Personal update to family about the case

Ugh ... my mind is racing today, and I'm a bit upset. Last night I had law library, and I checked to see if Micko had filed anything in my case and nothing showed up, so instead I wrote my letter to the Legislators. As soon as I came back from the law library, the CO says, "Allwine, I have mail for you" and he hands me Micko's Report and Recommendation (R&R). It was postmarked the 30th, which means it probably arrived Monday, and the DOC had all day to deliver it to me on Monday and on Tuesday and they delivered it after I was at the law library. Because this is the R&R, I only have 14 days in which to respond to it. It was filed by Micko on 12/29, which means that I basically need to send my response out today or tomorrow (at the latest). Had I received the R&R Monday or Tuesday (prior to law library) then I could have typed my response at the law library which would have been much easier than typing it on my typewriter. So that was one frustration. However, my bigger frustration is that Judge Micko just chose to ignore every single issue and claim that I am barred from bring the issues to the federal courts.

I raised several issues and for every single one he basically said that while I cited federal law, I didn't cite federal constitutional issues throughout the appellate process by specifically mentioning the portion of the U.S. Constitution that was being violated and therefore, the State didn't have an opportunity to rule on a federal claim. This allowed Micko to ignore the actual legal claims that are being brought forward. That is so wrong!

This has me really upset. My frustration is about my case, obviously, but it is more than that. From the very beginning, I have been reading and researching how to raise the issues in the State court so that they were ripe to bring to the federal court, and based on my reading and research I did it as well as I could be expected to do (with no legal training). At each level, I raised U.S. Supreme Court case law that was being violated, and since those laws invoke U.S. Constitutional issues, it was my understanding that it was sufficient. Now this judge is saying that it is not sufficient and that I needed to actually specify the U.S. Constitutional violation that I felt was being violated. Here's my big issue with this ... I am not a dumb guy, so if through all of my reading and researching I was unable to 'properly' raise an issue with the federal courts, then how can any of these guys ever expect to get any relief at the federal court level?

The other piece that frustrates me is that the judge obviously knows that I am right and doesn't want to release me. I have read enough of these R&R's now that when they are filed by pro se petitioners often what the judge does is say something like, "it is barred, but we are supposed to view pro se filings liberally, so even if it were not barred it would still fail on the legal merits because of _____." Micko did not do that in my case, which tells me that he didn't want to bring up the legal merits, because they would demand my release.

The whole issue of "liberally construing" pro se petitions is supposed to make the system fair, but judges ignore it when they want to. The rule came about because pro se petitioners are not legally trained, so we are not expected to file everything perfectly, we are simply supposed to be able to raise the legal issue and the judges are supposed to help us out with the formalities behind the legal issue. Back 50 years ago, when this rule came out that is what the judges did. I read a number of cases from the 60's and 70's where an inmate filed something and a judge basically said, "petitioner claimed a search violation but that is the wrong claim for his issue; he should have raised the issue under Due Process and as a 6th Amendment violation, and therefore I will analyze it under the 6th Amendment." Somehow from that time to now the courts expect us to be legally perfect with our arguments, yet they have not given us any legal training or guidelines to perfect our arguments.

So like I said ... Ugh!

I will file my objections to the R&R and basically explain that I raised the issues to the best of my ability, but something tells me that the judge will basically ignore that argument and dismiss the petition, and claim that I can't appeal the decision ... which would be difficult to overcome. So the federal claims are a major uphill battle from here.

However, since the majority of the Lanterman stuff is new evidence, I have a chance to do it all again from the postconviction level, and I will adjust how I do it (if I still don't have a lawyer that can help me ... hopefully the innocence projects will step up) ... still it is frustrating to say the least.

Even though I don't think I could've done it any differently based on what I knew, I feel like I let you guys down ... more importantly, I feel like I let Amy down :'( She deserves justice, and no one wants to give it to her.

I know that you are all excited for me to get released, especially with all this Lanterman stuff that is obviously wrong, and I feel like I messed up. It will take a bit to get over that feeling. (sigh)

I appreciate all of your love and support and I will keep fighting. Eventually, the truth will come out.

Key witnesses lied to the jury

 

Update from Stephen regarding State-withheld evidence

I recently came across some new information that sheds more light on the prosecution's "misrepresentations" to the jury in my case.

If you have read through this blog, then you know that there was a large pool of Amy's blood (about 1-2ft square) that was cleaned up outside the bedroom. 

In my Brady discussion, I mentioned that when the BCA tested that area of blood, they initially did a presumptive test, which showed that it could be blood, then they used a Hematrace test to ensure that it was human blood, and finally they did the DNA test to make sure it was Amy's blood. However, when it came to the washcloth that they claimed I used to clean that spot, the BCA did the presumptive test and it was positive, and then they did the DNA test which did not have any single source DNA of Amy's, but she could not be excluded from the mixture of 4 or more contributors. I've already discussed how it is completely illogical that so much of her blood could be cleaned up by a light blue washcloth and leave no visual evidence of blood staining and no single source DNA of hers. Today, I would like to focus on the change of procedure and the fact that they 'skipped' the Hematrace test on the washcloth.

When the washcloth was brought to my attention I acknowledged that there could be trace blood on it because we used it to clean cuts and scrapes on the dogs (it was immediately adjacent to the dog kennels).

I've also argued from the beginning that clearly using Hematrace to test if the blood is human blood is part of their process and I questioned why didn't they do that on the washcloth.

My Brady argument was that if they did do a Hematrace test on the washcloth then where are the results, because it would've come back negative and that would prove that the washcloth wasn't used to cleanup Amy's blood.

Recently, I was able to review a document entitled "BCA - Report Writing Guidelines - Serology and Nuclear DNA Analysis

Document # FSS-P-BI-0115". In section 3 (Serology Reports) and subsection A (Blood), it says that it is indeed their POLICY to do a Hematrace. So either they violated policy or they failed to document those results. The BCA guidelines also said that if "blood was indicated but Hematrace and/or Quantifier results are negative" (which it would have been on the washcloth) then they are to report that as "presumptive testing indicated the presence of blood on # areas of Item #; however, it COULD NOT BE CONFIRMED to be of human origin". 

This was not how they reported the findings to the jury. They implied to the jury that since it was presumptively positive for blood and her DNA couldn't be excluded that it must have been used for the cleanup. This violated BCA protocols.

Maybe the washcloth sample size was too small to test (unlikely if a spot that big was cleaned up), but the BCA had policies to cover that too, if "Hematrace cannot be performed because of small sample size" then they are report it as, "presumptive testing indicated the presence of blood on # areas of Item #; however, sample size PRECLUDED FURTHER SEROLOGY TESTING on this item".

None of this was done in my case, or if it was I was never given the report that could've proved my innocence. This was the crux of my Brady argument, and this document supports the claim.

That document also provides the BCA's definition of 'presumptive test': "Presumptive test is a screening test that indicates that a biological fluid of interest may be present on an item of evidence but THE RESULT DOESN'T CONSTITUTE THE IDENTIFICATION OF THAT BIOLOGICAL FLUID", and yet the prosecution presented the presumptive test as if it PROVED that blood was on the washcloth. That was a lie to the jury.

This document provides even more evidence that the washcloth, which was a keystone of the State's case, wasn't used to clean the scene and the prosecution covered it up to make their story sound plausible.

NOTE: To read more about the washcloth click here.

A message from Stephen Allwine

With all that has happened since this blog started, I wanted to post an update and summary for all that is included here. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me via JPay (Stephen Allwine #256147).

I was originally arrested for the murder of my wife (Amy) in January of 2017 after Mark Lanterman got involved and "found" a link between me and her murder. In a 2022 deposition he said, "I brought to the county attorney's attention the fact that the detective made errors in his analysis, and I thought that they were potentially fatal errors. The prosecutor agreed and retained me." 

From this we see that Lanterman inserted himself into my case with the purpose and intent of securing a conviction. He wasn't a neutral expert, as he portrayed himself to the jury. He also claims that the State "retained" him, yet from data I received via a Minnesota Data Practices request to Washington County, he was never officially "retained" for my case. They had one contract for 2017, and invoices for 2 cases that Lanterman did work for, and mine wasn't included. That was one of many lies he told during this one deposition while under oath. 

I also have in my possession 8 affidavits (sworn under penalty of perjury by Mark Lanterman) that are proven false by this data practices request, and at least a dozen more affidavits and declarations (sworn under penalty of perjury by Mark Lanterman) that are also proven false for one or more reasons. This man is a prolific (possibly pathological) liar, and yet this is the man that they used as the cornerstone of their case. 

I was originally arrested on 2nd degree murder because in Minnesota you have to get an indictment from a Grand Jury for 1st degree murder. The main testimony in the Grand Jury hearing was Lanterman (telling his same lies ... discussed in detail in this blog) and they indicted me for 1st degree murder. Since, he has been proven to be a fraud, the indictment is invalid, and the court has no jurisdiction to convict me of 1st degree murder.

Outside of Lanterman, let's look at the evidence. The State's only piece of physical evidence in favor of guilt is the single particle of gunshot residue (GSR) on my right hand; however, I claim that it points more toward innocence because GSR is too small for me to choose to put a single particle on my hand, and if I was the shooter then I should have hundreds of particles on both hands and my clothes (GSR is prolific and very 'sticky'), after all Amy had 50 particles on both of her hands and she's the victim. 

Where did the one particle come from? 9-1-1 had me check her vitals to determine if she was dead, entering the room she was on my right side and I'm right handed, so I checked her pulse in the most easily accessible place, the right side of her neck, just below where she was shot, and a place coated in GSR. Since GSR is 'sticky', it's most likely that 1 particle stuck to my right hand.

Looking at the rest of the physical evidence all points toward innocence: my fingerprints aren't on the weapon, no blowback on my clothes, no footprints around her body, I couldn't have lifted and moved her to her final resting spot, her single profile DNA isn't on the washcloth that the State claims was used for clean up, my footprints only go where I told the police I went after finding Amy, there is no evidence of cleanup in the house, a car was waiting for me to leave outside her training building and sped away around 6pm, the neighbor say two cars speeding out of the neighborhood about 6pm, time of death was about 6pm, the State stipulated that I was not at home between 5:25 and 6pm, no evidence of dogdaygod on any of my devices, no evidence of TOR browser prior to Nov of 2016, no evidence of any previous threats or domestic violence (it should be noted that this was 2 months after her death, during which I had been staying Amy's parents, which wouldn't have happened if they thought I had anything to do with it). 

How was I convicted? Through lies: Lanterman's are numerous and detailed throughout, Dr. Mills lied about when her investigator showed up on site in order to shift the time of death (compare her testimony to the crime scene access log), and the prosecutor lied to the jury about Mr. Cranston being confused on which day he saw Amy in the garage even though they had trail camera footage vouching for him.

When I brought my appeal through the State courts they based their denial on Lanterman (the computer evidence), though we've known all along that he lied. Now that there's more evidence of his lies the State is claiming that the particle of GSR proves that I shot her. 

What is the current status? I currently have my case in front of the federal court, and the magistrate judge Micko is taking his time with it. The last motion filing was submitted to him over 6 months ago, and he has had the final petition and legal arguments for almost a year. 

What am I expect? What is the legal solution? The ONLY legal solution is a reversal of the conviction. Napue v. Illinois is the easiest legal standard to base the reversal upon. It says "A lie is a lie, no matter what its subject, and, if it is in any way relevant to the case ... a trial [cannot] in any real sense be termed fair." (time of death and premeditation are relevant) This was reaffirmed as recently as 2025 where Glossip v. Oklahoma reminded us that it's the prosecutor's duty (not defense counsel) to correct false testimony, and now the State has the responsibility to prove that the verdict COULDN'T have changed, which they haven't done. 

The ONLY legal answer is reversal. Let's hope judge Micko chooses to follow the law, and pray for a speedy resolution for all involved. This needs to end, it's been almost 9 years.

Stephen (Steve) Allwine

Action that can make a difference

If you are concerned about what you've read here at this blog and getting a fair trial in America, please contact the Minnesota Governor's office to ask them to look further into Stephen Allwine's case and to grant him an evidentiary hearing.

Stephen speaks out about Mark Lanterman's lies regarding his case

https://www.prisonradio.org/commentary/minnesota-prosecutors-violating-supreme-court/

Digital expert in trial is now being exposed as a fraud

Mark Lanterman's testimony at the Allwine trial was critical to connecting Stephen to the dogdaygod persona who hired a hitman to kill Amy Allwine. Recently, this digital expert used by the State of Minnesota has proven to be a fraud.

Further information can be found at Attorney Sean Harrington's website:
https://seanharringtonlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2025-03_deepfakeexperts_.pdf

and at KSTP news:
https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/twin-cities-computer-expert-who-testified-in-thousands-of-cases-under-scrutiny/

In an Fox9News piece he was described as "not reliable."
https://www.fox9.com/video/1624339

(UPDATED APRIL 19, 2025)

Eileen Ormsby, who wrote two books about the Dark Web that cited the Allwine case, said of Lanterman:

"I attended the Stephen Allwine trial where this guy gave 'expert' evidence on, among other things, bitcoin and the dark web. He had absolutely no idea what he was talking about in relation to either. I was gobsmacked that no rebuttal expert was called as they would have wiped the floor with him. He also denigrated the law enforcement forensics officers involved..."
(Posted at Krebs on Security, Cyber Forensic Expert in 2,000+ Cases Faces FBI Probe, April 4, 2025)