KENOSHA, Wis. — A new attorney for convicted murderer Mark Jensen is asking for a hearing that could lead to Jensen receiving another trial, arguing his 2023 defense lawyers were ineffective in handling critical evidence and that prosecutors failed to properly disclose evidence favorable to the defense.

Paid Advertisement

Attorney Joseph A. Bugni filed the 89-page postconviction brief Sept. 18. Bugni is asking for what is known as a Machner hearing, where Jensen’s former defense attorneys can be called to testify under oath and questioned about why they did, or did not, investigate and use certain evidence.

Paid Advertisement

What Jensen’s New Lawyer Says Went Wrong
In simple terms, Jensen’s new defense says his lawyers missed three major things.

Paid Advertisement

First, they allegedly failed to properly challenge prosecution computer expert Jason Ruff, whose timeline moved crucial internet searches by two hours. Bugni says earlier investigators and experts had already concluded the searches were recorded in Central Time. The changed timeline was significant because it placed Jensen at home during important searches for ethylene glycol that the defense says may actually have occurred while he was gone.

Paid Advertisement

Bugni also says Ruff placed Volvo-shopping activity immediately before an important medication search when, according to the new defense investigation, those Volvo searches actually occurred days earlier. Jensen’s attorneys, Bugni argues, simply accepted the new timeline instead of checking the old reports and phone records that could have disproved it.

Paid Advertisement

Second, Bugni says Jensen’s lawyers failed to thoroughly examine a zip disk containing evidence prosecutors used to portray Jensen as the person who had spent years harassing his wife. Bugni argues the disk actually contained chat-room records, pornography and other files pointing toward Julie Jensen herself as the source of at least some of the alleged harassment.

Paid Advertisement

Bugni also alleges prosecutors failed to properly identify that favorable evidence for the defense. According to the filing, the State never produced a report alerting Jensen’s lawyers that the zip disk contained material that could undermine the prosecution’s harassment theory.

Paid Advertisement

Third, Bugni says the defense missed the significance of the nicotine evidence. Prosecutors argued that Jensen was behind the nicotine searches because he was a smoker. The new defense says records show Julie called the doctor and pharmacy the following day about obtaining Nicotrol, then asked that an initial inhaler prescription be changed to a liquid form. Bugni argues those records were important because the nicotine searches occurred during the same browsing session in which ethylene glycol first appeared on the Jensen computer.

Paid Advertisement

Jensen’s Three Defense Attorneys
Jensen was represented during his 2023 retrial by attorneys Jeremy Perri, Bridget Krause and Mackenzie Renner. Renner frequently took the lead in court for Jensen’s three-lawyer defense team.

If a Machner hearing is granted, the handling of the case by all three attorneys could come under scrutiny, including what they reviewed, what they understood about the computer evidence and why potentially important evidence was not presented to the jury.

Renner has since been the subject of additional scrutiny. Records previously obtained by KCE showed she was investigated twice during her career with the Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office. One investigation resulted in a one-day unpaid suspension after the agency concluded she violated work rules involving discourteous or harassing conduct and false, inaccurate or malicious statements. She later left her management position and eventually resigned from state service.

KCE also previously reported that another criminal defendant later accused Renner in a court filing of failing to investigate allegedly exculpatory evidence and raised ineffective-assistance concerns about her representation. Those were allegations by that defendant and were not findings by a judge.

The 2023 Trial
Jensen’s retrial was presided over by longtime Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Anthony Milisauskas, who is now retired.

Kenosha County Eye covered the entire weeks-long retrial and was one of only two pool photographers approved by Milisauskas to photograph the proceedings.

The prosecution was led by former Kenosha County District Attorney and special prosecutor Bob Jambois, who had also prosecuted Jensen during his first trial.

The new filing attacks some of the evidence that became central to Jambois’ case, particularly the computer timeline, the harassment evidence and the nicotine searches. Bugni argues all three ultimately pointed jurors toward the same question: Who was actually sitting at the Jensen computer searching for ethylene glycol?

What Happens Next
The case is now assigned to Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge David Hughes, who was appointed to Branch 4 by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers after Milisauskas retired.

If Hughes grants a Machner hearing, Jensen’s former attorneys can be questioned under oath about their preparation and decisions. After the hearing, Hughes would have to determine whether Jensen has proven that his lawyers were constitutionally ineffective, prosecutors improperly failed to disclose favorable evidence, or that the real controversy was never fully tried.

If Hughes agrees, Jensen could receive another trial.

Jensen’s New Lawyer: He Is Innocent
Bugni ends the filing forcefully, calling Jensen “an innocent man.”

The new defense says Jensen was tried using a computer timeline that never actually existed and without evidence that could have pointed toward Julie Jensen as the person behind the harassment, nicotine activity and potentially the critical computer searches.

Bugni argues the jury therefore never got the evidence it needed to properly answer the central question in the case.

In his final paragraph, Bugni says the defense intends to establish that Ruff’s timeline was wrong, that Jensen’s attorneys failed to examine evidence that could have gutted key portions of the State’s case, that prosecutors failed to properly identify favorable evidence and that the defense failed to understand the significance of the nicotine evidence.

He argues that once those facts are established, Jensen should receive a new trial where, armed for the first time with all of the evidence, “he will be acquitted.”