Kenneth Hudson PC: Fox 11 Online
APPLETON, WI (WTAQ-WLUK) – As Kenneth Hudson’s appeals continue more than two decades after he was convicted of killing Shanna Van Dyn Hoven, the prosecutor wants his attorney, Michael Balskus removed from the case due to a conflict of interest because Balskus worked in the District Attorney’s office at the time of the original prosecution, and may have improperly taken confidential documents associated with the case.
Hudson is serving a life prison term for the June 25, 2000, murder of Van Dyn Hoven, 19. She was killed while jogging in a Kaukauna park. Hudson was also sentenced to consecutive sentences after that for kidnapping, attempted homicide and recklessly endangering safety, totaling another 70 years in prison. Since sentencing, Hudson has filed more than a dozen appeals and motions — usually focusing on claims he was framed — and all have failed.
Hudson was given an Oct. 31 deadline to file one final, all-encompassing motion, which Marinette County Judge James Morrison characterized as Hudson’s last chance to address any issue, saying the Van Dyn Hoven family needs to have closure on the case. Before the deadline, however, Hudson hired attorney Michael Balskus, who asked for an extension of the deadline, given his newness to the case.
However, Outagamie County District Attorney Melinda Tempelis objected, saying Balskus should not be allowed to represent Hudson. She noted Balskus worked in the district attorney’s office when Hudson was prosecuted – although Balskus did not specifically work on the Hudson case. Also, Tempelis raised concerns with the multiple boxes of documents Balskus had taken from the office, ostensibly as part of another matter, wondering if there are Hudson-related items among the contents. Last fall, Balskus was ordered to turn over the documents to Tempelis for her review.
In a four-page motion filed Wednesday, Tempelis characterizes a variety of documents, noting some appear to be originals, and not in a form Balskus would have received through Open Records requests but only by taking them from the office. There are also documents with hand-written notes and work product, items which are not public records.
Tempelis argues Balskus should not be allowed to represent Hudson, as it would violate Supreme Court rules (SCR) barring former district attorneys from representing defendants who were prosecuted while they were in that office.
“It is quite evident that Atty. Balskus was a prosecutor within the Outagamie District Attorney’s Office at the time of the prosecution of the defendant. While it is unclear how and to what extent he would have acquired confidential information about this case and others assigned to (former District Attorney Vince Biskupic and Deputy District Attorney Carrie Schneider), it certainly has the appearance of impropriety, potential ethical violations and possession of property that was not his to possess. Furthermore, it shows Atty. Balskus had information and records, including in his own handwriting referencing this case. Atty. Balskus could potentially use information he has obtained while a prosecutor in the Outagamie District Attorney’s Office and retained all these years to defend his client, which violates SCR 20:1.11 and SCR 20.1.9. Over the last almost 23 years, the defendant has consistently argued the State framed him and planted or excluded evidence in this case. In the interest of protecting the integrity of this case, the current and future appellate process and the rights of the victims, I do not believe Atty. Balskus should remain on this case presented with the information we have before the Court,” Tempelis wrote.
Balskus has not replied to Tempelis’ motion. At a previous hearing, he indicated he believed he should be allowed to continue to represent Hudson.
A status conference is scheduled for Feb. 24.
Meanwhile, the briefing on if Balskus will be able to represent Hudson means there’s no deadline for when Hudson’s motion will be due, and a decision would likely take several months after it is filed. At the hearing in November, Judge Morrison apologized to the Van Dyn Hoven family but noted he’s trying get the issues resolved properly.
“What is critically important is that we get this matter right. It’s critically important in the interest of the victim, and of the family as much as it is Mr. Hudson – and our system in general. So, I know it’s frustrating; I can’t begin to understand your frustration. We’re not screwing around here. We’re not doing it for the fun of it. These are not unimportant procedural matters,” the judge said on Nov. 9.
Comments