Interesting article, but unfortunately quite inaccurate on several counts.
1. Defense had understood that expert testimony would not be presented for either side.
2. If the blood on the costume/boots was “indisputably Hedvall’s” then why is no one asking why the blood wasn’t instead “indisputably the victim’s”? — and why there wasn’t a lot more than a tiny, barely visible droplet of blood near the hem of the pant? If Hedvall had in fact smashed the victim’s skull in with a 25-pound coral rock, as Prosecution claimed, he would have had the victim’s blood all over his own hands. Furthermore, Prosecution made a big deal about Hedvall having glitter (NOT blood) “all over his hands” and yet somehow all of this glitter conspicuously failed to transfer to the rock allegedly grabbed and used on the victim.
3. Also, someone isn’t asking the right questions here (or drawing any logical conclusions). For example — does it not seem coincidental to anyone else that the victim’s boyfriend had tried to strangle the victim just 10 days earlier? How about the fact that the victim actually left a note in his backpack stating that he was afraid his boyfriend would be successful at his next attempt to murder him?
4. Finally, let’s just suppose the victim’s DNA (and even a tiny, barely visible droplet of blood) was found near the hem of the pant. Did you know that the suit Hedvall was wearing that night was BORROWED from someone the victim knew well and whose bar he (the victim) in fact frequented long before and up until his death? How about the fact that the OWNER of the suit committed suicide while Hedvall was in jail awaiting trial?
Thank you for providing this forum for response to articles. I have some comments (bulleted) on statements in the above article.
Jurors at 11 p.m., Thursday, returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree against Peter Erik Hedvall, on trial in the Monroe County Courthouse in Key West this week for the slaying of Jonathan Alvarado Perez during Fantasy Fest in 2011.
“The most compelling evidence was the blood revealing the victim’s DNA, which was found on the defendant’s pants and boot,” according to a juror who wished to remain anonymous.
• After a violent bludgeoning producing large amounts of the victim’s blood, no
blood was found anywhere on Hedvall or his clothes, other than a tiny drop on
the back bottom left pant leg and a tiny drop on the boot.
• Additionally the clothes Hedvall voluntarily allowed the police to test, were
borrowed from a friend who had frequent contact with the victim. The owner of
the clothes and boots have since died by gunshot, the police calling it a suicide.
• There is no determination about when this blood could have been transferred
onto the clothes – again, these clothes were borrowed from a friend that was a
musician and performed in many of the same Key West bars frequented by the
victim.
This is, however the same juror who broke the news of the verdict on the Bill Becker Show, she told Konk Life Friday afternoon. “The defense offered no explanation for this finding, and the state’s witness from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) Crime Lab delivered excellent testimony.” She emphasized the believability of the Crime Lab expert, Senior Lab Technician Emily Booth, who testified that the blood found on boots and the trousers of a costume Hedvall admitted wearing that night were indisputably Hedvall’s. The juror felt that defense attorneys badgered Booth, who was kept on the witness stand most of the day Tuesday. “If the evidence was really inadequate, why didn’t the defense present their own expert?” she asked.
• The DNA expert was kept on the stand most of the day because the state made
her open countless evidence bags and explain findings one by one – most of
which contained stains that didn’t test positive for blood. Perhaps an attempt to
give the appearance that there was a large volume of evidence in the case.
Among the evidence presented were at least five different “unidentified” DNA
samples on the victim or at the scene, none of which were Hedvall’s.
• The reason that the defense council objected to her testimony was because her
“expert” testimony, allowed by Judge Miller, was a direct violation of a verbal
agreement between prosecutors and defense lawyers to NOT provide expert
witnesses. Because Hedvall was represented by a public defender, the state
would have to pay twice for experts – once for the prosecution and once for the
state. This expert’s testimony was a clear violation of the agreement the state
made and the defendant’s right to a fair trail – especially since it had a
significant impact on this jury.
“The defense deliberately misled the jurors,” she said, placing “reasonable doubt in the minds of two jurors, which is why we had to deliberate for eight hours.”
• Reasonable Doubt was not a ploy to “mislead jurors.” Reasonable doubt was
the basis of the state’s case and there is plenty of it:
(1) The costume Hedvall was wearing was not his. It was BORROWED from a man
who has since died by apparent suicide while Hedvall was in jail awaiting trial.
(2) Large time of death ranges from 4am – 6:30am. Hedvall was home as reported
by himself and girlfriend at 4:11am. A resident on the street where the victim’s
body was found reported that they heard a commotion at around 5:45am the
morning of the murder.
(3) None of Hedvall’s DNA was on the victim, at the crime scene or on the murder
weapons – which the prosecution said were never tested. While the prosecution
is not required to show evidence that would hurt their case, it seems highly
unlikely that they would not test either of the murder weapons for DNA. Could
they have tested them and just not found the results they wanted?
(4) Last person to see victim alive changed his testimony multiple times. He was
not sure if he saw someone nearby and was unsure pf the color of clothing and
was unable to accurately identify Hedvall. This witness, Honus Hicks, has been
involved as a witness or suspect in several other murder investigations as
reported by retired Monroe County Sheriff, Jay Glover. Sheriff Glover also stated
that someone had altered Mr. Hicks record to hide these facts.
(5) Police were called to respond to a scene 10 days prior to the murder, when a
close friend fought with the victim – strangling him. There was also a note found
in the victim’s backpack that stated he was sure this close friend (the same
man who had strangled him 10 days before he was murdered) had killed him in
a past life.
(6) So-called “jail house confession” came from a 14 time convicted child molester
who had attacked Hedvall in jail and wrote letter claiming the confession the day
after the fight. http://ftp.keysnews.com/node/38204 He was a cellmate with
access to information Hedvall had about the case in his cell. The prosecution
said the letter from Hernandez was “confidential” and the defense was never
allowed to verify this as evidence.
(7) The state was never able to provide any kind of motive for Hedvall to kill
Jonathan Alvarado Perez in what was described as a crime of passion.
The deliberation involved 12 jurors. “There were 14 of us during the trial, which started last Thursday, the 20th. Two of us were alternates, but Judge Wayne Miller explained that there had been studies of juries and the alternates didn’t pay as much attention as the ‘regular’ jurors. So we didn’t learn who the alternates were until the trial ended yesterday about 3 p.m., when they were dismissed.”
Among the jurors, she said, were a social worker, a $500,000 lottery winner, a member of the Coast Guard, “a smattering of retired people” and one juror who identified herself as a board member of FIRM (Fair Insurance Rates for Monroe). “Three were from Sugarloaf, one from Cudjoe, one from Stock Island, the rest from Key West,” she said. There were originally nine women and five men; the alternates dismissed Thursday afternoon were one man and one woman.
Hedvall was charged with first-degree murder; prosecutors, however, did not seek to prove premeditation, which is necessary for a first-degree verdict. Second degree is defined only as murder committed in a depraved way, without regard for human life. He remains in the Monroe County Detention Center on Stock Island pending sentencing.
We are thankful that the judge has been disqualified after seeing what we saw in that courtroom…
VERIFIED MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE
PETER ERIK HEDV ALL, Defendant…
… moves this Honorable Court to enter an Order disqualifying Judge WAYNE MILLER as Judge in the above-styled cause, and as grounds therefore, states:
The specifically described prejudice is detailed below and in the affidavits of the Defendant and a juror in this matter (Christina McClay)…
In this matter the judge abdicated his role as a neutral, detached and impartial magistrate by being blatantly and obviously biased against defense counsel and the defense…
A. The trial judge made repeated interruptions of defense counsels’ direct and cross examinations and closing arguments. The judge made clear to the jury his bias that the defendant was guilty by injecting his own argument or by disrupting the flow of questioning only by the defense;
B. The trial judge made repeated and unfounded accusations, both on and off the record, that defense counsel was unethical, beginning before jury selection and continuing throughout the
trial. The Judge attempted to play defense counsel against one another by making derogatory
comments against one defense counsel to another, both on and off the record. Variously calling defense counsel unethical, engaging in showmanship, and being intoxicated during trial or breaks in the trial. Most fundamentally calling defense counsel a liar in front of the jury during the cross examination of a key state witness..
C. The judge showed his bias with his demeanor by repeatedly denying counsel’s proper objections, not allowing counsel to be heard to make a record, limiting defense counsel’s ability to make proffers or an adequate opportunity to be heard regarding motion for Richardson hearings, and motions for mistrial. The judge also failed to adequately read or consider written motions for the same. By making disjointed rulings, where he stated he would allow counsel to research and argue points of law only to alter his rulings and not allow counsel to be heard on Richardson hearings, motions for mistrial and a Daubert hearing (where the court allowed expert witness testimony by a woefully and embarrassing inadequate blood stain pattern or blood “splatter” expert to testify regarding a key issue in the trial.
D. The judge repeatedly during jury selection and through out the trial allowed gratuitous and irrelevant testimony regarding the decedent’s sexuality and the nature of”gay friendly” bars. The judge further commented on sentencing by telling jurors that the death penalty was not being sought and affirmatively not telling the jurors that the defendant would receive a mandatory life sentence if convicted as charged, over defense counsel’s objection, given the improper, incomplete instruction regarding penalty.
E. The judge put in place a “gag” order which seemed to be directed at one defense counsel
and allowing the State, and their agents, to violate the order with impunity. During jury
selection, allowing the State to make a record regarding irrelevant issues such as the alleged
sexuality of the jurors, without allowing defense counsel the same consideration.
F. Equally disturbing and showing immense bias, allowing the State to introduce “debris” and “glitter” evidence for the first time in closing argument without allowing defense counsel to be heard at sidebar or on the record to object to this blatant and unethical Brady violation, to refuse to hold a Richardson hearing, or entertain a motion for mistrial. By allowing the State to manufacture evidence and argue facts not in evidence, the judge allowed the State to inflame and mislead the jury with no chance for defense preparation at trial or rebuttal during argument.
G. Most disturbingly, while not allowing defense counsel to make a proper record of objection, the judge stated on the record that he “does not care about the appellate courts.”
H. Allowing the jury to deliberate for an unreasonable amount of hours, a full 7 1/2 hours after a full day of argument in order to force a verdict, by allowing bullying and intimidation of jurors, including a pregnant woman for an extended period of time and forcing a guilty verdict.”
Interesting article, but unfortunately quite inaccurate on several counts.
1. Defense had understood that expert testimony would not be presented for either side.
2. If the blood on the costume/boots was “indisputably Hedvall’s” then why is no one asking why the blood wasn’t instead “indisputably the victim’s”? — and why there wasn’t a lot more than a tiny, barely visible droplet of blood near the hem of the pant? If Hedvall had in fact smashed the victim’s skull in with a 25-pound coral rock, as Prosecution claimed, he would have had the victim’s blood all over his own hands. Furthermore, Prosecution made a big deal about Hedvall having glitter (NOT blood) “all over his hands” and yet somehow all of this glitter conspicuously failed to transfer to the rock allegedly grabbed and used on the victim.
3. Also, someone isn’t asking the right questions here (or drawing any logical conclusions). For example — does it not seem coincidental to anyone else that the victim’s boyfriend had tried to strangle the victim just 10 days earlier? How about the fact that the victim actually left a note in his backpack stating that he was afraid his boyfriend would be successful at his next attempt to murder him?
4. Finally, let’s just suppose the victim’s DNA (and even a tiny, barely visible droplet of blood) was found near the hem of the pant. Did you know that the suit Hedvall was wearing that night was BORROWED from someone the victim knew well and whose bar he (the victim) in fact frequented long before and up until his death? How about the fact that the OWNER of the suit committed suicide while Hedvall was in jail awaiting trial?
Thank you for providing this forum for response to articles. I have some comments (bulleted) on statements in the above article.
Jurors at 11 p.m., Thursday, returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree against Peter Erik Hedvall, on trial in the Monroe County Courthouse in Key West this week for the slaying of Jonathan Alvarado Perez during Fantasy Fest in 2011.
“The most compelling evidence was the blood revealing the victim’s DNA, which was found on the defendant’s pants and boot,” according to a juror who wished to remain anonymous.
• After a violent bludgeoning producing large amounts of the victim’s blood, no
blood was found anywhere on Hedvall or his clothes, other than a tiny drop on
the back bottom left pant leg and a tiny drop on the boot.
• Additionally the clothes Hedvall voluntarily allowed the police to test, were
borrowed from a friend who had frequent contact with the victim. The owner of
the clothes and boots have since died by gunshot, the police calling it a suicide.
• There is no determination about when this blood could have been transferred
onto the clothes – again, these clothes were borrowed from a friend that was a
musician and performed in many of the same Key West bars frequented by the
victim.
This is, however the same juror who broke the news of the verdict on the Bill Becker Show, she told Konk Life Friday afternoon. “The defense offered no explanation for this finding, and the state’s witness from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) Crime Lab delivered excellent testimony.” She emphasized the believability of the Crime Lab expert, Senior Lab Technician Emily Booth, who testified that the blood found on boots and the trousers of a costume Hedvall admitted wearing that night were indisputably Hedvall’s. The juror felt that defense attorneys badgered Booth, who was kept on the witness stand most of the day Tuesday. “If the evidence was really inadequate, why didn’t the defense present their own expert?” she asked.
• The DNA expert was kept on the stand most of the day because the state made
her open countless evidence bags and explain findings one by one – most of
which contained stains that didn’t test positive for blood. Perhaps an attempt to
give the appearance that there was a large volume of evidence in the case.
Among the evidence presented were at least five different “unidentified” DNA
samples on the victim or at the scene, none of which were Hedvall’s.
• The reason that the defense council objected to her testimony was because her
“expert” testimony, allowed by Judge Miller, was a direct violation of a verbal
agreement between prosecutors and defense lawyers to NOT provide expert
witnesses. Because Hedvall was represented by a public defender, the state
would have to pay twice for experts – once for the prosecution and once for the
state. This expert’s testimony was a clear violation of the agreement the state
made and the defendant’s right to a fair trail – especially since it had a
significant impact on this jury.
“The defense deliberately misled the jurors,” she said, placing “reasonable doubt in the minds of two jurors, which is why we had to deliberate for eight hours.”
• Reasonable Doubt was not a ploy to “mislead jurors.” Reasonable doubt was
the basis of the state’s case and there is plenty of it:
(1) The costume Hedvall was wearing was not his. It was BORROWED from a man
who has since died by apparent suicide while Hedvall was in jail awaiting trial.
(2) Large time of death ranges from 4am – 6:30am. Hedvall was home as reported
by himself and girlfriend at 4:11am. A resident on the street where the victim’s
body was found reported that they heard a commotion at around 5:45am the
morning of the murder.
(3) None of Hedvall’s DNA was on the victim, at the crime scene or on the murder
weapons – which the prosecution said were never tested. While the prosecution
is not required to show evidence that would hurt their case, it seems highly
unlikely that they would not test either of the murder weapons for DNA. Could
they have tested them and just not found the results they wanted?
(4) Last person to see victim alive changed his testimony multiple times. He was
not sure if he saw someone nearby and was unsure pf the color of clothing and
was unable to accurately identify Hedvall. This witness, Honus Hicks, has been
involved as a witness or suspect in several other murder investigations as
reported by retired Monroe County Sheriff, Jay Glover. Sheriff Glover also stated
that someone had altered Mr. Hicks record to hide these facts.
(5) Police were called to respond to a scene 10 days prior to the murder, when a
close friend fought with the victim – strangling him. There was also a note found
in the victim’s backpack that stated he was sure this close friend (the same
man who had strangled him 10 days before he was murdered) had killed him in
a past life.
(6) So-called “jail house confession” came from a 14 time convicted child molester
who had attacked Hedvall in jail and wrote letter claiming the confession the day
after the fight. http://ftp.keysnews.com/node/38204 He was a cellmate with
access to information Hedvall had about the case in his cell. The prosecution
said the letter from Hernandez was “confidential” and the defense was never
allowed to verify this as evidence.
(7) The state was never able to provide any kind of motive for Hedvall to kill
Jonathan Alvarado Perez in what was described as a crime of passion.
The deliberation involved 12 jurors. “There were 14 of us during the trial, which started last Thursday, the 20th. Two of us were alternates, but Judge Wayne Miller explained that there had been studies of juries and the alternates didn’t pay as much attention as the ‘regular’ jurors. So we didn’t learn who the alternates were until the trial ended yesterday about 3 p.m., when they were dismissed.”
Among the jurors, she said, were a social worker, a $500,000 lottery winner, a member of the Coast Guard, “a smattering of retired people” and one juror who identified herself as a board member of FIRM (Fair Insurance Rates for Monroe). “Three were from Sugarloaf, one from Cudjoe, one from Stock Island, the rest from Key West,” she said. There were originally nine women and five men; the alternates dismissed Thursday afternoon were one man and one woman.
• See attached article with alternative viewpoint from one of the jurors
http://keysnews.com/node/54417
Hedvall was charged with first-degree murder; prosecutors, however, did not seek to prove premeditation, which is necessary for a first-degree verdict. Second degree is defined only as murder committed in a depraved way, without regard for human life. He remains in the Monroe County Detention Center on Stock Island pending sentencing.
We are thankful that the judge has been disqualified after seeing what we saw in that courtroom…
VERIFIED MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE
PETER ERIK HEDV ALL, Defendant…
… moves this Honorable Court to enter an Order disqualifying Judge WAYNE MILLER as Judge in the above-styled cause, and as grounds therefore, states:
The specifically described prejudice is detailed below and in the affidavits of the Defendant and a juror in this matter (Christina McClay)…
In this matter the judge abdicated his role as a neutral, detached and impartial magistrate by being blatantly and obviously biased against defense counsel and the defense…
A. The trial judge made repeated interruptions of defense counsels’ direct and cross examinations and closing arguments. The judge made clear to the jury his bias that the defendant was guilty by injecting his own argument or by disrupting the flow of questioning only by the defense;
B. The trial judge made repeated and unfounded accusations, both on and off the record, that defense counsel was unethical, beginning before jury selection and continuing throughout the
trial. The Judge attempted to play defense counsel against one another by making derogatory
comments against one defense counsel to another, both on and off the record. Variously calling defense counsel unethical, engaging in showmanship, and being intoxicated during trial or breaks in the trial. Most fundamentally calling defense counsel a liar in front of the jury during the cross examination of a key state witness..
C. The judge showed his bias with his demeanor by repeatedly denying counsel’s proper objections, not allowing counsel to be heard to make a record, limiting defense counsel’s ability to make proffers or an adequate opportunity to be heard regarding motion for Richardson hearings, and motions for mistrial. The judge also failed to adequately read or consider written motions for the same. By making disjointed rulings, where he stated he would allow counsel to research and argue points of law only to alter his rulings and not allow counsel to be heard on Richardson hearings, motions for mistrial and a Daubert hearing (where the court allowed expert witness testimony by a woefully and embarrassing inadequate blood stain pattern or blood “splatter” expert to testify regarding a key issue in the trial.
D. The judge repeatedly during jury selection and through out the trial allowed gratuitous and irrelevant testimony regarding the decedent’s sexuality and the nature of”gay friendly” bars. The judge further commented on sentencing by telling jurors that the death penalty was not being sought and affirmatively not telling the jurors that the defendant would receive a mandatory life sentence if convicted as charged, over defense counsel’s objection, given the improper, incomplete instruction regarding penalty.
E. The judge put in place a “gag” order which seemed to be directed at one defense counsel
and allowing the State, and their agents, to violate the order with impunity. During jury
selection, allowing the State to make a record regarding irrelevant issues such as the alleged
sexuality of the jurors, without allowing defense counsel the same consideration.
F. Equally disturbing and showing immense bias, allowing the State to introduce “debris” and “glitter” evidence for the first time in closing argument without allowing defense counsel to be heard at sidebar or on the record to object to this blatant and unethical Brady violation, to refuse to hold a Richardson hearing, or entertain a motion for mistrial. By allowing the State to manufacture evidence and argue facts not in evidence, the judge allowed the State to inflame and mislead the jury with no chance for defense preparation at trial or rebuttal during argument.
G. Most disturbingly, while not allowing defense counsel to make a proper record of objection, the judge stated on the record that he “does not care about the appellate courts.”
H. Allowing the jury to deliberate for an unreasonable amount of hours, a full 7 1/2 hours after a full day of argument in order to force a verdict, by allowing bullying and intimidation of jurors, including a pregnant woman for an extended period of time and forcing a guilty verdict.”