Homicide, Murder, Manslaughter Without Prejudice?

Back in August of this year AK Public Media covered the reversal of my earlier conviction for Manslaughter related to the shooting death of Airforce Military Police Officer Crystal St. Auburn.

Yesterday I received notice that the current State's Attorney General has decided to dismiss the case in its entirety instead of having a retrial. Not only did they dismiss my charges they also reversed the charges of codefendant/state's witnesses Regina Bibbs and Dorian Dixon.

It's not lost on me that I'm fortunate to carry on with my life after 19 years, however recent circumstances call me to beg the question as to why and how.

I was anticipating the retrial of an absolutely biased and subjective investigation that lended to (2) perjured grand jury indictments that this case rested upon.

Once the state was officially made aware (put on notice that the defense was aware) of the perjury of multiple states witnesses via recorded evidence( the initial 911 call) instead of dismissing their case, they doubled down and granted offers of full immunity to their witnesses in exchange for further "truthful testimony" in what was their 4th account of events.

How is it that 19 years has passed and life has happened for everybody not incarcerated related to the homicide, while I sat dealing with subpar representation against a biased investigation and a prosecution team backed by a big oil state budget(at the time), that now has resulted in a complete dismissal of their whole original case narrative?

Justice working in mysterious ways?

Then State's prosecutor Sharon Marshall would have you believe that my acquittal of the murder and Weapons counts was the result of a single "bad juror," while in fact that "bad juror" was the only one who was willing to adhere to the legal requirement of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the face of a Charlie Sheen esque jury foreperson who was absolutely willing to forgo the deliberation process as well as persuade the remaining jurors into seeing things his way... as in "I think we all know he's guilty;" as opposed to you know weighing the credibility of all witnesses and evidence fairly in relation to the laws that govern all citizens, including our valued members of law enforcement.

It was telling when the jury acquitted me of the weapons charge, based on the fact that under those circumstances a reasonable person wouldve been both legally and morally justified in discharging a firearm, both in defense of self and others. How is it that I could be not guilty of the weapons charge, yet guilty of the homicide, when there exists a theory within the law known as transferred intent?

In my case the prosecution could not resist the temptation and desire to tout their worthiness as public officials who put bad guys away, and further pad their their State budget, salary and pensions... all on the back of one of many overcharged and wrongfully imprisoned citizens of Alaska.

Think not? Then explain the exponential growth of the prisoner population, including probationers and parolees and pretrial defendants on pretrial supervision... then justify the absence created in the lives of all their children who more often than not grow up to also become a part of the criminal justice system... then tell me it's worth it.

Alaskas legislators have a bigger problem than policy, it's a law enforcement culture that long ago stepped away from the idea of peace keeping... its prison for profit... in support of further constitutionally questionable measures and ventures creating industry for the like minded.

I want my day in court. I want to be retried fairly. I shouldn't have to live out my life, one negligent police officer or overzealous prosecutor away from being over charged, discriminated against or killed in a pretrial correctional complex, simply because I lacked a high school education or because I was frustrated with subpar legal representation because my life circumstances didn't provide hundreds of thousands of dollars in law school education.

Then State needs to actually adhere to the fact finding process, a dismissal without prejudice is not acceptable. I've requested my public defender to file a cross motion demanding the court enter an innocence and/or a lack of evidence determination... but as before I'm willing to bet they also won't honor their obligation to act according to the State and Federal Constitional rights of just another Alaskan.

Why not?

Respectfully

Steven Hinshaw

Before I respond, I required more context.

This is what I uncovered during my legal scavenger hunt.

===================
===================

An Anchorage man convicted in a fatal car-to-car shooting in 2004 has had his conviction thrown out because a judge improperly denied his request to represent himself at trial.

That's according to an Alaska Court of Appeals opinion published Friday that reverses Steven Hinshaw's conviction for manslaughter.

Hinshaw, 38, appears to have already served the 11-year sentence he received.

According to court documents, a friend had called Hinshaw one night for protection from two other people who said they wanted to beat her up. Later, Hinshaw was in a car driving on Anchorage's Lake Otis Parkway when he saw the two would-be assailants and allegedly fired his revolver into their car, hitting one in the neck and killing her, the court documents say.

Anchorage police tracked Hinshaw to Maryland, and, after recording his phone calls with what's known as a Glass warrant, arrested him. Back in Alaska, a grand jury indicted Hinshaw for first-degree murder.

Then, according to the Appeals Court opinion, Hinshaw had a series of court-appointed attorneys who kept withdrawing and replacing each other for various reasons. He was unhappy with the attorney he had as they were headed toward trial and Hinshaw sought to represent himself, the opinion says.

Because self-representation is often a bad move for defendants, the judge in the case went to great lengths to explain the consequences to Hinshaw, including that if he were convicted, he might end up in prison for life.

Hinshaw continued to pursue self-representation and showed that he was competent enough to represent himself and could present his case in a coherent way, without being disruptive, the Appeals Court opinion says.

But the judge denied Hinshaw's request to represent himself, the case went to trial and Hinshaw still had the attorney he didn't like. And while he was acquitted on the murder charge, Hinshaw was convicted of the lesser included charge of manslaughter.

Hinshaw filed a petition for post-conviction relief in 2011 that – now, 11 years later – led to the Appeals Court throwing out his conviction and sending the case back to the trial court. But because Hinshaw was acquitted on the murder charge, he can only be tried again for manslaughter, the opinion says.

Responding to a Friday morning email asking whether the state planned to retry Hinshaw, a Department of Law spokesperson said the state attorneys were still discussing it.

Alaska Appeals Court tosses manslaughter conviction 18 years after fatal shooting
...


===================
===================

Hinshaw v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-11953

Hinshaw v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-11953 | Casetext Search + Citator

Steven Hinshaw said:

I've requested my public defender to file a cross motion demanding the court enter an innocence and/or a lack of evidence determination... but as before I'm willing to bet they also won't honor their obligation to act according to the State and Federal Constitional rights of just another Alaskan.

Why not?

Click to expand...

I suggest you do yourself a favor and avail yourself of your "right to remain silent".

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from being compelled to give testimony against herself/himself that could further incriminate said individual.

Knowing when you have the right to remain silent is important if you're arrested, or have retained counsel representing you regarding pending litigation.

Steven Hinshaw said:

I want my day in court. I want to be retried fairly.

Click to expand...

You likely won't get that. The charges are dismissed and the state has no obligation to revive (and might not be able to even if they wanted to).

Steven Hinshaw said:

I've requested my public defender to file a cross motion demanding the court enter an innocence and/or a lack of evidence determination.

Click to expand...

Findings by a court of actual innocence are quite rare and not all states allow for it.

You may, of course, seek out some attorneys who do post conviction relief cases to see what options you may have at this point.

All of your questions appear to be rhetorical.

Steven Hinshaw said:

I want my day in court. I want to be retried fairly.

Click to expand...

I'm going to be blunt: sane people don't want to be put on trial for murder.

Steven Hinshaw said:

I've requested my public defender to file a cross motion demanding the court enter an innocence and/or a lack of evidence determination... but as before I'm willing to bet they also won't honor their obligation to act according to the State and Federal Constitional rights of just another Alaskan.

Click to expand...

Your PD has ZERO obligation to file such a motion. If the PD won't do it, feel free to substitute in as your own lawyer and file the motion yourself.

zddoodah said:

All of your questions appear to be rhetorical.



I'm going to be blunt: sane people don't want to be put on trial for murder.



Your PD has ZERO obligation to file such a motion. If the PD won't do it, feel free to substitute in as your own lawyer and file the motion yourself.

Click to expand...

I realize I would probably have to do it myself. There is no exposure to a murder charge though. It's a matter of how they determined their case strategy and that the evidence I'm sure that wouldve preferred me to not have presented.

It's a very clear case of self defense in the light most favorable to the State, what the motivation was for how they handled the case is a question that I'm not sure requires an answer. The problem is that facts exist that are objectively contrary to their whole narrative, however inconvenient it mightve been for them.

army judge said:

Before I respond, I required more context.

This is what I uncovered during my legal scavenger hunt.

===================
===================

An Anchorage man convicted in a fatal car-to-car shooting in 2004 has had his conviction thrown out because a judge improperly denied his request to represent himself at trial.

That's according to an Alaska Court of Appeals opinion published Friday that reverses Steven Hinshaw's conviction for manslaughter.

Hinshaw, 38, appears to have already served the 11-year sentence he received.

According to court documents, a friend had called Hinshaw one night for protection from two other people who said they wanted to beat her up. Later, Hinshaw was in a car driving on Anchorage's Lake Otis Parkway when he saw the two would-be assailants and allegedly fired his revolver into their car, hitting one in the neck and killing her, the court documents say.

Anchorage police tracked Hinshaw to Maryland, and, after recording his phone calls with what's known as a Glass warrant, arrested him. Back in Alaska, a grand jury indicted Hinshaw for first-degree murder.

Then, according to the Appeals Court opinion, Hinshaw had a series of court-appointed attorneys who kept withdrawing and replacing each other for various reasons. He was unhappy with the attorney he had as they were headed toward trial and Hinshaw sought to represent himself, the opinion says.

Because self-representation is often a bad move for defendants, the judge in the case went to great lengths to explain the consequences to Hinshaw, including that if he were convicted, he might end up in prison for life.

Hinshaw continued to pursue self-representation and showed that he was competent enough to represent himself and could present his case in a coherent way, without being disruptive, the Appeals Court opinion says.

But the judge denied Hinshaw's request to represent himself, the case went to trial and Hinshaw still had the attorney he didn't like. And while he was acquitted on the murder charge, Hinshaw was convicted of the lesser included charge of manslaughter.

Hinshaw filed a petition for post-conviction relief in 2011 that – now, 11 years later – led to the Appeals Court throwing out his conviction and sending the case back to the trial court. But because Hinshaw was acquitted on the murder charge, he can only be tried again for manslaughter, the opinion says.

Responding to a Friday morning email asking whether the state planned to retry Hinshaw, a Department of Law spokesperson said the state attorneys were still discussing it.

Alaska Appeals Court tosses manslaughter conviction 18 years after fatal shooting
...


===================
===================

Hinshaw v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-11953

Hinshaw v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-11953 | Casetext Search + Citator








I suggest you do yourself a favor and avail yourself of your "right to remain silent".

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from being compelled to give testimony against herself/himself that could further incriminate said individual.

Knowing when you have the right to remain silent is important if you're arrested, or have retained counsel representing you regarding pending litigation.

Click to expand...

army judge said:

Before I respond, I required more context.

This is what I uncovered during my legal scavenger hunt.

===================
===================

An Anchorage man convicted in a fatal car-to-car shooting in 2004 has had his conviction thrown out because a judge improperly denied his request to represent himself at trial.

That's according to an Alaska Court of Appeals opinion published Friday that reverses Steven Hinshaw's conviction for manslaughter.

Hinshaw, 38, appears to have already served the 11-year sentence he received.

According to court documents, a friend had called Hinshaw one night for protection from two other people who said they wanted to beat her up. Later, Hinshaw was in a car driving on Anchorage's Lake Otis Parkway when he saw the two would-be assailants and allegedly fired his revolver into their car, hitting one in the neck and killing her, the court documents say.

Anchorage police tracked Hinshaw to Maryland, and, after recording his phone calls with what's known as a Glass warrant, arrested him. Back in Alaska, a grand jury indicted Hinshaw for first-degree murder.

Then, according to the Appeals Court opinion, Hinshaw had a series of court-appointed attorneys who kept withdrawing and replacing each other for various reasons. He was unhappy with the attorney he had as they were headed toward trial and Hinshaw sought to represent himself, the opinion says.

Because self-representation is often a bad move for defendants, the judge in the case went to great lengths to explain the consequences to Hinshaw, including that if he were convicted, he might end up in prison for life.

Hinshaw continued to pursue self-representation and showed that he was competent enough to represent himself and could present his case in a coherent way, without being disruptive, the Appeals Court opinion says.

But the judge denied Hinshaw's request to represent himself, the case went to trial and Hinshaw still had the attorney he didn't like. And while he was acquitted on the murder charge, Hinshaw was convicted of the lesser included charge of manslaughter.

Hinshaw filed a petition for post-conviction relief in 2011 that – now, 11 years later – led to the Appeals Court throwing out his conviction and sending the case back to the trial court. But because Hinshaw was acquitted on the murder charge, he can only be tried again for manslaughter, the opinion says.

Responding to a Friday morning email asking whether the state planned to retry Hinshaw, a Department of Law spokesperson said the state attorneys were still discussing it.

Alaska Appeals Court tosses manslaughter conviction 18 years after fatal shooting
...


===================
===================

Hinshaw v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-11953

Hinshaw v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-11953 | Casetext Search + Citator








I suggest you do yourself a favor and avail yourself of your "right to remain silent".

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from being compelled to give testimony against herself/himself that could further incriminate said individual.

Knowing when you have the right to remain silent is important if you're arrested, or have retained counsel representing you regarding pending litigation.

Click to expand...

I agree regarding the value of understanding the 5th amendment absolutely.

The States case rested on 3 alleged victims. All three lied on more than one occasion about their actions and underlying intentions. Further when they were specifically asked whether they brought a gun to my residence to confront me, they all denied that. However recorded evidence irrefutable demonstrated that not only did they bring a gun to confront me, stalked me while waiting for me to exercise my duty to retreat, and disposed of the the gun en route to the emergency room. For these acts of perjury they received transactional immunity to create yet another narrative as to events leading up to the unfortunate death.

Thats the context.

Tax Counsel said:

You likely won't get that. The charges are dismissed and the state has no obligation to revive (and might not be able to even if they wanted to).



Findings by a court of actual innocence are quite rare and not all states allow for it.

You may, of course, seek out some attorneys who do post conviction relief cases to see what options you may have at this point.

Click to expand...

Thank you for objective advice.

Steven Hinshaw said:

There is no exposure to a murder charge though.

Click to expand...

Well...there's no exposure to anything since the state isn't re-trying you. Since we're speaking hypothetically, there's no reason to think that, in a hypothetical retrial, you wouldn't be charged with first-degree murder, as you were the first time, even though the conviction was for the lesser-included manslaughter charge.

Steven Hinshaw said:

I agree regarding the value of understanding the 5th amendment absolutely.

The States case rested on 3 alleged victims. All three lied on more than one occasion about their actions and underlying intentions. Further when they were specifically asked whether they brought a gun to my residence to confront me, they all denied that. However recorded evidence irrefutable demonstrated that not only did they bring a gun to confront me, stalked me while waiting for me to exercise my duty to retreat, and disposed of the the gun en route to the emergency room. For these acts of perjury they received transactional immunity to create yet another narrative as to events leading up to the unfortunate death.

Thats the context.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your response.

The entire episode could have been avoided.

I've prosecuted and defended several similar cases.

They all had a concept comprised of "self help" and a distorted concept of when deadly force could be employed.

The linchpin in those cases included avenging justice.

I've always advised my clients to be extremely cautious when contemplating "self help".

I especially advise slow and deliberate inaction if such consideration involves contemplation/reflection and not an immediate reaction to repel an attack on your life, or that of a loved one.

Consider this, mate, you're back among the free.

Unfortunately you were wrongfully incarcerated in one of twelve states that doesn't compensate individuals that have endured what you did.

Read this, you might have something to consider.

Compensating The Wrongly Convicted - Innocence Project
...

It appears Alaska might be entertaining the concept.

State would pay for wrongfully convicting Alaskans under new proposals
...

army judge said:

Thank you for your response.

The entire episode could have been avoided.

I've prosecuted and defended several similar cases.

They all had a concept comprised of "self help" and a distorted concept of when deadly force could be employed.

The linchpin in those cases included avenging justice.

I've always advised my clients to be extremely cautious when contemplating "self help".

I especially advise slow and deliberate inaction if such consideration involves contemplation/reflection and not an immediate reaction to repel an attack on your life, or that of a loved one.

Consider this, mate, you're back among the free.

Unfortunately you were wrongfully incarcerated in one of twelve states that doesn't compensate individuals that have endured what you did.

Read this, you might have something to consider.

Compensating The Wrongly Convicted - Innocence Project
...

It appears Alaska might be entertaining the concept.

State would pay for wrongfully convicting Alaskans under new proposals
...

Click to expand...

Thank you. It's been an absolutely life changing circumstance that I continue to learn from on a daily basis.

zddoodah said:

Well...there's no exposure to anything since the state isn't re-trying you. Since we're speaking hypothetically, there's no reason to think that, in a hypothetical retrial, you wouldn't be charged with first-degree murder, as you were the first time, even though the conviction was for the lesser-included manslaughter charge.

Click to expand...

According to the article army judge posted the OP was acquitted on the murder charge. Double Jeopardy would come into play.

PayrollHRGuy said:

According to the article army judge posted the OP was acquitted on the murder charge. Double Jeopardy would come into play.

Click to expand...

What other recourse is available?

Steven Hinshaw said:

What other recourse is available?

Click to expand...

That's something you need to discuss with an attorney who is experienced with tort claims against a government entity.

Steven Hinshaw said:

What other recourse is available?

Click to expand...

If you were wrongfully/erroneously incarcerated in one of these states, you'd soon be receiving a nice, cash windfall.

As of now, 35 states offer some compensation to the wrongfully convicted within their jurisdictions. Existing exoneree compensation laws include fixed monetary compensation depending on the time spent in prison, subsistence funds, job training, education access, counseling, healthcare, and housing.

Compensating The Wrongly Convicted - Innocence Project

Unfortunately for you, you weren't incarcerated in one of the 35 states mentioned.

You were imprisoned in one of the remaining 15 states.

There are still 15 states, specifically Alaska, that do not have any compensation laws to make up for wrongful incarceration.
These states include:

Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Delaware
Georgia
Idaho
Kentucky
New Mexico
North Dakota
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Wyoming.
.................

What Do States Owe People Who Are Wrongfully Convicted?
...


32 states compensate people who are wrongfully convicted. Kentucky isn't one of them.
...


Join the movement to compensate the innocent in all 50 states
...


Oh my!!!


Are the Wrongfully Imprisoned Compensated? - Legal Reader
...

army judge said:

If you were wrongfully/erroneously incarcerated in one of these states, you'd soon be receiving a nice, cash windfall.

As of now, 35 states offer some compensation to the wrongfully convicted within their jurisdictions. Existing exoneree compensation laws include fixed monetary compensation depending on the time spent in prison, subsistence funds, job training, education access, counseling, healthcare, and housing.

Compensating The Wrongly Convicted - Innocence Project

Unfortunately for you, you weren't incarcerated in one of the 35 states mentioned.

You were imprisoned in one of the remaining 15 states.

There are still 15 states, specifically Alaska, that do not have any compensation laws to make up for wrongful incarceration.
These states include:

Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Delaware
Georgia
Idaho
Kentucky
New Mexico
North Dakota
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Wyoming.
.................

What Do States Owe People Who Are Wrongfully Convicted?
...


32 states compensate people who are wrongfully convicted. Kentucky isn't one of them.
...


Join the movement to compensate the innocent in all 50 states
...


Oh my!!!


Are the Wrongfully Imprisoned Compensated? - Legal Reader
...

Click to expand...

Thank you for the thoughtful input

The problem in the OP's case should he sue the state could opt to retry the charge he was originally found guilty of.

PayrollHRGuy said:

The problem in the OP's case should he sue the state could opt to retry the charge he was originally found guilty of.

Click to expand...

That it cannot do. Double jeopardy would attach to prevent retrying charges for which he was already convicted. While the state might be able to proceed on charges other than what he was convicted for, I think that unlikely. DAs are not generally known to dismiss charges against defendants they believe to be guilty unless they lack the evidence to secure a conviction. Here, it sounds like the DA initially tried to salvage something from this with new charges on different offenses and then ultimately decided to drop the matter. That suggests the DA realized there just isn't enough good evidence to get that conviction. Relying on witnesses that have apparently given multiple different versions of events is not a particularly strong case. Unless the DA comes up with some new evidence on this rather old case that would make prosecution more attractive, it's likely no new charges would be filed related to that old event. But it is something that the OP would want to discuss with any attorney he considers hiring for the lawsuit.

Tax Counsel said:

That it cannot do. Double jeopardy would attach to prevent retrying charges for which he was already convicted.

Click to expand...

That's not true.

From the article posted above.

Hinshaw filed a petition for post-conviction relief in 2011 that – now, 11 years later – led to the Appeals Court throwing out his conviction and sending the case back to the trial court. But because Hinshaw was acquitted on the murder charge, he can only be tried again for manslaughter, the opinion says.

PayrollHRGuy said:

But because Hinshaw was acquitted on the murder charge, he can only be tried again for manslaughter, the opinion says.

Click to expand...

The opinion says nothing of the kind. The denial of Hinshaw's motion for post-conviction relief is what was on appeal. And it was the trial court's denial of the motion that was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings There is no mention in the opinion about retrying Hinshaw for manslaughter. The author of the article must have made that up

.
"Conclusion We REVERSE the superior court's dismissal of Hinshaw's petition and remand this case to the superior court for further proceedings in the post-conviction relief action. " Hinshaw v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-11953, 8 (Alaska Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2018)

Hinshaw v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-11953 | Casetext Search + Citator

welkin said:

The opinion says nothing of the kind. The denial of Hinshaw's motion for post-conviction relief is what was on appeal. And it was the trial court's denial of the motion that was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings There is no mention in the opinion about retrying Hinshaw for manslaughter. The author of the article must have made that up

.
"Conclusion We REVERSE the superior court's dismissal of Hinshaw's petition and remand this case to the superior court for further proceedings in the post-conviction relief action. " Hinshaw v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-11953, 8 (Alaska Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2018)

Hinshaw v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-11953 | Casetext Search + Citator

Click to expand...

In context, what I said was that he couldn't be tried for the charge that he was found NOT GUILTY of in the original trial.