against any lesser charge being included due to no evidence whatsoever being introduced, yet against my DEMANDS they agreed anyway.

After the jury came in and said they were at an impasse and after having a meeting with the judge and prosecutor Kage/Marshall refused to ask the jury which count they were at an impasse on.

Upon learning of the jury’s unanimous not guilty verdict in the hallway immediately following the trial instead of bringing them back into the courtroom and having them get this verdict recorded they allowed them to leave and go home.

Kage/Marshall was adamantly against filing for a Motion to Correct, as they had been against filing for the speedy trial and for a dismissal.

So I guess the judge was right when he said; “Mr. Gilmore, apparently not satisfied with their efforts or apparently expecting them to pursue legal strategies for which they disagreed, made it difficult for them to continue.”

From Judge Webster Oct. 5 2007, ORDER ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW

“In their place, the Court appointed Mark Wynn from Madison. This got the Defendant an attorney "from out of town", yet near his home. Mr. Wynn has ten (10) years of experience in a wide variety of legal matters, including criminal law. Mr. Wynn now has asked to withdraw because Defendant is apparently seeking to pursue a legal strategy Mr. Wynn cannot, in good faith, pursue.” (wonder how the judge went from a communication breakdown to legal strategies)

After being completely betrayed by Kage /Marshall who I had played golf with and who came across as a couple of friends that cursed and spoke of the prosecutor as the biggest snake that ever existed, I trusted no one.

When Mark Wynn was assigned my case I immediately wrote to him and gave him my side of the case and that I was going to have a trust issue. After he looked into the case he stated he could understand my feelings of mistrust fully since there was no evidence whatsoever and was wondering what this case was based upon.

However, we learned quickly that Wynn wasn’t here for my benefit. I asked to have judge Webster recused from the case and Wynn refused to do so as he also refused to have the prosecutor investigated for obstruction of justice by altering sworn taped testimony.

We had a new “neighbor” buy and move into the property at the bottom of the hill which we have a legal and well established 50 foot road easement across. This new “neighbor didn’t like what he bought so he illegally (criminal trespass) blocked our road off and built a new drive for us to use that is straight down a 100 foot 45 degree hill.

Mom asked Wynn if she could hire him to take care of that issue for us. He agreed to, however, when he filed the complaint instead if filing it with the other court we have in Jennings county, Wynn filed it in Webster’s court, even though we were adamant against him doing so.  An issue that he should have cleared up in our favor within a very short period has still to this date not been cleared up even though the easement is clearly described in our legal description and is included with the ownership deed of this land. The people who have bought the place at the end of this shared lane and has rented it out four times in the last two years because of the steepness of the drive. One family moved two pick-up loads back to the place but decided to move elsewhere because they had so much trouble getting up the drive.

So not only would Wynn not ask to have Webster recused from my case, he files another case, which we told him NOT to, in his court. What sort of person lies to a sick and dying woman?

Also as I had asked Kage / Marshall for a copy of the probable cause affidavit I asked Mr. Wynn for it. He never complied. I asked him several times to show me evidence that constitutes probable cause for any charges, let alone murder. Just as Kage/ Marshall always stated there is none. Wynn stated how he couldn’t understand how anyone could file any charges for anything.

Wynn, also stated that Akers past bad acts were inadmissible. When M. Wynn was still "my" counsel we had a Limine hearing where at the very last the state asked for Akers past bad acts not to be discussed and w/o batting an eye Wynn agreed. I contained myself till we got in the hallway and asked him about this ludicrous agreement and he said he can bring his bad acts when he feels they are relevant. In fact here is part of an e-mail from him when I asked again later:

"As for Akers bad acts that is a motion in limine, which means as soon as they become relevant they can be introduced. There is no agreement to never bring them up." This is a flat out lie.

He stated he wouldn’t use the comments by Akers family members showing he had pre-planned malfeasance, stating he didn’t want the jury to think I may have threatened him, which is quite obvious since he walked back here alone. Also, these statements completely disprove the States two main accusation that I lured him here and I laid in wait. The trajectory of the wound and location of where he fell completely disproves he was turned and running.

As I had asked Kage / Marshall to view the state police photos and video tape taken that night, Wynn never had time to.

Another matter which was very disturbing is that Wynn, NEVER, spent any time here to recreate what happen, he acted as if he could care less and minimalized it by saying it’s quite obvious what the states says is impossible and unsubstantiated.

I asked him to file a complaint against Gary Smith and his office for altering the taped sworn testimony of the pathologist. He refused to do so.

I asked for him to file for a dismissal based upon the self-defense law and the complete lack of any evidence. Wynn did file for a dismissal and even hired a retired state police officer (John Mann) to deliver subpoenas to every member of the jury to testify at the hearing.

 http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=21&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=42&S=1

M. Wynn based the dismissal solely on double jeopardy and the jury stating they had all arrived at a not guilty verdict. He refused to include the fact there is no evidence to base a case on and the fact all evidence that does exist refutes the States accusations.

For some reason, NO ONE wants to address the lack of evidence in this case. NO ONE.

After the jury was disallowed to testify as to their verdict and reading about how the judge was basing his reasoning for a retrial on the jury not signing the verdict forms one of the jurors wrote the letter to the editor of the local paper explaining how the jury never received any forms to sign.

The editor hid this letter on the third page on August 9, 2007.

When I informed Mr. Wynn of this letter and sent a copy of it to him I asked for him to now have the judge investigated for lying and suppressing the not guilty verdict.

Wynn then immediately filed to withdraw from the case, claiming a breakdown in communications. I guess the breakdown in communication is I thought he was to defend and represent me not cover-up for the prosecutor and judge.

Again, the ONLY thing I asked for, was for them to have the prosecutor be reported and investigated for altering evidence, a felony, now that it is apparent the judge has perjured himself in order to suppress the not guilty verdict, to have that investigated and for them to address that there is not one iota of evidence to support ANY charge.

However, instead, Mr. Wynn asked to withdraw from the case and was allowed to do so with the judge stating:

“Defendant is apparently seeking to pursue a legal strategy Mr. Wynn cannot, in good faith, pursue.”

So, now we have, court appointed counsel Brad Kage / Alan Marshall, Mark Wynn and his co-counsel Jeff Flores who are aware the prosecutor altered evidence in a case that is based on a fabricated scenario with, not only anything to substantiate any of it but everything disproving it and the judge has perjured himself in order to suppress the not guilty verdict and all of them instead bringing justice to bear, they each withdraw from the case just two months prior to trial.

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTENCE of COUNSEL III

Will take awhile to compose because Mary Jean Stotts is the exemplification of ineffective uncaring court appointed defense counsel.

For openers, I learned of her appointment to my case in a newspaper article which reported an attorney’s conference pertaining to my case a month after her appointment and where she stated I had failed to contact her as yet. When I contacted her the next day asking how I was to contact her if I knew nothing about her, she blamed Mark Wynn for not contacting me about her. Why would it be past counsels place to contact concerning her and not her?

Am I just expecting too much from these highly educated professional officers of the court?

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=2905&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=40&S=1

“During the Wednesday conference, Stotts reported Gilmore has not contacted her since her appointment Oct. 5.”

You will also notice that the judge has violated judicial cannon’s by referring to me and apparent conversations with my counsel and attempting to make it look as if I am asking counsel to perform some sort of unethical defense strategies.

RULE 2.10
Judicial Statements on Pending and Impending Cases
(A) A judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending* or impending* in any court, or make any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.

Let me conclude Part II with this quote from this same article:

“Before considering the lesser charge, the jury voted down the murder charge against Gilmore but did not sign off on that matter, a step necessary to dismiss the more severe charge.”

The lesser charge should have never been included, then again without any evidence nothing should have been charged, yet here I am 5 years later fighting for my life against a judge that is either completely ignorant of the law or simply cares nothing about the laws and the Constitution.

No judge in history has ever suppressed a not guilty verdict, let alone goes to the extremes Judge Webster has gone to, to keep a baseless case active.

CANON 1
A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD AND PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY, AND SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY

CANON 2
A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY, COMPETENTLY, AND DILIGENTLY.
http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=76&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=40&S=1

"This court had no way of knowing whether the jurors were deadlocked on murder or reckless homicide," Webster said. "Apparently, this information came to light after the jury was discharged."

How can any competent judge NOT know which charge a jury is deadlocked on before he dismisses them?

What is even just as troubling is it is so easy for him to find a special prosecutor and appointed counsel to help keep it active.

This is the perfect example why over half of the countries prosecutors were wanting the Supreme Court to declare they were immune from “knowingly” framing and trying innocent Americans.

This is also THE perfect example why something must be done to stop such egregious injustices.

Why would defense counsel assist the prosecution in withholding evidence which helps prove just how asinine the States case is. Bill Akers planned on killing me on February 18, 2005.

NARRATIVE SUPPLEMENT
Narrative Type: Supplement        

On 2/24/2005, I spoke with Gary Akers, brother to Bill Akers (deceased),   Gary said he just talked to Bill on Thursday, he said Bill came over, saying he was checking prices for the pipe, and to get the pipe run to his (Gary) and to Beverly house. Bill was getting permission from the neighbor to get permission to run the water line across the neighbors.

That Bill was going to sell his place, because he was going to move somewhere else, and was buying another place.

That Bill told him, Steve was upset, and was going to block off the driveway, that Gary would not be able to drive back to his house.

That Bill told Gary not to sign anything, giving permission for the water line to be run across Gary’s property until Steve signed something, saying Gary has a right away- easement to drive on the driveway.

Gary said Bill was going to pay to have all the work done, because he (Bill) has always told him (Gary) he was going to always take care of Beverly, until the day one of them dies. (this was the very day before this happen)

I also spoke with Clara Campbell Clara is sister to Bill.

She said Bill was at her residence on Tuesday Feb, 15 2005, As Bill was getting ready to leave, she said Bill said Steve was going to kill him. She said Bill did not go into details, or say anything else, just that Steve was going to kill him.

Narrative Reporting Officer:  Blevins, Jim
Reporting Officer:            Turner, Dave R

Narrative Date/Time:  02/25/2005    1226

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Bill is visiting his sister Clara, just 3 days prior, he says nothing about such a dangerous threat while they are visiting; however, as he’s leaving and without any details or discussion he simply says Steve is going to kill me. Just three (3) days prior to incident.

The very day before this incident, Bill tells his brother I’m all upset, (no mention of a death threat) and going to block off his driveway, Bill was going to pay for the water line and for Gary not allow for the line to be put in unless I sign an easement.

Nothing was in my name, so my signature would mean nothing.

There is / was no way I could block his drive off, legally or physically. If I blocked his drive off I wouldn’t be able to get home.

If Bill was paying for the installation of new water line what would there be to argue over?

So instead of going to the nursing home where mom was at and getting this taken care of, he WALKS back here ALONE and since, according to the State, I was laying in wait, how did I get him to open the doors?

What sort of person would WALK 3/10 of a mile to such an isolated dwelling, ALONE, to "talk" to someone who was all upset and had supposedly threatened him about a subject that person had no say so over? For what reason would he be there.

It was February, if I was lying in wait as the State contends what sort of person would WALK back here and open the doors to come in?

WHY would defense counsel help hide and withhold statements that show an attacker had planned malfeasance and disproves the States case entirely?

The States entire case is I lured him here and laid in wait. How do you lure a person to your secluded, isolated dwelling and get him to walk here alone and get him to open the doors if the person is telling people he has been threatened?

Why is a prosecutor covering up an attempted murder on me and prosecuting me for having to protect myself from a known unstable and threatening person?

Why, is court appointed defense counsel assisting the prosecution in doing so?

WHAT AM I MISSING

Can a judge who is charged with determining other people’s fate be so incompetent, so blind to reality?

How can there be a written law that reads in part:

THE LAW:
IC 35-41-3-2 Use of force to protect person or property

“No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.”

Then have a judge add in his own instructions to the jury:

pg 929 transcript / Final Instructions from judge Webster

"The question of the existence of an apparent danger and the amount of force necessary to resist force can only be determined from the stand point of the Defendant at the time and under the then existing circumstances."

pg 930

"Actual danger is not necessary to justify self defense. The question of the existence of such danger, the necessity or apparent necessity to act as well as the amount of force necessary to employ to resist the attack can only be determined from the standpoint of the accused at the time and under all the then existing circumstances. There has been evidence introduced in this case that the accused was exercising his right of self-defense."

If, “There has been evidence introduced in this case that the accused was exercising his right of self-defense." And the law reads that; “No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.”

Then, this judge does not recognize his own instructions negate the charges alone. What am I missing?

How can a judge be so incompetent to not be able to realize that his own instructions resolve the entire case in my favor?

In order to bring any criminal charge against anyone the state prosecutor must present probable cause and one would think that with a law as precise as IC 35-41-3-2 (No person…shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever) that this burden would be somewhat more profound.

Yet in this case:

There is NO eyewitness to refute

There is NO ballistic evidence to refute

The states own forensic expert (even though her taped testimony was altered) agreed that it could of happen the way I said it did.

If their expert agrees with me then that means she is refuting the state’s fabricated scenario.

So, a law that disallows any legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting oneself, the only tangible evidence (trajectory of wound/forensic expert) agrees with me, refuting the state and the judge admitting there is evidence of self defense.

So, please what am I missing?

Then this judge dismisses the jury without knowing which charge/count the jury was at an impasse on (for it didn’t matter, his own instructions nullifies the case).

http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=76&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=40&S=1

"Murder charge stands
Judge: failure of jury to complete verdict form means Gilmore will have 2nd trial"

"This court had no way of knowing whether the jurors were deadlocked on murder or reckless homicide," Webster said. "Apparently, this information came to light after the jury was discharged."

Should a person who is so incompetent, he knows not, to obtain and know for sure what the exact intent of the jury is before he dismisses them, be in charge of another’s fate?

In the hallway, outside the courtroom, immediately following the trial, the jury, relates that within under an hour they were unanimous not guilty on the murder charge but were at an impasse on the reckless homicide charge due to some saying I should of called 9-1-1 or went and hid, which, forbidden by law and the judge’s instructions, is outside their realm of determination.

Instead of pulling the jury back into the courtroom, upon hearing of their verdict that night, and instead of filing for a Motion to Correct, the court appointed counsel (Brad Kage/Alan Marshall), merely filed for bail, based upon the knowledge of the not guilty verdict.

Then when the state refiled the murder charge, instead of the judge recognizing the law, his own instructions, the lack of evidence and the knowledge of the not guilty verdict, he (the judge) again accepts the case instead of dismissing it.

On what basis does he accept this case? How can a judge who is charged with overseeing other people’s fate be so blind to facts and their relationship to the law?

Then when all twelve jurors were gathered so to testify as to their unanimous not guilty verdict (which the judge is already aware of due to letter from Kage/Marshall) at a Motion to Dismiss hearing, the judge cites Rule of Law 606(b) and disallows the jurors to testify so to “validate their verdict” even though Rule of Law 606(b) says “(b) Inquiry into Validity of Verdict or Indictment. Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment,...”

Judge Jon Webster’s Ruling on Motion to Dismiss held June 9, 2008

"Resolution of this case lies with an interpretation of Indiana Rule of Evidence 606(b), and the Court declines to permit the original jury to be impaneled for even one (1) question regarding their verdict(s) or lack thereof."

Again, what am I missing, how does a jury “validate a verdict” if a judge disallows them to do so? Why would a judge not allow them to do so?

However, this judge is on record as relating that Indiana judges do not have the authority to dismiss cases for the best interest of justice. Really?

Judge Jon Webster’s Ruling on Motion to Dismiss held June 9, 2008

No. 3 The Court should prohibit the State from proceeding to retry Defendant on Murder

"There is no Indiana authority which allows a trial court to dismiss a charge on an essentially equitable or best interest of justice standard. The first trial was a hung jury on both counts, and thus there was no conviction and no acquittal. The State, and the State alone, decides whether to retry Mr. Gilmore for murder and/or reckless homicide.”

Does that not negate the entire purpose and process of ever filing for dismissals or “probable cause” for that matter? For what other purpose is there for a judge to dismiss a case other than for the best interest of justice?

Why should anyone ever file a Motion to Dismiss if judges are not allowed to dismiss a case?

I wonder if the judge has ever read the law as it pertains to Dismissal’s.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2001/IN/IN1280.1.html

“4. (a) The court may, upon motion of the defendant, dismiss the indictment or information upon any of the following grounds:

(6) The defendant has immunity with respect to the offense charged.

(7) The prosecution is barred by reason of a previous prosecution.

     Wonder if these would include a suppressed not guilty verdict?

(8) The prosecution is untimely brought.
(9) The defendant has been denied the right to a speedy trial.

      Four years later, all the while my counsel refused to file for a speedy trial even though I demanded one.

(11) The indictment or information was issued without probable cause to believe that an offense was committed.

         Again, no eyewitness, no ballistics’ and forensics’ supporting me, refuting them
(12) Any other ground that is a basis for dismissal as a matter of law.

Again, what am I missing, How does a judge not relate a not guilty verdict (he is suppressing) as grounds as a basis for dismissal and instead state he has no authority to do so?

If, American Bar Associations Rules of Conduct include;

Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities Of A Prosecutor

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause

(h) When a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor shall seek to remedy the conviction.

Then if a judge knows there is no evidence to establish, probable cause, if the judge knows the jury reached a not guilty verdict, yet he ignores and suppresses all of it, should he, the judge, instead remedy the problem? How are we the people expected to obtain fair trials?

Doesn’t the United States Constitution protect us, the people, from prosecutors fabricating cases while altering evidence and judges from perjuring themselves in order to suppress not guilty verdicts?


Should a judge;

1.    who perjures himself to suppress not guilty verdicts,

2.    who is unaware he is capable of dismissing baseless cases, for the best interest of justice, especially where jurors found the defendant was innocent,

3.    who writes instructions that nullifies the case in themselves

4.    who uses the Rule of Law that allows jurors to “validate their verdict” to disallow a jury from doing just that,

Be allowed to determine other people’s fates?

Again, what am I missing?

Feb. 18, 2005    Bill Akers accost me at my house, after calling 9-1-1 I'm immediately arrested.

At 6:55 pm I am charged w/ murder, he didn't die till 8:30 pm

March 8, 2005   My attorney's cancel my bond hearing where we would of learned of the State's case evidence against me. I ask attorneys to file for a swift and speedy trial forcing a trial in 72 days.

April 11, 2005   I'm forced to file a Motion of Discovery, because when asked what is the State holding me on, my attorney's keep saying,  we don't know we haven't seen any evidence. Which again would have been (or should of) produced at a bond hearing.

April 25, 2005  Motion To Dismiss by attorney's finally filed, solely because I threatened to file one myself, which I did, because my attorneys would not furnish me a copy of the one they filed and I wanted to be sure they based the motion on a lack of any evidence and law IC 35-41-3-2 allowing one to protect himself from aggressors. (A matter of law)

June 21, 2005  Hearing to encompass Motion to Dismiss and Bond hearing (threw it in so they could say I had one, in jail 4 mo.'s before a bond hearing)  When a Motion to dismiss is based on

                           "a question of law and a legal basis" i.e. IC 35-41-3-2 self-defense, as per IC 35-34-1-8 (E)

                           (3) the court may deny the motion…only if (3) an allegation of fact essential to support the motion is conclusively refuted by DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 

The State (Gary Smith) stood up and said we see no reason to reveal any of our evidence at this time. With no objections from "my" attorneys, my bond and Motion to Dismiss hearing was over and with no evidence produced to deny either, I guess both was denied even though nothing more was ever said about either and we went to trial.

July 22, 2005  I filed a "DEFENDANT'S GRIEVANCE"   "FOR THE RECORD" just so to be on record that I wasn't very happy and didn't agree with what was transpiring w/ my case. Since I had heard nothing on the dismissal and since the state didn't present ANY "evidence"to refute/rebut my motion, why wasn't the judge dismissing the case

Aug. 15, 2005  Trial

Aug. 22. 2005 Trial ends

Aug. 23, 2005  Instead of filing a Motion to correct errors and get the not guilty verdict recorded Alan Marshall, one of my attorneys files a letter w/ the court describing the conversation w/ jurors outside of courtroom about their unanimous not guilty verdict (Why didn't he usher the jury back into the courtroom and get it recorded that night?) and asks for a bond to be set. I am released that afternoon on a $50K ($5K) cash bond.

Oct. 19, 05      State of IN filed Request for Jury Trial date seeking to try defendant a second time.

April 6, 2006  Re-filed formal complaint (w/proper forms) against Judge Webster with Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission/Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications, concerning the complete illegality of entire trial and judge dismissing jury w/o obtaining signed verdict forms.

April 6, 2006  Received letter from Brad Kage informing me of his and Alan Marshalls, decision to drop from case. They felt I had no right to question them about not using Akers numerous past acts in trial, why they wouldn't/couldn't do anything  about the not guilty verdict, why they refused to make the State present a case, why did they allow the altered taped sworn testimony of the pathologist to be presented by State w/o objection, why did they and do refuse to use the statements from Gary Akers and sister Clara that help disprove the "luring" theory, even though State produced no evidence to even hint I did anyway.

May 3, 06       New Attorney appointed, Mark Wynn of Madison, IN.

June16, 06    Meet w/ new attorneys.

June 20, 06   Complaint against judge dismissed

Dec 19, 2006  Found out from M. Wynn, State had a copy of the Oprah show from day of incident and was going to use it as evidence, never saw it and to this day do not know what's on it. I asked him if he was going to get it tossed since I hadn't seen it. He said oh no it shows how desperate they are, but is it not best to not give someone something to consider if not need to? Their entire case is smoke and mirrors, just throwing thrash at the jury and hope something grabs someone. 

Feb. 12 07   Motion to Dismiss, jurors summoned to "Validate their Verdict" was held and the judge disallowed the jury to testify.  

Feb. 23 07 Judge denies Motion to dismiss. In the judges denial of motion he states:" Separate verdict forms for Murder and Reckless Homicide were furnished." "Neither verdict form was signed by the foreperson." "The Court, relying solely on Indiana Rule of Evidence 606(b), excluded their testimony over Defendant's objection they should be permitted to testify on this limited issue." (solely on 606b)