<body><div><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=3qmDgi_0wBQzh8u00" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=3qmDgi_0wBQzh8u00" width="1500" height="844" >QUINCY, Ill. (KHQA) — Convicted killer Tim Bliefnick wants a new trial.His new lawyers presented three arguments to an appellate court October 17, saying Bliefnick was denied a fair trial in the murder of his estranged wife, Becky.Bliefnick's lawyers stated the three reasons as:<ol><li>The court admitted evidence that was irrelevant or not otherwise admissible under the 'forfeiture by wrongdoing' doctrine.</li><li>The prosecutor was allowed to make representations to the jury during rebuttal argument that were not admitted into evidence or subject to cross examination.</li><li>The case should be tried before a different judge who had no relation to the prosecutor trying the case.</li></ol>The defense attorneys also said witnesses should not have been allowed to testify to Becky’s state of mind prior to the murder.Reason one:The defense argued that the evidence presented wasn't relevant or allowed under the 'forfeiture by wrongdoing' doctrine, which means that if someone attempts to stop a witness from testifying via wrongdoings, the court can still use the witness’s statements or evidence even if it wouldn't be allowed normally.The state argued that the testimony contained enough facts to be relevant, citing the example of the victim changing the locks and Bliefnick searching on the internet how to bar open a door or a window.The state cited another example of defendant not returning the victim's gun and therefore had the opportunity to commit the crime with that gun.Reason two:The second argument was about closing arguments made by prosecutor Josh Jones.Jones told the jury that Tim Bliefnick’s internet searches about the case went beyond what was released to the public, but didn’t prove what had or had not been released.Judge Steigmannsaid since the argument states that the searches on the computer were him following up on the news reports he had seen about the case, if that were a concern, there should have been something on the record about the news coverage. Reason three:The final argument was that Judge Robert Adrian should not have presided over the case, given his ongoing case with the Judicial Review Board.This is because prosecutor Josh Jones was testifying against Adrian in the Judicial Review case.The defense said:<blockquote>A case this important should be tried by a judge whose career is not resting in the hands of the prosecutor trying the case.</blockquote>The defense argues Adrian allowed inadmissible evidence and ruled against defense objections to gain Jones’ favor.The defense had asked to have Josh Jones recuse from the case.The Judge asked if the defense had ever asked to have Judge Adrian removed from the case. They did not, for the defense believed that Judge Adrian had the responsibility to dismiss himself regardless of request.Final remarks:The state argues that any errors that may have been made were harmless, saying there was an overwhelming amount of evidence, and that one piece of testimony or statement would not have altered the outcome of the case.As of now, there is no date set for the appellate court to release its decision.We will continue to follow this story.</div></body>

Mountain View, CA

NewsBreak

Tim Bliefnick seeks new trial, claims original was unfair due to judicial bias

QUINCY, Ill. (KHQA) — Convicted killer Tim Bliefnick wants a new trial. His new lawyers presented three arguments to an appellate court October 17, saying Bliefnick was denied a fair trial in the murder of his estranged wife, Becky. Bliefnick's lawyers stated the three reasons as:. The court admitted...