.....Advertisement.....
.....Advertisement.....

ISP ordered to turn over documents

-A A +A

In murder for hire case

By Rich Bauer, Managing Editor

A judge ruled last week that the Illinois State Police must turn over records and documents related to its relationship with a witness in the case of a Farina man who is charged with trying to arrange for the murder of his wife.
That judge will then review items that are presented by the state police, then provide a written decision on whether those items may be released to the attorney for Mark G. Fulk.
Fulk, 35, was charged with solicitation of murder for hire, a Class X felony, early in April, one day after Fulk’s wife reportedly told local authorities that he had approached a man about killing her.
Authorities were told that in exchange for murdering his wife, John Shelton would receive the Fulk couple’s home, a motorcycle, cash and Fulk’s auto business.
Last Wednesday’s hearing was scheduled after the Illinois State Police, through the office of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, filed a motion asking the court to quash a subpoena filed by Fulk’s attorney, Lou Viverito of Effingham.
In the subpoena, Viverito is asking the state police to provide “all records, documents and data related to any agreement, consideration, incentive and/or concession with” John Shelton in connection with the state police investigation.
He also has asked the state police to provide its policies and procedures related to informants, as well as any criminal history records for Shelton.
The state police objected to the subpoena, saying that it is “oppressive, unreasonable and overbroad,” and that Shelton “is a witness and not an informant.”
They also argued that releasing policies and procedures could compromise the department in future investigations.
The state police also argued that providing its policies and procedures
During the hearing, Viverito argued that because the state police argue that Shelton is not a confidential informant, “policies of the (state police) are not pertinent.”
He also argued that Shelton should, indeed, be classified as an informant.
“To say that he is not a source or informant is inconsistent with what had already been produced,” he said.
The state has represented that Shelton “was actively involved” in the investigation, Viverito said.
Viverito said that the state police had determined that there is no criminal history information for Shelton, and if that’s true, it simply needs to confirm that.
In response to Viverito’s arguments, Assistant Attorney General Brad Gillespie said that the defense “must show that the documents are relevant and not otherwise procureable.”
He argued that Viverito’s subpoena is a “fishing expedition.
“He seems to be to just be grasping at straws,” Gillespie said.
Roberts said that he cannot determine the relevancy of the state’s documents without receive it.”
On the matter of a criminal history for Shelton, Roberts said, “If they (the state police) don’t have certain things, that’s how you respond – ‘We don’t have it.’”
The judge said that he agreed with Viverito’s “argument on who’s an informant.”
Roberts said that he cannot make a ruling without reviewing the materials requested by Viverito, and that he would do so after reviewing the materials outside of court.
He ruled that the state police have to provide the documents by next Monday.