Man convicted of murdering girlfriend and child seeks new trial

Jana Peterson

[email protected]

A Cloquet man convicted of murdering his pregnant girlfriend and her toddler is appealing that conviction to the Minnesota Supreme Court, on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct, claiming the prosecutor created a scenario in her closing arguments that wasn’t supported by the facts of the case.

Sheldon Thompson was found guilty by a Carlton County jury of eight counts of murder in June 2022, after five days of testimony. Five of the eight counts were first-degree murder charges, which came with an automatic sentence of life in prison. He was sentenced to three consecutive life

sentences.

Thompson was accused and found guilty of brutally killing his pregnant girlfriend, Jackie Defoe, their unborn child, and 20-month-old Kevin Lee Shabaiash Jr. in March 2020. Legal proceedings were delayed two years by Covid-19 and legal complications.

As recounted in a Pine Knot News story after the trial, Assistant Minnesota Attorney General Erin Eldridge walked the jury through the evidence, witness testimony and videos of Defoe and Thompson.

Eldridge shared the prosecution’s best guess for how events unfolded in early March 2020. Their hypothetical story was based on physical evidence from the crime scene, witness testimony, statements made or texted by Thompson to friends and family and videos of three different cars driven by Thompson down the dead-end Locke Lane where he had lived with Defoe and Shabaiash. She talked timelines, motives and ticked through different pieces of evidence and testimony that appeared to corroborate the prosecution’s theory that Thompson likely murdered Defoe and Shabaiash on the morning of March 5. Video from Min No Aya Win clinic cameras shows the green Buick he drove entering Locke Lane at 8:17 a.m. that day, then he called Jackie Defoe’s cell number.

Some evidence was acts by omission, things he didn’t do because he likely knew she was dead. That early morning call was the last time Thompson called or texted that number at any time leading up to his arrest March 8. Later that morning, he drove the green Buick away for the last time, although he did return to Locke Lane in two different cars in the days that followed.

“He knows he can’t be seen with that car at that house anymore,” Eldridge said. Thompson sold the car — originally purchased by Jackie Defoe — the next day.

A palm print in blood discovered above a light switch in Jackie Defoe’s room appeared as one of the strongest pieces of evidence: the print was Thompson’s, the blood it was made of was Defoe’s, according to expert testimony. There was blood that matched Thompson’s DNA on the wall of Shabaiash’s bedroom.

Thompson’s attorney Jessica Godes cited precedent set in another State vs. Thompson case from 25 years ago, noting that the Supreme Court held that the prosecutor committed misconduct by speculating in closing arguments about events occurring at the time of the killing absent any factual base in the record.

At issue were parts of the closing argument in which the prosecutor “made up a story about what the parties were thinking, saying and doing at the time of the killings, to fit the state’s theory of the case.”

Godes claimed the prosecutor did the same in Sheldon Thompson’s case, with “rampant speculation” about events at the time of the killing and before, to argue premeditation. She specifically cited Eldridge saying that Thompson was “sick and tired of Jackie Defoe, sick of her needs, sick of her trying to keep tabs on him, sick of her keeping him tied down.”

The appellate public defender asked that the Supreme Court reverse the convictions and grant Thompson a new trial. She urged the court to actually create consequences for the prosecution.

Justice Margaret H. Chutich pointed out that the defense counsel “didn’t even bother to make an objection” during the trial, and wondered why the Court would use its supervisory powers after the fact.

The justice also pointed out that the prosecutor in the original Thompson case “created a script about what the defendant was even telling the people as he was killing them,” she said.

“I don’t see that kind of misconduct here,” Chutich said.

For premeditation “you look at activities before, during and after — that’s legitimate, right, to analyze those points?” the justice said.

Godes said they don’t take issue pointing to evidence. She objected to the state making up a story.

“The State does not have to tell the narrative story from beginning to end that the State chose to tell in this case,” she argued. “If they have facts in the record, that’s fine. When they don’t have the facts, they can’t simply make up a narrative to fit their theory of the case, that’s the problem.”

Godes argued that the high court should overturn the case — which it didn’t do in the 1998 Thompson case — because the evidence in Sheldon Thompson’s case is less overwhelming, noting in the original case that the murder weapon was found in the defendant’s home, he had blood on his clothes and had threatened to kill the victims in the past.

“There is no such evidence in this case,” she told the court.

The justices had a lively debate during the nearly 50-minute hearing on Oct. 31, with other judges wondering why a prosecutor would go beyond the actual evidence given.

Justice Gordon Moore pointed out that witnesses testified that Thompson had admitted to the killing.

Justice Anne McKeig pointed out that the record showed Sheldon Thompson had taken Defoe’s phone, debit card, changed the car title and kept her from her mom, wondering why that isn’t enough evidence to support the descriptions by the prosecuting attorney.

Assistant Minnesota Attorney General Peter Magnuson responded to Godes’ arguments, arguing that Thompson’s confession to his cousin was the most compelling evidence, but other strong evidence included blood on the wall, faucet and palm print, plus his DNA under Defoe’s fingernails.

“The sustained brutality and the sustained rage of the killings … points to an intimate partner as the perpetrator,” he said, going on to list the injuries suffered by both Defoe and Shabaiash.

He rattled off the evidence to the court, arguing that each of these inferences would be inferences that a jury could legitimately make when deciding if the State had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. He argued that the inferences were “reasonable and logical” based on the evidence, asserting that Thompson was not entitled to a reversal.

Justice Barry Anderson asked for the evidence that Thompson was “sick and tired” of Defoe.

Justice Paul Thissen wondered why the prosecutor felt the need to go beyond the evidence.

“Knowing when you’ve put in enough evidence and when you haven’t is a difficult line to know,” Magnuson said. “I think the natural instinct is to cover as much evidence as possible.”

Thissen asked if there wasn’t overwhelming evidence.

“Whether you pound 50 nails into the coffin as supposed to 49, there’s still more than enough evidence,” Magnuson said. “If the prosecutor makes a couple misstatements, is that going to overcome the confession, the DNA evidence, everything else … are we just going to overlook that because we think the prosecutor went too far in asking inferences?”

Magnuson stated there were no examples of egregious errors in the case that would warrant reversal.

Godes rebutted. The court took the case under consideration and will most likely issue an opinion in the next few months.