Vidocq Journal
Winter 2007
Society Volume Eighteen
Number One
The Head in the Bucket:
Vidocq Society Annual Dinner Dedicated
The Murder of Gregory May
to Dr. Halbert Fillinger, MD, VSM
By Frank Bender and Paul Plevakas
By Paul Plevakas
On August 27, 2001, sitting beneath a trailer at the
Kearney Truck Plaza in Kearney, Missouri, a head was
discovered encased in hardened concrete by the Plaza’s
owner, Steven Rhodes.
The police were notified and an autopsy was
performed on the head. The medical examiner had hopes
that the concrete retained the facial features of the victim.
Upon careful removal of the concrete, the medical
examiner was disappointed to find out that a hat had
been placed over the head before the concrete was
poured. This left no recognizable impression in the
concrete.
The Kearney Police department posted information
about the head on their website in hope of identifying
the victim. The investigators knew the head was that of
Commissioner Wiliam Fleisher, VSM and Mrs. Maggie Fillinger
a 40-60 year old man with teeth in good condition and
Over one hundred Vidocq Society members along extensive dental work.
with their family and friends attended the 2006 annual Continued on page 4
Black Tie dinner. The dinner was held at a new venue,
the Moshulu restaurant on the Delaware River. Guests
Vidocq Society Journal
were welcomed by the music of the Harvey Sister’s
String Quartette.
Winter 2007
The most important event of this year’s dinner was
the presentation of a portrait painted by Molly Phifer of
Contents
Dr. Halbert Fillinger, MD, VSM to his widow Maggie
Vidocq Annual Dinner ................................... 1 and 5
Fillinger. The presentation brought tears to the eyes of
Mrs. Fillinger. The Head in the Bucket ............................. 1, 4, and 5
Dr. Fillinger a Vidocq Society member and
renowned forensic pathologist for over 40 years, passed Commissioner's Message ......................................... 2
away on June 11, 2006 at the age of 79 after a long
Bookspan's Bullets ......................................... 2 and 3
illness.
Dr. Fillinger was the Chief Deputy Coroner for Resources in Cold Case Investigations .......... 3 and 6
Bucks County, the Assistant Medical Examiner for the
City of Philadelphia for 28 years, and finished his career Solve the Mystery .................................................... 6
Continued on page 5
© Copyright 2007 by The Vidocq Society — Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Page 2 Winter 2007
Commissioner’s Message Bookspan’s Bullets
By Dr. Jolie Bookspan, Science Officer of the Vidocq Society
To my fellow Vidocqians:
Not Nice Christmas Crimes
For the Year 2007, I wish
In Hamilton County, Ohio, two teens were arrested for
all of you and your loved ones
stabbing an inflatable 12-foot-tall Frosty the Snowman with
a year of happiness, health and
screwdrivers. The same Frosty had survived two previous
prosperity. In addition, I pray
stabbing attacks. In Anderson, South Carolina, David Allen
that everyone, in particular Rodgers, 42, was arrested for driving while intoxicated at
those who have lost someone the wheel of a float during the annual Christmas parade. At
to the violence that pervades his court hearing, Rodgers said, “I made a very bad judgment
our country, know peace. on my part.” According to The Catholic League, which tracks
As members of the Vidocq Society, we are blessed nativity vandalism, “crush crimes” occurred in 35 cities from
with being able to help in some way these people whose Fayetteville, North Carolina, to Mission Viejo, California.
More seriously, John Michael Barton, 55, dressed as Santa
sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, or friends have been
Claus with a stuffed Rudolph in his motorcycle sidecar
victims of unsolved murders.
abducted an 8-year-old girl outside a South Carolina
On February 2007, we will celebrate the 50 th
convenience store where the girl’s family had also stopped.
anniversary of the discovery of the unknown child,
After a chase at speeds of up to 80 mph, Barton was
known the world over as the “Boy in the Box.” I am
apprehended and returned the little girl.
hoping that this will be the year we can put a name on - CBS News Dec. 24, 2006
his tombstone at Ivy Hill Cemetery. In association with
US Government Creates a Wikipedia for Spies
this, I would to mention that the longtime creator and
The office of U.S. Intelligence announced introduction
Webmaster of the “America’s Unknown Child” website,
of a “top-secret web system” to allow thousands of intelli-
George Knowles passed away this December. May his
gence analysts and other officials to collaboratively add and
soul rest in peace; and as I picture in my mind George
edit content on the government’s classified Intelink. The new
in Heaven walking alongside of our unknown child, I system, called “Intellipedia,” is available to the 16 agencies
know it is. of the U.S. intelligence community, the Transportation Se-
curity Administration, and national laboratories. Less restric-
Have a great year.
tive versions exist for “secret” and “sensitive but unclassi-
Sincerely, fied” material. Although there are concerns about media
Bill Fleisher “leaks,” officials hope proper use of Intellipedia will help
avoid errors similar to those that led to the 2002 national
intelligence estimate that Saddam Hussein possessed stock-
Vidocq Society Journal piles of weapons of mass destruction. Intelligence officials
plan to provide access to Britain, Canada, Australia, and pos-
The Vidocq Journal © Copyright 2007
sibly China. Senior intelligence analyst Fred Hassani said,
Published by The Vidocq Society
“We’d hope to get down to the doctor in Shanghai who may
a 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organization
P.O. Box 40285, Continental Station have a useful contribution on avian flu.”
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
- MSNBC by way of Reuters, Oct 31, 2006
Commisioner
Man Stopped for DUI Continues Drinking
William L. Fleisher
During Arrest
Deputy Commissioners
Manchester New Hampshire police pulled over Patrick
Kenneth D. Freeman
Allain, 35, for driving drunk over the holidays. Allain
Fred A. Bornhofen
continued to drink a 40-ounce bottle of beer, telling officers,
Communications Office
“You can charge me with whatever you want it’s not going
Paul D. Plevakas, Editor
to stop me from drinking and driving.” Allain has been
Voice: (215) 545-1450 — Fax: (215) 545-1773
previously arrested four times for driving while intoxicated.
paudav1@earthlink.net — www.vidocq.org
-WMUR-TV, December 28 2006
The Vidocq Society Journal
Winter 2007 Page 3
Part III: Resources in Cold Case
New FDA Test Detects Fake Bioterror Agents
Researchers at the Food and Drug Administration’s Investigations
National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR) are By Richard H. Walton, V.S.M.
developing a quick, cost-effective mass spectrometry test to
Cold case homicide investigation entails investigator
distinguish real bioterror agents from hoax materials. The
awareness and understanding of a plethora of issues and
testing is similar to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s
avenues specific to the task of re-investigating these
fingerprint library for criminals. A researcher can take patterns
generated by a mass spectrometer’s analysis of a substance, crimes. These investigations build upon the previous
and compare them with a database of known substances for written record as well as the identification, collection,
immediate recognition. and retention of evidence, sometimes decades in the past.
-http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2006/606_bioterror.html Not uncommonly, review of a long dormant case
identifies evidence related issues, including evidence
Pennsylvania Man Arrested on a 23-Year-Old
that is missing, physically deteriorated, or biologically
Bench Warrant
Merle Hulbert Jr. said he had no idea his driving-while- corrupted. Among the most common instances are old
intoxicated charge was still open. Hulbert’s former attorney crime scene photos and audio/video tapes that have
has since died and McKean County Judge John Yoder noted faded or become inaudible, or articles with biological
that Ronald Reagan was president when the warrant for material that has degraded. Investigator awareness and
failing to appear at a hearing was issued. Judge Yoder ordered
utilization of additional investigative resources can help
the case to be scheduled for a plea and told prosecutors he
move a case forward toward resolution, or return it to
hopes they have a witness with a good memory.
the unsolved archives.
-The Bradford Era, http://www.bradfordera.com
Cold case investigations may utilize the same
What’s a Headway? investigative tools as those used for a hot homicide,
How much does a human head weigh? The average including criminal investigative analysis, geographic
human head weighs around 4.5 kilograms (10 pounds).
profiling, and wiretaps, but also forensic anthropology,
Another question is how do you weigh it? You can cut off
odontology, document examination and art, as well.
someone’s head and weigh it, but how can you weigh
Other resources in cold cases include:
someone’s head without cutting it off? One standard way to
weigh body parts is to measure the volume of the part by National Center for Missing and Exploited
immersing it in water to see the volume of water it displaces. Children (NCMEC) - http://www.ncmec.org
To measure the displacement of someone’s head, they must
Founded in 1984, this organization is a public-pri-
lower their head into a tub of water vertically and crown
vate partnership established as a national clearinghouse
downwards until the water reaches the base of the chin. The
and resource center on issues addressing missing/ex-
water needs to be as near to 0 degrees as the volunteer could
ploited children. A number of services are offered, in-
bear (to know the water density). The water that spills over
cluding 1) forensic age progression, reconstruction of
the sides of the experimental tub is collected and its volume
facial mages, and computer assistance in creating artist
measured. It is also good to repeat the immersion several
composites; 2) handwriting comparison and analysis;
times to make sure you have a repeatable result. Then you
can estimate the weight of the head from the volume of water 3) assistance in identification of children from confis-
displaced. This estimate is also based on charts and tables of cated child pornography; 4) no-cost DNA testing of child
average body weight compared to displaced water. or remains of persons estimated to be under 21 years of
age; 5) investigative assistance, including immediate
Forensic Terminology
assistance, long term case review, inter-state follow-up
Vital Reaction: When a skin injury is sustained while
including witness interview assistance, equipment and
the victim is still alive, a flush surrounds the injury due to
dilation of small vessels. An injury inflicted after death when technical support, and 6) family advocacy services, per-
circulation has stopped does not produce this flushing. sonal assistance, and media relations.
.
Continued on page 6
The Vidocq Society Journal
Page 4 Winter 2007
The Head in the Bucket: The Murder of Gregory May
answering machine picked up. Buman returned from
In January, 2001, Don May had not been able to
the Frontier Restaurant and heard the sound that
contact his father Gregory May. Gregory did not reply
"reminded her of drawers banging." She then went to
to his son’s telephone calls. It was customary for May
the property manager, George Volrath, and asked him
to call his son several times a month. Calls to friends of
to let her in the house. He declined because she did not
his fathers did lead to any information on his father's
live at the residence. She called the following Sunday
whereabouts. Gregory May had not called his daughter
and Julie Miller answered, telling her that Greg May
or ex-wife Sheila, as was customary.
had gone to Chicago. The following Wednesday, Buman
After three weeks of fruitless efforts to learn of their
returned to Bellevue and found the house empty the
father’s whereabouts Don and his sister Shannon
furniture and civil war memorabilia were gone. She
traveled to Bellevue, Iowa, to file a missing persons
never heard from Greg May again.
report with the Bellevue Police Department.
On March 1, 2001, Rick Rahn, special agent for the
Gregory May, 55 lived in Bellevue, Iowa. He was a
Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) was
collector of civil war memorabilia and Indian artifacts
called into the investigation by the Bellevue police
and a tattoo artist. He was divorced with a son and
Chief, Lynn Schwager. The investigators found Greg
daughter. In January 2001 Gregory May rented his
May’s 1996 red Chevrolet Blazer at an impound lot in
basement to his best friend of 30 years Douglas DeBruin
Aurora, Illinois. It was turned over to criminalists at the
and his girlfriend Julie Miller.
DCI for analysis.
Gregory and Sheila May were married in Kenosha,
As the investigation continued a fellow collector
Wisconsin, November 1965. They separated in 1976 and
notified Police Chief, Lynn Schwager that pieces from
were divorced in 1978. The divorce was amicable; there
May’s civil war collection were coming up for auction
was no custody battle over their two children or struggle
at the Rock Island Auction Company in Moline, Illinois.
over property. Gregory stayed in touch with his ex-wife
Armed with a list of the stolen items Police Chief, Lynn
by telephone and would visit her on holidays. Sheila
Schwager and Special Agent Rick Rahn notified Patrick
last saw Gregory on Christmas 1999. That is when he
Frances Hogan, the owner of the auction house, that the
told her he had moved to Bellevue.
items were stolen. Schwager arrived with a search
A police investigation found that Douglas DeBruin
warrant to seize the items.
and his girlfriend Julie Miller were the last people to
The seller of the items was Mary Klar. She said the
see Gregory May. DeBruin and Miller were seen packing
items were her uncle's. Whenever the auction house tried
May’s civil war memorabilia collection into a used Ford
to contact Mary Klar they always got Julie Johnson who
F750 Ryder truck Debruin had purchased. They had also
said she was handling the auction for her mother. Julie
gave away some of May’s furniture to a Bellevue
Johnson in reality was Julie Miller and Mary Klar was
resident, Jackie Cram.
her mother.
Investigators spoke with Jan Buman who had been
Debruin and Miller were arrested in Flagstaff,
dating Gregory May since July 2000. She knew Douglas
Arizona in April 2001 on outstanding warrants. Debruin
DeBruin and his girlfriend Julie Miller as May’s friends.
was still driving the Ryder truck. Investigators searched
The night of May’s murder, Buman was suppose to
the vehicle for evidence and found a weigh station ticket
meet May at his house at 8 p.m. She went to the back
that put them in close proximity to Kearney, Missouri
door and rang the doorbell, then tried the door with no
where the head was found.
reply. She peered through the window and through a
Evidence against Debruin and Miller mounted.
space below the shade she was able to see the lower
DeBruin was charged with first-degree murder and first-
half of Greg May sitting in a kitchen chair motionless
degree theft. Miller was charged with transporting stolen
and Julie Miller wiping something off the floor. She
property across state lines.
went to the Frontier restaurant and called the house. The
The Vidocq Society Journal
Winter 2007 Page 5
The Head in the Bucket: The Murder of Gregory May
During DeBruin’s trial Miller testified for the
prosecution that DeBruin had strangled May with a
yellow nylon rope on January 11, 2001. Calmly she
recalled the murder and subsequent dismemberment of
May: After he was killed, May’s body was carried to
the basement. The throat was cut draining the blood into
the laundry tub. May’s body was then cut up with a
knife and electric chainsaw. The body parts were
wrapped in plastic. The torso was weighted down and
thrown off the Savanna-Sabula Bridge in Illinois. The
other body parts were scattered north of Bellevue along
Highway 52. The head was placed in a five-gallon
bucket. DeBruin covered the head with his knit cap and
poured cement into the bucket and inserted a blue
Frank Bender's Bust
Photo of Gregory May
reflector in the cement. Miller admitted participating in
the dismemberment using a knife she would later discard
with the body parts.
DeBruin testified in his own defense claiming that Continued from page 1
Miller had killed May. His memory of the dismember-
Vidocq Society Annual Dinner Dedicated
ment was “gray” and he could not recall the details of
to Dr. Halbert Fillinger, MD, VSM
what took place.
After deliberating for two hours and 15 minutes the
as the Montgomery County Coroner working there since
jury returned a verdict of guilty in the murder of Gregory
1992. He was an assistant professor at Temple University
May. DeBruin was convicted of first-degree murder and
teaching criminalistics.
first-degree theft. Miller is serving a three-year sentence
During the presentation colleagues reminisced of
in federal prison for transporting stolen property across
his fortitude and bearing in standing up to attorneys who
state lines.
attempted to discredit him during his testimony as an
The identity of the skull found at Kearney Truck
expert witness. The opportunities he provided, giving
Plaza, in Kearney, Missouri remained a mystery. The
Frank Bender his first chance to create a forensic
tie between the murder of Gregory May and the skull
sculpture and the freedom for which he shared his
was not made until four years after his murder. Famed
knowledge in forensic pathology.
forensic sculptor Frank Bender of Philadelphia,
The memory of Dr. Halbert Fillinger will remain
Pennsylvania was asked to create a likeness from the
with us all, for those he has worked with, those he has
skull in the hopes of identifying the victim. The bust
taught, and for those who have not met but know of his
that Bender created was placed on the Doe Network
greatness through the memories of those he has touched.
website. The Doe network is an organization of
volunteers dedicated to helping law enforcement
connect missing persons with John/Jane cases. A
volunteer from the organization helped connect Frank
“veritas EST veritas”
Bender’s sculpture with a photograph of Gregory May.
The identity was confirmed through a comparison of
truth IS truth
dental records.
The Vidocq Society Journal
Page 6 Winter 2007
or missing persons. This fund offers assistance to
National Law Enforcement and Corrections
families without economic means to offer assistance to
Technology Center
law enforcement. www.carolesundfoundation.com.
This system is a program of the National Institute
of Justice, the research and development arm of the U.S.
American Academy of Forensic Sciences
Department of Justice, and is composed of a series of
One of the world’s leading forensic groups, this body
technical centers located across the nation. Each center
can provide potential sources of information and those
has a different technology focus and operates indepen-
with expertise in particular fields. http://www.aafs.org.
dently, yet support one another and exchange informa-
tion about their areas of special expertise. They may ViCAP (Violent Criminal Apprehension Program)
Has been operated by the FBI since 1985. Through
assist cold case investigation by providing forensic
documentation and analysis of a variety of crime scene,
analysis of various forms of evidence as well as techni-
victim, and offender characteristics, this program seeks
cal assistance in audio or videotape enhancement, ex-
to identify patterns and link crimes heretofore not known
plosives and scenario verification. www.justnet.org.
to investigators and to provide a database of character-
Carol Sund/Carrington Memorial Reward
istics of homicides. Utilization of this tool is an impor-
Foundation
tant step in the beginning of a cold case investigation.
This fund was established as a result of the murders
Other well known resources include “America’s
of Carol Sund and her daughter Juli and their friend
Most Wanted” television show (www.amw.com). Cold
Silvina Pelosso at Yosemite National Park in 1999.
case investigators may also obtain assistance from the
Recognizing the role that media exposure and a reward
FBI as well as the United States Marshall’s Service and
played in the resolution of this case, this fund was
of course the Vidocq Society.
established to help law enforcement locate kidnapped
Solve the Mystery
What practice was carried out to determine the inner workings of the human body and as a torture in WWII?
If you know the answer email us at: paudav1@earthlink.net
Answer to October 2006 Mystery of the Month
If someone is faster than a speeding bullet how fast must they travel?
Bullet velocity is determined by the load of the cartridge, weight of the bullet, and barrel length. Other factors are dimensions in the
chamber, throat and start of the rifling that affect bullet velocity. Hand guns speeds vary: .32 S&W - 680 fps, .22 long rimfire - 1,125
fps compare to a .44 Remington Magnum - 1,610 fps. Game rifles: .458 Winchester - 2,040 fps compared to a .30/06 - 2,700 fps.
This is a sampling of some common bullets and proves that no one is faster than a speeding bullet.
The Vidocq Society
Post Office Box 40285
Continental Station
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Vidocq Society Journal
Winter 2007
The Vidocq Society Journal

The Head in the Bucket: The Murder of Gregory May

By Frank Bender and Paul Plevakas
The Head in the Bucket:
The Murder of Gregory May
On August 27, 2001, sitting beneath a trailer at the
Kearney Truck Plaza in Kearney, Missouri, a head was
discovered encased in hardened concrete by the Plaza’s
owner, Steven Rhodes.
The police were notified and an autopsy was
performed on the head. The medical examiner had hopes
that the concrete retained the facial features of the victim.
Upon careful removal of the concrete, the medical
examiner was disappointed to find out that a hat had
been placed over the head before the concrete was
poured. This left no recognizable impression in the
concrete.
The Kearney Police department posted information
about the head on their website in hope of identifying
the victim. The investigators knew the head was that of
a 40-60 year old man with teeth in good condition and
extensive dental work.


Winter 2007
The Head in the Bucket: The Murder of Gregory May
In January, 2001, Don May had not been able to
contact his father Gregory May. Gregory did not reply
to his son’s telephone calls. It was customary for May
to call his son several times a month. Calls to friends of
his fathers did lead to any information on his father's
whereabouts. Gregory May had not called his daughter
or ex-wife Sheila, as was customary.
After three weeks of fruitless efforts to learn of their
father’s whereabouts Don and his sister Shannon
traveled to Bellevue, Iowa, to file a missing persons
report with the Bellevue Police Department.
Gregory May, 55 lived in Bellevue, Iowa. He was a
collector of civil war memorabilia and Indian artifacts
and a tattoo artist. He was divorced with a son and
daughter. In January 2001 Gregory May rented his
basement to his best friend of 30 years Douglas DeBruin
and his girlfriend Julie Miller.
Gregory and Sheila May were married in Kenosha,
Wisconsin, November 1965. They separated in 1976 and
were divorced in 1978. The divorce was amicable; there
was no custody battle over their two children or struggle
over property. Gregory stayed in touch with his ex-wife
by telephone and would visit her on holidays. Sheila
last saw Gregory on Christmas 1999. That is when he
told her he had moved to Bellevue.
A police investigation found that Douglas DeBruin
and his girlfriend Julie Miller were the last people to
see Gregory May. DeBruin and Miller were seen packing
May’s civil war memorabilia collection into a used Ford
F750 Ryder truck Debruin had purchased. They had also
gave away some of May’s furniture to a Bellevue
resident, Jackie Cram.
Investigators spoke with Jan Buman who had been
dating Gregory May since July 2000. She knew Douglas
DeBruin and his girlfriend Julie Miller as May’s friends.
The night of May’s murder, Buman was suppose to
meet May at his house at 8 p.m. She went to the back
door and rang the doorbell, then tried the door with no
reply. She peered through the window and through a
space below the shade she was able to see the lower
half of Greg May sitting in a kitchen chair motionless
and Julie Miller wiping something off the floor. She
went to the Frontier restaurant and called the house. The
answering machine picked up. Buman returned from
the Frontier Restaurant and heard the sound that
"reminded her of drawers banging." She then went to
the property manager, George Volrath, and asked him
to let her in the house. He declined because she did not
live at the residence. She called the following Sunday
and Julie Miller answered, telling her that Greg May
had gone to Chicago. The following Wednesday, Buman
returned to Bellevue and found the house empty the
furniture and civil war memorabilia were gone. She
never heard from Greg May again.
On March 1, 2001, Rick Rahn, special agent for the
Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) was
called into the investigation by the Bellevue police
Chief, Lynn Schwager. The investigators found Greg
May’s 1996 red Chevrolet Blazer at an impound lot in
Aurora, Illinois. It was turned over to criminalists at the
DCI for analysis.
As the investigation continued a fellow collector
notified Police Chief, Lynn Schwager that pieces from
May’s civil war collection were coming up for auction
at the Rock Island Auction Company in Moline, Illinois.
Armed with a list of the stolen items Police Chief, Lynn
Schwager and Special Agent Rick Rahn notified Patrick
Frances Hogan, the owner of the auction house, that the
items were stolen. Schwager arrived with a search
warrant to seize the items.
The seller of the items was Mary Klar. She said the
items were her uncle's. Whenever the auction house tried
to contact Mary Klar they always got Julie Johnson who
said she was handling the auction for her mother. Julie
Johnson in reality was Julie Miller and Mary Klar was
her mother.
Debruin and Miller were arrested in Flagstaff,
Arizona in April 2001 on outstanding warrants. Debruin
was still driving the Ryder truck. Investigators searched
the vehicle for evidence and found a weigh station ticket
that put them in close proximity to Kearney, Missouri
where the head was found.
Evidence against Debruin and Miller mounted.
DeBruin was charged with first-degree murder and first-
degree theft. Miller was charged with transporting stolen
property across state lines.
The Vidocq Society Journal
Winter 2007
Page 5
The Head in the Bucket: The Murder of Gregory May
During DeBruin’s trial Miller testified for the
prosecution that DeBruin had strangled May with a
yellow nylon rope on January 11, 2001. Calmly she
recalled the murder and subsequent dismemberment of
May: After he was killed, May’s body was carried to
the basement. The throat was cut draining the blood into
the laundry tub. May’s body was then cut up with a
knife and electric chainsaw. The body parts were
wrapped in plastic. The torso was weighted down and
thrown off the Savanna-Sabula Bridge in Illinois. The
other body parts were scattered north of Bellevue along
Highway 52. The head was placed in a five-gallon
bucket. DeBruin covered the head with his knit cap and
poured cement into the bucket and inserted a blue
reflector in the cement. Miller admitted participating in
the dismemberment using a knife she would later discard
with the body parts.
DeBruin testified in his own defense claiming that
Miller had killed May. His memory of the dismember-
ment was “gray” and he could not recall the details of
what took place.
After deliberating for two hours and 15 minutes the
jury returned a verdict of guilty in the murder of Gregory
May. DeBruin was convicted of first-degree murder and
first-degree theft. Miller is serving a three-year sentence
in federal prison for transporting stolen property across
state lines.
The identity of the skull found at Kearney Truck
Plaza, in Kearney, Missouri remained a mystery. The
tie between the murder of Gregory May and the skull
was not made until four years after his murder. Famed
forensic sculptor Frank Bender of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania was asked to create a likeness from the
skull in the hopes of identifying the victim. The bust
that Bender created was placed on the Doe Network
website. The Doe network is an organization of
volunteers dedicated to helping law enforcement
connect missing persons with John/Jane cases. A
volunteer from the organization helped connect Frank
Bender’s sculpture with a photograph of Gregory May.
The identity was confirmed through a comparison of
dental records.
Photo of Gregory May
Frank Bender's Bust

Julie Miller, Pekin, IL,Urged Doug into the murder of Greg May

479 F3d 984 United States v. Miller

479 F.3d 984

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Julie MILLER, Appellant.

No. 06-1781.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: December 12, 2006.

Filed: March 26, 2007.

Mark C. Meyer, argued, Kinnamon & Kinnamon, Cedar Rapids, IA, for appellant.

Charles J. Williams, argued, Asst. U.S. Atty., Cedar Rapids, IA, for appellee.

Julie Miller, Pekin, IL, pro se.

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

1

Julie Miller pled guilty to perjury, and the district court1 sentenced her to the statutory maximum term of 60 months' imprisonment. This sentence represented a substantial increase from the advisory guideline range of 18-24 months, and Miller appeals the sentence. We conclude that the district court gave cogent reasons demonstrating that the sentence is not unreasonable with regard to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and we therefore affirm.

I.

2

In January 2001, Douglas DeBruin, Miller's boyfriend, killed Greg May, who had lived with Miller and DeBruin for several months. After the murder, Miller and DeBruin absconded with May's valuable collection of Civil War memorabilia. Police apprehended the couple in Arizona in April 2001, and Miller initially pled guilty to first-degree theft in Iowa state court.

3

In a later federal case, Miller pled guilty to interstate transportation of stolen property. At sentencing in the stolen property case, Miller testified that she did not know what had happened to May's body and that her role in covering up the murder was minimal. The district court found that Miller had "a role" in "disposing of the body" and "concealing the crime," and considered those facts at sentencing. The court imposed a sentence of 37 months' imprisonment, an increase from the applicable guidelines range of 12-18 months.

4

In April 2004, DeBruin was tried for May's murder in state court. See State v. DeBruin, 725 N.W.2d 658, 2006 WL 3017852 (Iowa App.2006). After the state granted Miller immunity, she agreed to testify against DeBruin. Miller testified that she witnessed DeBruin kill May, and then helped him dispose of the body. (R. Doc. 19, at 24-30). She explained that she assisted DeBruin in dragging May's body downstairs to the basement laundry room, which had been lined in plastic in preparation for the murder. After placing May's body on a washing machine, Miller participated in draining May's body of blood and dismembering it. DeBruin used a chainsaw, while Miller employed a knife. Miller testified that she also drove May's car from their home in Bellevue, Iowa, to Dubuque, Iowa, in order to conceal May's death. She assisted DeBruin in disposing of May's dismembered remains, and was with DeBruin when he encased May's severed head in a bucket of concrete and later when he left it in a pothole at a truck stop. (Appellant's App. 20).

5

Based on the contradictions between Miller's testimony at DeBruin's trial and her prior testimony in the stolen property case, the government obtained an indictment charging her with perjury. The indictment alleged that Miller gave false testimony in the earlier case by claiming no knowledge of what happened to May's body after the murder, when in fact she assisted DeBruin "in dismembering [May's] body with a chain saw, dumping his torso into the Mississippi River, throwing his limbs in a ravine, and submerging his head in a bucket of cement which the two later left behind a truck stop in Missouri." (R. Doc. 3, at 2).

6

Miller pled guilty, and the district court sentenced her to the statutory maximum term of 60 months' imprisonment, which represented a nine-level increase above the advisory guideline range. In justifying the sentence, the district court found that Miller "made numerous false material statements under oath repeatedly to the Court in order to get a lower sentence" in the stolen property case, and "that she repeatedly made numerous false material statements to law enforcement in order to protect herself and her accomplice." (Statement of Reasons at 4).

II.

7

In her brief on appeal, Miller challenges her sentence on two grounds. First, she argues that the district court failed to follow the post-Booker sentencing procedure outlined in United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997 (8th Cir.2005). Second, she argues that her sentence is unreasonable with regard to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), because the bases for the district court's decision do not justify the sentence and are not supported by the record.

8

As to the first ground, Miller argues that the district court improperly joined consideration of the guidelines factors warranting a departure with the statutory sentencing factors warranting a variance from the advisory guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Haack directs that the district court ordinarily should determine first the appropriate guideline range, then decide if the guidelines permit a traditional departure, and finally determine whether the § 3553(a) factors justify a variance from this "guidelines sentence." 403 F.3d at 1002-03. The sentencing transcript reveals that the district court seemed to fuse the second and third parts of this inquiry, treating "departure" and "variance" as synonymous. After stating its desire to "depart upward under [USSG § ] 5K2.0," the district court noted that "a sentence within the advisory guideline range would not satisfy the statutory factors at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)," and sentenced Miller to the statutory maximum. (S. Tr. II, at 71). The advisory guideline range, including any guideline departures, remains the "critical starting point" after Booker, United States v. Mashek, 406 F.3d 1012, 1016 n. 4 (8th Cir.2005), and the district court's apparent conflation of departure considerations and variance analysis was error.

9

At oral argument, however, Miller's counsel conceded that two recent decisions of this court apply harmless error analysis to similar procedural mistakes at sentencing. See United States v. Zeigler, 463 F.3d 814, 818 (8th Cir.2006); United States v. Hodge, 469 F.3d 749, 756 (8th Cir.2006). In Zeigler, we affirmed the sentence imposed by a district court sentence even though it was unclear whether the court had effected an upward departure under the guidelines or varied from the guidelines based on § 3553(a). Zeigler, 463 F.3d at 818. Because the defendant "failed to establish that his ultimate sentence [was] unreasonable," the district court's procedural error proved harmless. Id. In light of this precedent, Miller now acknowledges that the district court's procedural error would be harmless, if her ultimate sentence was not unreasonable. Cf. Hodge, 469 F.3d at 756 ("Although the district court's failure to consider departures before considering the § 3553(a) factors is subject to harmless error analysis and would generally be harmless to the Government in this situation, it is not harmless here where the Government challenges the reasonableness of the ultimate sentence.") (citation omitted).

10

In determining whether a sentence is unreasonable with regard to § 3553(a) after Booker, we have adopted a proportionality principle. According to Booker, the reasonableness standard was "intended to further the statutory objectives of `honesty,' `uniformity,' and `proportionality' in sentencing, and to help in avoiding excessive sentencing disparities." United States v. Maloney, 466 F.3d 663, 668 (8th Cir.2006) (quoting Booker, 543 U.S. at 264, 125 S.Ct. 738). We have therefore viewed the advisory guidelines as a benchmark from which to measure potential disparities, id., and concluded that "the further the district court varies from the presumptively reasonable guideline range, the more compelling the justification based on the § 3553(a) factors must be." United States v. Bryant, 446 F.3d 1317, 1319 (8th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Claiborne, 439 F.3d 479, 481 (8th Cir.2006) ("How compelling that justification must be is proportional to the extent of the difference between the advisory range and the sentence imposed."), cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 551, 166 L.Ed.2d 406 (2006). The Supreme Court is presently considering in Claiborne whether this approach is consistent with Booker, but in the meantime, we of course apply our governing precedent.

11

In this case, the district court's sentence effected a nine-level increase from an advisory range of 18-24 months to the statutory maximum sentence of 60 months. This is a substantial deviation from the advisory benchmark, but we are persuaded that it is justified here by exceptional circumstances. Indeed, in the realm of perjury convictions, this case is almost sui generis. We do not believe the district court's imposition of a 60-month term on these facts will lead to excessive sentence disparities among "defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6).

12

The nature and circumstances of Miller's perjury offense are undoubtedly aggravating. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). While Miller maintained during her prosecution for interstate transportation of property stolen from Greg May that she did not know what had happened to May's body, the evidence in the perjury case painted a dramatically different picture. The district court found that Miller assisted DeBruin in dragging May's body to a laundry room that had been lined with plastic, lifting the body on to a washing machine, draining blood from the body, systematically dismembering the body, wrapping the body parts in plastic, and loading the body parts into DeBruin's vehicle. The court found that Miller assisted in disposing of May's body by leaving the torso in the Mississippi River, abandoning his arms and legs in a roadside ditch in Iowa, and placing May's dismembered head—embedded in a bucket of wet cement—in a pothole in the parking lot of a Missouri truck stop. The court further observed that Miller drove May's car away from his residence to Dubuque, Iowa, and then to Aurora, Illinois, to conceal May's death and to give DeBruin and her time to flee the scene of the crime. (T. Tr. 384-88; Statement of Reasons at 4).

13

The district court concluded that Miller's perjury in the stolen property case "very seriously" obstructed justice, and had "much more serious implications than the usual perjury offense." (S. Tr. II, at 72; Statement of Reasons at 4). The court cited the consequences that "evidence that could have been preserved to prove the murder dissipated with the passage of time, and law enforcement was unable to recover body parts and other evidence of murder that could have been located if Miller had been truthful at her original sentencing hearing." (Statement of Reasons at 4). The court found that not only did Miller's perjury "impede the administration of justice," securing for her a lower sentence in the stolen property case and resulting in the dissipation of evidence, "but her lies prolonged the suffering and the anguish of the victim's family who had been seeking answers about the victim's death and the location of his body so he could be properly buried." (Id.). With respect to the history and characteristics of the defendant, see § 3553(a)(1), the court found that Miller is a "very dangerous person," and that she had received no criminal sanctions for her role following May's death—which the court characterized as an "accessory after the fact to a murder"—other than some portion of a 19-month upward departure in the stolen property case.2 (Id.).

14

Miller argues that the record does not support the district court's finding that Miller's perjury enabled her to escape greater punishment in the stolen property case. At the sentencing hearing in the earlier proceeding, the district court stated that in departing upward from the guideline range, it had "considered that [Miller] did have a role in disposing of the body, concealing the crime, and concealing the crime for which she was convicted." (S. Tr. I, at 136). The first upward departure, however, was also premised on other factors, namely, that the stolen property had significant historical value, and that some of the stolen articles were family keepsakes not capable of valuation or replacement. (Id.). Given the disturbing truth about Miller's deep involvement in dismembering May's body and concealing the murder, we see no basis to reject the statement of the district judge, who conducted both sentencing proceedings, that false testimony from Miller in the earlier proceeding produced a shorter sentence in that case.

15

Miller also contends that the record does not support the district court's finding that Miller is a "very dangerous person," because other evidence presented by Miller suggested that she was a non-violent person during most of her life. We review the district court's finding of fact for clear error. United States v. Willis, 433 F.3d 634, 636 (8th Cir.2006). While the court did not find that Miller participated directly in the murder of Greg May, the absence of such a finding did not preclude a determination that Miller was very dangerous. Miller assisted in draining a corpse of blood and dismembering it (she with a knife, her accomplice with a chainsaw), thus making it more difficult to detect and resolve a violent crime, and the district court found that "[n]o one could engage in the type of conduct that she engaged in without posing a serious risk to the public." (S. Tr. II, at 72). Other aspects of Miller's history may reflect a non-violent character during other phases of her life, but in view of Miller's conduct in the aftermath of May's murder, we are not left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court made a mistake in finding that Miller was very dangerous.

16

Given the exceptional facts of this perjury case, we conclude that the sentence imposed was not unreasonable with regard to § 3553(a). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Notes:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa

2

While the district court did not elaborate on its statement that Miller was an accessory after the fact to the murder of Greg May, or determine Miller's advisory guideline sentence on that basis, we note that the sentencing guidelines provide for an offense level of 30 for a defendant whose relevant conduct involves serving as an accessory after the fact to a first degree murder. USSG § § 2X3. 1(a)(1), (2), 2A1. 1(a), 1B 1.3. An offense level of 30 and criminal history category of II would provide for a term of imprisonment well in excess of 60 monthsId., Ch. 5, Pt. A.

• 479 F.3d

DOUG Writ

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-368 / 05-0766
Filed October 25, 2006
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
DOUGLAS D. DEBRUIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jackson County, J. Hobart
Darbyshire, Judge.
Defendant appeals his convictions, following jury trial for first-degree
murder and first-degree theft. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and David Adams, Assistant
State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Karen Doland and James Kivi,
Assistant Attorneys General, and John L. Kies, County Attorney, for appellee.
Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
SACKETT, C.J.
Defendant Douglas DeBruin was charged with killing Greg May and
stealing from him. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of first-degree
murder, in violation of Iowa Code sections 707.1 and 707.2(1) (1999), and first-
degree theft, in violation of sections 714.1(1), 714.14) and 714.2(1). Defendant
on appeal contends (1) his motion for speedy trial should have been sustained,
(2) there was not sufficient evidence to support his conviction of murder in the
first degree, (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and (4) he was
denied access to the courts. We affirm.
BACKGROUND FACTS
Defendant and decedent were friends when May, a tattoo artist and
collector of Civil War and Indian war artifacts, moved into a home in Bellevue,
Iowa. Defendant, who was on parole in the state of Wisconsin, changed his
name and moved in the basement as did defendant’s girlfriend, Julie Miller. In
mid-January of 2001 May’s family and friends became concerned about May’s
whereabouts, and a missing person’s report was filed with the Bellevue police in
February of that year. Foul play was suspected and an investigation ensued. By
this time defendant and Miller had left the area. Miller was ultimately found in
Arizona in April of 2001. She told officers that defendant killed May and the body
was in the Mississippi River. Miller initially related she was not present during
the murder but subsequently told officers defendant strangled May with a yellow
rope and she helped defendant dismember May’s body and dispose of the body
parts.
3
Defendant, who testified in his own defense, admitted assisting Miller in
dismembering and disposing of the body but contended May died from a stab
wound to his chest that Miller inflicted.
SPEEDY TRIAL
The defendant contends the district court erred in denying his motion to
dismiss based on a denial of his right to a speedy trial. On appeal, he raises only
the claim the State did not bring him to trial within the ninety-day period of Iowa
Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.33(2)(b).
The defendant was arrested in Arizona on April 10, 2001, on an unrelated
matter. On December 9, 2003, more than two years later, the defendant wrote to
the Jackson County Attorney and the district court requesting that the murder
investigation against him in Iowa be pursued. Because there was no pending
criminal charge, the letters were file stamped by the clerk of court and a
miscellaneous file was created for the documents. The letters are not included in
the record for this appeal.
The State filed a trial information on January 9, 2004, charging the
defendant with May’s murder, and an arrest warrant issued. At that time, the
defendant was in federal custody in Arizona. Because of a pending Wisconsin
warrant for probation violation, federal authorities would not release the
defendant to Iowa, but instead sent him to Wisconsin. On February 12, the
defendant refused to waive extradition. On February 18, the State submitted its
extradition request. The governor signed the request on February 26. On March
10, the State received an extradition approval letter from the governor of
4
Wisconsin. 1 Wisconsin then paroled the defendant back into federal custody,
and he was transferred to federal prison in Indiana on March 22. On May 16, the
defendant again refused to waive extradition to Iowa. On June 10, the State
requested temporary custody of the defendant under the Interstate Agreement on
Detainers (IAD), Iowa Code chapter 821 (2003). On June 19, the defendant filed
a pro se motion to dismiss the trial information on speedy trial grounds. On June
22, the State submitted a written request to federal authorities requesting
temporary custody of the defendant. On June 29, federal authorities in Indiana
sent the State the IAD forms with a note that the defendant had thirty days (until
July 28) to object to the transfer to Iowa. On July 12, federal authorities offered
temporary custody of the defendant to Iowa.
In a telephonic hearing on July 16, the defendant agreed to continue the
hearing on his motion to dismiss until after his return to Iowa in August,
appointment of counsel, and arraignment. On August 6, Iowa sent its approval of
the federal offer of temporary custody. The defendant was transferred from
Indiana to Iowa on August 25, and had his initial appearance on August 27. On
August 31, the defendant filed a written arraignment form that included a notice
of his speedy trial rights and his demand for a speedy trial. The arraignment
order filed the same day set the pretrial conference for October 8 and trial for
November 8.
On October 7, the defendant filed a written waiver of speedy trial. The
next day he moved to continue the pretrial conference and trial. The court
1
There is some indication the defendant had a thirty-day period within which to appeal
his extradition from Wisconsin. It is unclear whether he was available for transfer to
Iowa before any appeal period expired.
5
continued trial to January 31, 2005. On November 1, the defendant moved for a
change of venue. In open court on November 10, the defendant orally waived
the speedy-trial limitation of the IAD.
On December 23, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss on speedy trial
grounds, alleging violation of both the ninety-day limit under Iowa Rule of
Criminal Procedure 2.33 and the one-hundred-eighty-day limit of the IAD. The
State resisted on January 11, 2005, and the hearing on the motion occurred on
January 14. On January 27, the court issued its order denying the defendant’s
motion. Concerning the ninety-day period, the district court found there was
good cause for the delay and the delay was attributable to the defendant.
Concerning the IAD, the court found the defendant waived his right to a speedy
trial orally and in writing within the applicable period.
In deciding speedy trial questions, our scope of review is for correction of
errors at law. See State v. Miller, 637 N.W.2d 201, 204 (Iowa 2001) (citing State
v. Finn, 469 N.W.2d 692, 693 (Iowa 1991)). Because our review is at law, we are
bound by findings of fact supported by substantial evidence. State v. Finn, 469
N.W.2d 692, 693 (Iowa 1991). Therefore, the appellant is entitled to prevail only
if the evidence was so strong the trial court was compelled to rule for the
appellant as a matter of law. Id. A district court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss
based on a speedy-trial ground is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v.
Winters, 690 N.W.2d 903, 907 (Iowa 2005). The district court's discretion in
ruling on such motions is narrow. Id.
6
The defendant contends the court erred in not dismissing the charges
against him based on a violation of his right to a trial within ninety days of the
date the State filed the trial information. Rule 2.33(2)(b) provides:
If a defendant indicted for a public offense has not waived the
defendant's right to a speedy trial the defendant must be brought to
trial within 90 days after indictment is found or the court must order
the indictment to be dismissed unless good cause to the contrary
be found.
Under Rule 2.33, a criminal charge must be dismissed if the trial does not
commence within ninety days from the date of the indictment “unless the State
proves (1) defendant's waiver of speedy trial, (2) delay attributable to the
defendant, or (3) ‘good cause’ for the delay.” Winters, 690 N.W.2d at 908
(quoting State v. Nelson, 600 N.W.2d 598, 600 (Iowa 1999)). Although the rule
specifies an indictment, it “applies with equal force to charges brought by trial
information.” State v. Olson, 528 N.W.2d 651, 653 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (citing
State v. Clark, 351 N.W.2d 532, 534 (Iowa 1984)). “The burden of proving an
exception to the rules deadline rests squarely with the State.” Miller, 637 N.W.2d
at 204 (citing Olson, 528 N.W.2d at 653).
In ruling on the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the district court found:
First of all, he complains . . . he was not brought to trial within
ninety days of the date the trial information was filed. At no time
between the date the trial information was filed, however, and the
date defendant was actually returned to the State of Iowa under the
Agreement on Detainers Compact was defendant actually available
within the State of Iowa for trial. Throughout that period of time he
continued to refuse to waive extradition back to Iowa to stand trial.
The court finds there is good cause for delay, and the delay is
attributable to defendant’s unwillingness to waive extradition.
The record reveals the defendant refused to waive extradition from Wisconsin on
February 12, 2004. He acknowledges also refusing to waive extradition from
7
Indiana on May 16. “Delay attributable to defendant may constitute statutory
good cause preventing the State from carrying out its obligation to bring him to
trial.” State v. Keys, 535 N.W.2d 783, 787 (Iowa 1995) (quoting State v. Donnell,
239 N.W.2d 575, 579 (Iowa 1976)). “A defendant may not actively or passively
participate in the events which delay his or her trial and then later take advantage
of that delay to terminate the prosecution.” State v. Orte, 541 N.W.2d 895, 898
(Iowa 1995) (citing State v. Ruiz, 496 N.W.2d 789, 792 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992));
see also Finn, 489 N.W.2d at 694. Substantial evidence supports the district
court’s finding the delay was attributable to the defendant and its conclusion his
right to a speedy trial was not violated. Accordingly, we affirm on this issue.
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction,
the relevant inquiry is “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560, 573 (1979)
(emphasis omitted); State v. Robinson, 288 N.W.2d 337, 339 (Iowa 1980).
Judicial review must be based on all the evidence in the record. Id. at 340. The
evidence must at least raise a fair inference of guilt as to each essential element
of the crime. State v. LaPointe, 418 N.W.2d 49, 51 (Iowa 1988). Evidence which
merely raises suspicion, speculation, or conjecture is insufficient. Id.
Defendant contends the only evidence linking him to May’s death is the
testimony of Julie Miller. The defendant contends she is an accomplice and her
testimony is not corroborated and lacks credibility. He also argues that there was
8
no medical evidence as to the cause of May’s death and there was no way it
could be determined.
Iowa of Evidence Rule 2.21 (3). provides:
(3) Corroboration of accomplice or person solicited. A
conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice or a
solicited person, unless corroborated by other evidence which shall
tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense;
and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the
commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.
Corroboration of the testimony of victims shall not be required.
The existence of corroborating evidence is a legal question for the court.
State v. Dickerson, 313 N.W.2d 526, 529 (Iowa 1981). Once the legal adequacy
of the corroborating evidence is established, the sufficiency of the evidence is for
the jury. State v. Brown, 397 N.W.2d 689, 695 (Iowa 1986). Because
defendant’s challenge is to the district court's determination that corroborating
evidence existed to warrant submission of these cases to the jury, our review is
for correction of errors of law. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. We view all the
evidence in the light most favorable to the State, even if contradicted, and
indulge in every legitimate inference that may be fairly and reasonably deduced
from this evidence. State v. Robinson, 288 N.W.2d 337, 340 (Iowa 1980); State
v. Cuevas, 281 N.W.2d 627, 629 (Iowa 1979).
Corroborative evidence may be direct or circumstantial. State v. Bugely,
562 N.W.2d 173, 176 (Iowa 1997); State v. Vesey, 241 N.W.2d 888, 890 (Iowa
1976). It “need not be strong and need not be entirely inconsistent with
innocence.” Dickerson, 313 N.W.2d at 529. It must, however, support some
material part of the accomplice’s testimony and tend to connect the accused to
9
the commission of the crime. Brown, 397 N.W.2d at 695; Vesey, 241 N.W.2d at
890.
An accomplice is a person who “could be charged with and convicted of
the specific offense for which an accused is on trial.” State v. Berney, 378
N.W.2d 915, 917 (Iowa 1985) (citation omitted). Thus, proof that the person had
knowledge that a crime was planned or proof that the person was present when
the crime was committed is insufficient standing alone to make the person an
accomplice. Id. It must be established by a preponderance of the evidence that
the person was involved in some way in the commission of the crime. Id.
When the facts and circumstances are undisputed and permit only one
inference, whether a witness is an accomplice is a question of law for the court.
State v. Douglas, 675 N.W.2d 567, 571 (Iowa 2004); State v. Harris, 589 N.W.2d
239, 241 (Iowa 1999). If the facts are disputed, however, or give rise to different
inferences, the question is for the jury. Id.
We assume without deciding that Miller is an accomplice; therefore we
look at her testimony and then determine if her testimony is sufficiently
corroborated.
Miller testified as a witness for the State. She related that, on January 11,
2001, defendant covered the basement laundry room in May’s house with plastic
and then stood behind May, who was seated in a chair and strangled him by
putting a yellow rope around his neck. Miller said she helped defendant drag
May’s body to the basement and put the body on top of the washer where
defendant slit May’s throat and drained the blood out of his body. The two of
them then started dismembering May’s body with a knife and a chainsaw. Miller
10
said she and defendant put parts of May’s body in garbage bags. Defendant
then mixed cement and water in a five-gallon bucket and put May’s dismembered
head there. May’s arms and legs were thrown in a ravine near Bellevue, Iowa.
His torso was thrown in the Mississippi River, and his skull in the bucket was
ultimately left at a Missouri truck stop parking lot. Miller further testified they
moved May’s car so it would appear he had left town, and they got rid of May’s
clothes and furniture. Miller related she and defendant then traveled south with
part of May’s Civil War collection and attempted to sell portions of it along the
way.
Miller’s testimony is corroborated in part by defendant’s admissions.
Defendant admitted he and Miller dragged May’s body downstairs and that he
put down a plastic sheet, helped cut up May’s body, and put his head in the
bucket. Defendant further admitted throwing May’s torso in the Mississippi and
tossing May’s arms and legs in a ditch. Defendant also admitted he left May’s
car in Illinois to make it look as if May left town, and he dropped May’s clothing at
Goodwill and put the bucket with the head in the parking lot. Defendant contends
this is not sufficient corroboration, as we must separate the killing from the
dismemberment of the body.
There is other evidence corroborating Miller’s testimony. Among other
things, the skull identified as May’s was found at the Missouri truck stop and
May’s femur was found in the ravine. May’s car was found where Miller testified
it was left. Dogs trained to pick of the sent of human cadavers indicated that
there was such a scent in defendant’s Volvo, the car that Miller testified was the
11
vehicle used by the couple when disposing of May’s body. Rolls of plastic and
yellow rope were found in defendant’s truck.
We also consider defendant’s arguments that Miller gave conflicting
stories, that there was testimony she was angry with May because he did not
want her to join the men in going to Florida, that at or near the time of May’s
death May’s girlfriend testified she saw through a window of the house Miller
pacing behind May’s unmoving body and doing something like she was wiping
something off and that at the time she did not see defendant. That said, we find
Miller’s testimony is sufficiently corroborated and, when viewed in the light most
favorable to the State, is sufficient to allow any rational trier of fact to find the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson, 443
U.S. at 318-19, 99 S. Ct. at 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d at 573.
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
Defendant’s appellate attorney makes an allegation that his trial attorney
was ineffective in failing to object to what he refers to as irrelevant and prejudicial
evidence.
Defendant, in a pro se brief, contends his trial attorney was ineffective in
several ways. The record is insufficient for us to address these claims and they
would best be addressed in postconviction proceedings. See State v. Shanahan,
712 N.W.2d 121, 136 (Iowa 2006) (preserving claims for postconviction
proceedings when the record is insufficient for direct review).
12
DENIAL OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS
In his pro se brief, the defendant contends he was denied access to the
courts. We have considered this argument and his other arguments and find
them to be without merit.
AFFIRMED.

Jerry Riegger has been a tattoo artist for 36 years. He was apprenticed by “Doc King” in Rockford, Il. in the old school style. Later on, Jerry met Greg May of Lake Geneva, Wi. who became his mentor and taught him to properly apply color etc.Greg May is deceased now and will be missed by all.
Jerry has been judging at tattoo conventions for the past 8 years. He also gives tattoo machine seminars at conventions all over the United States.He travels to other countries to tattoo at conventions.Jerry has won many awards for tattooing and has been in many tattoo magazines.