Justices hear arguments in Dana Chandler murder appeal

By  | 

TOPEKA, Kan. (WIBW) - The Kansas Supreme Court heard oral arguments on January 24th in the case of Dana Chandler.

Dana Chandler

Chandler was convicted of two counts of first degree Murder, and sentenced to 100 years in prison back in 2012.

Chandler’s Attorney’s are arguing that the prosecutor in the case mislead jurors, and they want a new trial.

Chandler was found guilty for the murders of her ex-husband Mike Sisco and his girlfriend Karen Harkness, in 2002.

The murder was a cold case until Chandler’s arrest in 2012.

During trial, Chandler’s attorneys say the prosecutor lied and filed an appeal of her guilty verdict.

“I don’t see how a trained prosecutor represents that there was a protection from abuse order, when there wasn’t,” said Justice Dan Biles.

Justices on the Kansas Supreme Court, as well as attorneys for Dana Chandler, questioned what former Shawnee County prosecutor Jacqie Spradling meant during closing arguments during the 2012 trial of Dana Chandler.

Spradling said Mike Sisco obtained a protection from abuse order against Chandler, but later found out he hadn’t.

“Miss Spradling saying in 1998 he got an order. There is no order on file,” stated Chandler’s attorney, Stacy L. Schlimmer.

Assistant Solicitor General Jodi Litfin says she believes when Spradling mentioned the order, it was a temporary order that was originally field during divorce proceedings back in 1998. But the courts pointed out, there is a big difference.

“Then the order was directed at both of the parties, not just her. But she said it was directed at the defendant. So, that’s a misstatement even if I give you the other part, right,” asked Biles.

“Yes,” Litfin replied. “It was to both parties, not just to her.”

But Schlimmer also contends that some of the evidence submitted, was not enough to constitute a fair trial.

“The total conduct in this case, and I think it’s a case where it is so egregious that even under the old standard, I think that Miss Chandler never had an opportunity at a fair trial from the get go,” stated Schlimmer.

The Supreme Court will now take all the evidence and determine if there should be a new trial, but the court did not say when there ruling will come down.