The Alleged "Shoe Print" on the Trunk Lid

PLANTEDEVIDENCE.COM

JUSTICE DENIED!


	Email Me

The Alleged "Shoe Print" on the Trunk Lid

During my trial, the state called Detective Paula Townsend as a witness. She testified that during the search of my 1979 Monte Carlo on February 1 and February 2, 1994, she had observed a “shoe print” pressing upwards on the trunk lid of my vehicle (TP 1587).

Also during the search, a master evidence log that was maintained by S.B.I. Agent John Bendura which showed a “shoe print” was lifted from the trunk lid of my vehicle at 12:55 a.m. on February 2, 1994 by Detective Tommy Swing of the Rowan County Sheriff’s Office. This “print” was listed as item #64.

However, it has continually been the state’s evidence and theory that Gunnarsson was kidnapped nude from his residence, placed in the trunk of my Monte Carlo and driven to a remote wooded area in Watauga County, marched into the woods and shot to death.

During Detective Townsend’s testimony , without any objection from my defense attorneys, they allowed her to testify that she did in fact observe a “shoe print” on the trunk lid of my Monte Carlo during the search of the vehicle on February 1 and February 2, 1994 (TP 1587).

Only after Townsend testified before the jury that the impression on the trunk lid was a “shoe print” did defense attorney Bruce Kaplan object and inform the trial judge that the state’s own expert had in fact examined the impression from the trunk lid. This expert could not tell what the impression was or if it was even made by a shoe (Volume I, TP 429).

At this point the trial judge ruled that the state could not refer to the impression as a “shoe print” until they had identified it as such, a fact the state knew from their own evidence that they could not do (Volume I, TP 430).

Evidence presented by the state at trial showed that the clothing the victim was last seen wearing on the night of December 3, 1993, including his “shoes”, were found by investigators during their search of his residence on January 13, 1994. The clothing and shoes were secured as evidence (Volume III, TP 714). This clothing was never processed for hairs, fiber, or blood but was kept for nine months and returned to investigators (Volume III, TP. 1207-1208).

Also, the state never presented any evidence that Gunnarsson had changed into other clothing or shoes once he arrived home from Kay Weden’s residence on the night of December 3, 1993, sometime after 11:30 p.m. Investigators never found any of the victim’s clothing or shoes missing to indicate he had changed clothing after arriving home.

At trial, the state called S.B.I. Agent Joyce Petzka, an expert in the field of latent identification. The state’s own expert clearly testified that she had examined this impression and she could not tell what the impression was, what had made the impression, or that the impression was made by a shoe (Volume IV, 1501-1502).

The state’s theory that the impression was a “shoe print” was totally inconsistent with their own evidence that the victim was placed in the trunk nude, which the District Attorney presented at trial.

Prosecutors never explained:

	How investigating officers at the scene could make out this impression on the trunk lid as being a “shoe print” when the state’s own expert examined this impression and could not say what made the print or that it was made by a shoe or even tell what the impression was.
	How the impression could be that of a shoe when the state’s own theory and evidence was that Gunnarsson was kidnapped in the nude and had no shoes on his feet.

During my direct appeal to the N.C. Court of Appeals and to the N.C. Supreme Court, Special Deputy Attorney General Ronald Marquette wrote in the brief for the state on page 8 and referred to this so-called impression as now being that of a “foot print” instead of a “shoe print”.

The evidence that state tried to present at trial was that the impression was that of a “shoe print” and not a “foot print”.

On direct appeal my appellate attorneys, Thomas King and David Bingham, never addressed this evidence in my brief to the court.

In the Court of Appeal’s decision in August 1999, they did address the issue of the alleged “foot print” impression Mr. Marquette had informed the court was found on the trunk lid of my car.

However, my appellate attorneys never made the courts aware that the state never proved the impression was a shoe print or that the state’s own expert could not say what the impression was, or that it was made by a shoe. The Court of Appeals’ decision on this evidence was based only on what Mr. Marquette had written in his brief, not the true facts developed at trial.

Back to Top