Chandler to judge: Throw out evidence you allowed in first murder trial

Dana Lynn Chandler wants the judge hearing her murder retrial to block admission of evidence that jurors heard during her first trial more than six years ago when that jury convicted Chandler of two counts of first-degree murder.

Prosecutors retrying Chandler are asking the judge to "modify" the earlier evidenciary order, which "was not disturbed" by the Kansas Supreme Court when it overturned the Chandler murder convictions in April.

Shawnee County District Court Judge Nancy Parrish, who heard the original trial and is hearing the retrial, hasn't issued a ruling on the evidence motion.

Chandler, 58, is charged with two counts of first-degree murder in the shootings of her former husband, Michael Sisco, and his fiancee, Karen Harkness, on July 7, 2002. Each victim was shot at least five times as the two slept in her west Topeka home. Chandler remains in Shawnee County Jail in lieu of a $1 million bond.

Chandler appealed the murder convictions, and on April 6, the Kansas Supreme Court overturned Chandler’s 2012 murder convictions, saying an earlier Shawnee County prosecutor falsely told jurors that a protection-from-abuse order was filed by Sisco against Chandler in her divorce case.

The Chandler re-trial is scheduled to start on Feb. 4.

In her re-trial, Chandler is acting as her own defense attorney but is assisted by a standby counselor and an assistant counsel.

Kansas law says that in certain instances, evidence that a person has earlier committed a crime or civil wrong is admissible in a trial to prove the person's disposition to do so or as an inference the person committed another crime or civil wrong.

The evidence is admissible when it's relevant to prove some other material fact including motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, planning, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident, according to Kansas statutes. It's referred to as "60-455 evidence," which is that law's Kansas statute number.

On Jan. 23, 2012, before Chandler's first trial in the double slayings, prosecutors filed a motion to admit 60-455 evidence to show the motive.

In Chandler's motion to block the 60-455 evidence, she contends then senior prosecutor Jacqie Spradling developed a motive alleging Chandler committed the homicides based on a five-minute phone call on July 5, 2002, between Chandler and Sisco. In her defense filing, Chandler said that during the phone call, the prosecution alleged Sisco told Chandler that he and Harkness were engaged to marry.

Two days later on July 7, 2002, Sisco and Harkness were shot to death.

"Consequently, the alleged content of this phone call was used as a basis for the admissibility of other alleged crimes or alleged civil wrongs evidence to prove motive," Chandler contends in her motion to block the evidence.

In seeking to block prosecution evidence during the retrial, Chandler said no evidence existed to show what was said during the alleged five-minute call between Chandler and Sisco.

Chandler is asking the judge to deny her earlier rulings on the 60-455 evidence.

Prosecutors say jurors should hear about Chandler's actions before the slayings of Sisco and Harkness.

"In this case, the evidence of the defendant's prior bad acts show that the defendant stalked Mike Sisco, repeatedly harassed both victims by telephone, appeared randomly at MIke's house attempting to spy on him, and just one month before the homicides, drove from Denver to Topeka, unannounced and broke into Mike's residence before going to Karen's residence to wait on them," Chief of Staff Charles Kitt said. "Regardless of whether the defendant knew of the impending engagement, the evidence clearly shows the defendant planned and prepared to commit the crimes."

The previous stalking demonstrated a repeated pattern of harassment by Chandler, Kitt wrote, but on the weekend of the slayings, "the harassing behavior, with no explanation, stopped."

No phone calls were made to the couple by Chandler, who "intentionally turned her phone off and stopped using her credit card in order to drive to Topeka undetected to commit the homicides," Kitt wrote.

Just 30 days before the slayings, Chandler's visit to Topeka was a "dry run" of the slayings, the prosecution said.

Chandler's trip to Topeka before the slayings "30 days prior to the homicides is nearly identical to her actions on the days of July 6 and 7, 2002," Kitt wrote.

Based on the Kansas law dealing with previous bad acts, "the relevant testimony and evidence is material to show the defendant's motive, opportunity, preparation, planning and identity," the prosecution wrote.

The evidence is disputed because Chandler is denying she committed the crimes, Kitt wrote, saying the probative value of the evidence outweighs any potential prejudice.