Gillean’s trial judge to allow in sex angle

CLINTON - A judge on Friday unsealed a defense motion seeking to exclude certain evidence about former University of Central Arkansas Chief of Staff Jack Gillean’s lifestyle - including sexual relationships with men - after ruling that the prosecution could raise the issue during Gillean’s commercial-burglary trial.

The disclosure came moments after a jury of seven men, five women and two alternates, a man and a woman, were selected to hear the case in Van Buren County Circuit Court. Judge Charles E. Clawson Jr. moved the trial to Clinton from Faulkner County Circuit Court in Conway because of pretrial publicity.

Clawson said Friday that he ruled on the defense motion during a teleconference with attorneys Thursday.

Opening statements are scheduled for Monday morning in Gillean’s trial on six counts of commercial burglary in a test-cheating scandal at UCA. Gillean, 57, also is charged with one felony count of fraudulent insurance acts and one misdemeanor count of issuing a false financial statement, but those charges are set to be tried later.

More than once Friday, defense attorney Tim Dudley told prospective jurors that his “biggest worry in this case” was that Gillean would be convicted “because of his sexual orientation,” rather than because the jury had found him guilty of the charges.

“You’re going to hear evidence in this case that Jack Gillean had sexual relations with other men,” Dudley said. “Do any of you have religious beliefs on homosexuality?” Dudley asked.

Several raised their hands. One older man who spoke of “God’s law” on homosexuality was among those excused.

Gillean, a former deputy attorney general, resigned from his UCA job June 15, 2012, after UCA President Tom Courtway asked him about a “grand master” key given to police by Cameron Stark, now a former student.

The prosecution contends that Gillean gave Stark UCA-issued keys and a key card with the knowledge that Stark intended to use them to steal tests from professors’ offices. A woman who said her husband was a locksmith at UCA’s physical plant was also among the prospective jurors excused.

Stark has been given immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony, as have three other people, according to court records.

Gillean’s resignation came about a week after UCA police said Stark broke into the university’s financial-aid office and stole four prescription pills from an employee who has since been fired. No one is charged in that drug theft.

In the defense motion that had been sealed until Friday, the defense had argued that Gillean’s sexual orientation and “sexual relationships with witnesses” were not relevant to the burglary case.

In a written response also released Friday, the prosecution countered, “The State has no intention of making the Defendant’s sexual orientation an issue in this case. However, the State does intend on introducing evidence of a sexual relationship between the Defendant and Ryan Scott. The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual relationships is of no consequence. The relevance lies in the existence of an intimate relationship between the Defendant and Mr. Scott.”

Scott, who has been subpoenaed as a prosecution witness, had a sexual relationship with Gillean and the two lived together, the response signed by Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Troy Braswell said.

During this time, Scott “saw and heard evidence which is critical to the State’s case,” Braswell wrote. “ Specifically, he will testify that he observed the Defendant hand his Master Keys to Cameron Stark for the purpose of entering professors’ offices and stealing exams. As a direct result of this relationship, Mr. Scott was privy to intimate conversations between the Defendant and Mr. Stark related to the keys and the stealing of exams.

“It is clear that Mr. Scott’s romantic involvement with the Defendant put him in a position of trust with the Defendant,” Braswell continued. “It is clear that such evidence would be admissible if Mr. Scott were a woman.

“In short, the closer a witness is to the Defendant the more reasonable it is that he would possess intimate details,” Braswell said.

The fairly brief defense motion - signed by attorneys Dudley, Nicki Nicolo and Sam Perroni - also said they believed the prosecution had agreed that Gillean’s use of drugs or alcohol with any witness was not relevant.

Braswell’s response countered that the court should preclude testimony about drug use against any witness but said the state would reserve the right to address the issue with the court if the defense opened the door to such evidence. He said, though, that the prosecution had not discussed the alcohol issue with the defense and believed that Gillean’s drinking with witnesses was relevant.

Most of the people listed as defense witnesses met Gillean “through socializing and consuming alcohol” with him, Braswell said.

Gillean, wearing a dark suit and tie, was composed as he chatted with his lawyers in the small courtroom in the Ozark foothills and visited with family members afterward.

He used a blue pen to write as he reviewed information before court opened. During the jury selection process, he listened attentively, looked directly at some prospective jurors and laughed along with others at some of their humorous responses.

Gillean, who is divorced, smiled softly when one woman asked Dudley why he was talking so much about Gillean’s sexual orientation. If Gillean was heterosexual, this wouldn’t be an issue, she said. “If that was what he was on trial for, that would be different,” she said.

Dudley replied that perhaps he shouldn’t be so worried. The woman, who was being considered as an alternate juror, was not chosen.

Other matters in the sealed motion that the defense was unsuccessful in having excluded include:

People’s “interpretations” of Gillean’s reaction to the allegations against him. His “reaction, whether it be silence or the like, or a person’s interpretation of Defendant’s reaction is not relevant and more prejudicial than probative,” the defense argued.

Documents created by prosecution witnesses, “including but not limited to, documents created by … Cameron Stark, from his computer.” The defense called the documents hearsay.

The prosecution countered that documents or items found during a forensic analysis of a computer are not hearsay. “Rather, they are offered as proof that the items were in fact stolen,” the prosecution added.

Handwritten “notes on documents that the Defendant believes the State will attempt to introduce at trial.”

The prosecution said it was unaware of any items it planned to introduce that had handwritten notes.