Appellate court hears oral arguments about ‘harmless error,’ ‘inadmissible evidence’ in Bliefnick murder case

QUINCY — James Waller, an assistant appellate defender with the Office of the State Appellate Defender, Fourth District, said a case as important as the Tim Bliefnick murder case should be tried before a judge “whose career is not resting in the hands of the prosecutor trying the case.”

Allison Paige Brooks, assistant appellate prosecutor with the Illinois Office of the State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, said her position was that even if Judge Robert Adrian erred by letting in some of hearsay statements of Becky Bliefnick during the trial, the evidence in this case was so compelling and strong that it would be considered “harmless error.”

Oral arguments in Bliefnick’s appeal were made Wednesday afternoon in a Zoom call before three judges from the Illinois Appellate Court Fourth District — Raylene Grischow from Sangamon County, Craig DeArmond from Vermillion County and Robert Steigmann from Champaign County. The arguments were broadcast live on YouTube.

Becky Bliefnick, who had three sons with Tim Bliefnick, was found dead by her father in her home on Feb. 23, 2023, after being shot 14 times. She was 41. Tim Bliefnick was convicted in May 2023 of murdering his estranged wife and received three life sentences on August 11, 2023. He now is lodged in the Menard Correctional Center in Menard.

A person has the right to appeal a lower court decision to the Illinois Appellate Court. The appellate court is organized into five districts — headquartered in Chicago, Elgin, Ottawa, Springfield and Mount Vernon. The appellate court in each district hears appeals from the circuits within that district. After the appellate court decides an appeal, a person may petition the Illinois Supreme Court to review the appellate court’s decision.

Waller: Adrian allowed ‘vast amount of inadmissible evidence’

The basis for Bliefnick’s appeal is based on three issues, according to briefs filed in April by Waller and Catherine Hart, deputy defender with the Office of the State Appellate Defender, Fourth District:

• Adrian admitted inadmissible evidence under the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” doctrine, without regard for whether that evidence was relevant or otherwise admissible. 
• Adams County Assistant State’s Attorney Josh Jones, who prosecuted the case, made representations to the jury of matters that were not in evidence. 
• Adrian denied the defense’s suggestion of conflict and allowed Jones to remain as the prosecutor in this case while Jones’ potentially adverse testimony against Adrian was pending in another matter before the Judicial Inquiry Board.

“As unfortunate as the last two issues are, and although they are independent grounds for remand, this court doesn’t even need to reach those because the first issue is so straightforward,” Waller said in his argument Wednesday. “Tim Bliefnick was denied his right to a fair trial when the court admitted a vast amount of inadmissible evidence under the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine, without regard for whether that evidence was relevant or otherwise admissible.”

Waller said “irrelevant and not otherwise admissible” fears, thoughts, feelings and privileged communications about Becky’s state of mind should not have been allowed. He pointed to testimony from Nicole Bateman, Rebecca Spotts, Sarah Reilly, Sara Murphy and Christine Moore.

“We know that this (testimony) is irrelevant to prove anything but propensity to commit a crime, and thus it’s not proper evidence to admit under the forfeiture by wrongdoing principle,” Waller said. “A single instance of this is reversible error if properly preserved, as it was in this case.”

Steigmann asked Waller if the objections raised by the defense during the trial were regarding Jones being disqualified, not Adrian. Waller said yes.

“We argue that that fully brought the issue to the court’s attention,” Waller said. “We believe that should have put the court on notice that sua sponte (a voluntary action taken by a judge), or even at the request of the defendant’s recusal, was absolutely mandatory at that point.”

Steigmann asked about improperly admitted statements made by Becky Bliefnick to her lawyers. 

“Are you arguing that the defendant can assert Becky’s attorney-client privilege in this proceeding?” he said. “Was it a strange posture for the defendant to be in, where he’s charged with Becky’s murder (and) asserting an attorney-client privilege on her behalf to keep a jury in his murder trial from hearing testimony — which, let’s assume, for purpose of my question, might be probative?”

“It’s no more strange than anything else that comes under the forfeiture by wrongdoing,” Waller said. “We hold (the attorney-client) as a sacred privilege. Now, I could see a policy that would allow a personal representative of hers to go through those divorce files and take out anything that they don’t want law enforcement or the public to see in open court.”

Nobody analyzed potential problem when divorce attorneys turned over evidence

Waller said the biggest problem with the case is that when Dennis Woodworth and Gerald Timmerwilke, Becky’s divorce attorneys, turned over their files to law enforcement and open court — yet nobody analyzed the potential issue.

“Those killjoys at the ARDC (Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission) want the judge to sign off on it first,” Waller said. “The state had a burden to demonstrate that the either conversations were not privileged, or the court had a duty to recognize that privilege might apply. Has anybody waived it? What was privileged and what isn’t? The court didn’t do any of that. The court signed off on it.”

Waller was asked to respond to Brooks’ claim of “harmless error,” that the evidence of Tim Bliefnick’s guilt is so compelling and overwhelming even though all evidence is circumstantial.

“In a situation like this, the Supreme Court has not applied harmless error,” Waller said. “They called it reversible error. If harmless error should be applied (by the appellate court), and that’s an issue the state needs to take up with the Supreme Court on appeal … as the law stands right now, this is reversible error if properly preserved — which defense counsel (Casey Schnack) did a great job of doing.

“If this court does apply harmless error, we are talking about harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. I still say we’re looking at a case with no fingerprint analysis, no conclusive DNA analysis (and) circumstantial evidence — no doubt a substantial amount. Any evidence of motive is completely specious without this improperly admitted evidence.”

Waller said the case was “narrowly bookended” by the start of formal Judicial Inquiry Board (JIB) proceedings against Adrian and Jones’ testimony against Adrian before the Illinois Courts Commission. 

“Throughout the entirety of these proceedings, Judge Adrian knows in a few months he’s going to have to overcome the idea that he can’t be fair to Mr. Jones, which gives rise to a very reasonable perception he’s going to try to curry favor with Mr. Jones,” Waller said. “That perception becomes a lot more reasonable when the judge violates evidentiary law without exercising discretion over and over again in the state’s favor in other circumstances. 

“I would never dream of suggesting that evidentiary rulings were driven by nefarious purposes, but look at the way Judge Adrian buried any mention of the JIB case, sealing everything the minute the issue was raised and keeping the filing away from the press. … This is not the way you’re supposed to alleviate public perception of bias by hiding the evidence from the public. When a judge tells you he can’t be fair and take steps to hide the issue, to keep it from the press and public, we’re in a ‘where there’s this much smoke, there’s fire’ kind of situation.”

Steigmann asks about relevance of Becky’s state of mind

Brooks wrote in a July brief that the circumstantial evidence in the case “overwhelms” any potential errors made in the jury trial.

Steigmann asked Brooks which part of the proceedings were Becky Bliefnick’s state of mind relevant to.

“The state does not accept the prosecutor’s argument as being correct,” she replied.

“Too bad you weren’t there at the trial, Miss Brooks,” Steigmann said.

Brooks said the appellate court reviews the judgment and not the trial court’s reasoning. She explained that when Becky Bliefnick said Tim Bliefnick didn’t return her gun, her state of mind is not relevant — but Tim Bliefnick still had the gun, and “therefore that’s an opportunity to commit the crime with that gun,” she said.

“I don’t understand where this notion that the decedent’s state of mind is relevant comes in,” Steigmann said. “It seemed to be that’s all (Jones) thought was necessary, and the judge seemed to buy it.”

Brooks said some of the facts that were offered in testimony that Becky changed the locks at her home, Tim researched on the Internet how to use a crowbar to open a door or a window, and “six to eight” shell casings at the scene matched the shell casings that were fired off in Tim’s home — which she called “the most powerful piece of circumstantial evidence.”

Steigmann then asked about statements Jones made in his closing argument about information that was not presented during the case — information that was released to the public about the police investigation.

“(Schnack) would have been appropriate to say, ‘Ladies and gentlemen, that argument (Jones) made was based on nothing. There’s nothing in this record. You heard no evidence at all about what was in the news about this case. You should disregard it, and the state’s defense attorney is arguing to you things that are based on nothing,’” Steigmann said. “Wouldn’t that have sufficed?”

“It would have been possible and appropriate to do, but the state is allowed to fight fire with fire,” Brooks said. “If the defendant injects this sort of error, the prosecutor essentially gets to respond in kind. This was nothing more than simply a response in kind.

“(Schnack) made assertions about what (Tim Bliefnick) was allowed to investigate in the news, and that his (online) searches represented that. The prosecutor was allowed to respond that this type of information was not even released.”

Steigmann asks for explanation of Tim’s behavior on day of murder

During Waller’s rebuttal, Steigmann asked him to “give your best effort to come up with some innocent explanation” for Tim Bliefnick’s behavior on the day of the murder. Steigmann referred to the facts that Tim had bought toys and taken them to the home of his father — of whom Becky had made claims of sexual misconduct — and that Tim lied when he said the school had called him to pick up the boys because Becky hadn’t shown up. 

“It’s not our burden to demonstrate theories of innocence here,” Waller said.

“I know it’s not your burden, counsel, but I’m asking you anyway,” Steigmann said.

“I’m going to refuse to come up with theories when the burden is on the state,” Waller said. “A lot of things happen in parenting. It’s very easy to look in hindsight and draw a narrative and connect dots.”

“If there’s some conceivable innocent explanation for this behavior, I’d be anxious to hear it,” Steigmann said. “I can come up with none. Maybe you can.”

“This is why we need a new trial, because this trial was not conducted fairly,” Waller said. “If this evidence needs to come up for it to affect the state’s burden of proving him beyond a reasonable doubt, that means it needs to be submitted at trial.”

The decision from the three judges will be posted on the Illinois Supreme Court website the same day it is issued.

The Fourth District Appellate Court is in Springfield and hears cases appealed from trial courts in 41 counties, including Adams, Pike and Brown.