ILNews

Trial court should have booted the bloody shoe, but conviction stands

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed with a convicted murderer that his bloody shoe should not have been admitted into evidence, but the judges did not overturn the conviction, ruling other substantial independent evidence supported the guilty verdict.

Douglas Guilmette appealed his conviction for murder, contending, in part, the trial court violated Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution when it admitted the DNA evidence found on his shoe.

As part of its investigation into the September 2010 death of Greg Piechocki, the St. Joseph County Metro Homicide Unit interviewed Guilmette twice. During these sessions, along with telling detectives he did not like Piechocki, Guilmette admitted to taking deceased’s money and shoplifting from Walmart and Meijer.

Guilmette was subsequently arrested for the Walmart and Meijer thefts. In collecting Guilmette’s clothing and shoes, an officer saw what appeared to be spots of blood on the shoes.

Without a search warrant, Guilmette’s shoes and several other items were taken to the Indiana State Police Lab for blood and DNA analysis. A red stain on one of the shoelaces tested presumptively for blood and DNA testing indicated the stain was a mixture from Piechocki and Guilmette.

The COA, in Douglas A. Guilmette v. State of Indiana, 71A04-1205-CR-250, took no issue with the police taking Guilmette’s shoe at the time of his arrest. Nor did the court find any violation from the police looking at the shoe and discovering the red stains. 

However, the COA noted because Guilmette was initially arrested for the unrelated crimes of theft, not murder, the police should have obtained a warrant before doing the blood and DNA analysis of the shoe. The court then concluded the laboratory testing of his shoe for evidence of the murder was an unconstitutional search under the Indiana Constitution.

Still, the COA found the admission of the DNA evidence to be harmless because other substantial independent evidence of guilt was offered.  

Writing for court, Senior Judge Carr Darden explained, “The DNA evidence from the shoe was not the strongest evidence of guilt. It merely consisted of testimony that a small stain on Guilmette’s shoelace tested presumptively for blood and that subsequent DNA testing gave a mixture from which both Piechocki and Guilmette could not be excluded. Moreover, the testimony of four separate and independent witnesses that Guilmette admitted killing Piechocki with a baseball bat constituted overwhelming substantial independent evidence of guilt. Thus, the erroneous admission of the DNA evidence from the shoe was harmless.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Proof
    I don't care how many people, co conspirators, testify to hearsay for the purpose opf railroading a defendant, hearsay nor testimony are not proof. It seem that our courts have forgotten the meaning of proof beyond a reasonable doubt! Is it unreasonable to think that four independant witnesses could all be lying? Is it unreasonable to believe that the prosecutor hired these four witnesses? Wouldn't be the first time, do some research and you will be shocked out of your shoes!

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A sad end to a prolific gadfly. Indiana has suffered a great loss in the journalistic realm.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT