Judge James Kinzer set the sentencing for Jerry M. Pintelon to be 11 a.m. July 16.
Pintelon was found guilty in April of aggravated battery and aggravated discharge of a firearm. That was the second trial for the case, with the first ending in guilty verdicts in 2018. It was later realized that there was no court reporter in the impaneling of the jury in the first trial. That required a second trial, which ended in the guilty verdicts in April.
Kinzer Monday afternoon heard from Pintelon’s lawyer, Ronald E. Boyer, who filed the post trial motion asking for an acquittal or a new trial. He also heard from Assistant States Attorney Alex O’Brien, who tried the case.
One of Boyer’s arguments centers around the trajectory of the bullets in relation to where Pintelon was standing.
He told Kinzer that the state never answered that question. In his motion he filed:
“There was one alleged witness to the defendant firing a weapon, to wit: Joseph Seibring,” according to the document. “Joseph Seibring testified that he observed the defendant firing a pistol while the defendant was standing on the southeast corner of the defendant’s house. It is clear and obvious that the projectiles did not come from the southeast corner of the defendant’s house but came from the north. The injuries to the victim were all on her left side, including the heel, the back and her left arm. These injuries could not have been caused by the defendant, as the victims’ left side where the injuries occurred were the furthest away front he defiant and protected by other parts of her body. Further, the bullet that was in the north side of the house could not possibly come from the southeast corner of the defendant’s house. The only way that the victim could have been injured in the way and in the locations that she was injured was in the trajectory of the bullets came from the north. Further, the evidence showed that it was impossible for witness Joseph Seibring to see a shorter located on the southeast corner of the defendant’s house because of the brush and other vehicles. Likewise, it is impossible for the defendant to see outside the house where the victim was located because of the brush, the vehicles and darkness, all shown by the admitted photographs admitted by the state.”
Boyer reiterated those claims to the judge Monday afternoon.
Boyer said that it would depend upon which way she was facing from the house and that even if she was facing south to begin with that she was running into the house after the shooting started and would have been facing the other direction, so not all of the bullets would have been on the same side of her body.
O’Brien said that this argument had been made in closing arguments of the trial and that he had answered those questions in his closing arguments. “I don’t know I want to restate my entire closing argument,” he said, noting that he didn’t believe there was specific testimony to the question. He noted, too, that Seibring, Schwartz and others testified as to where Pintelon was when he started shooting.
Also questioned was the chain of evidence for the bullets that were taken from Schwartz’s operating room after her surgery. Boyer said the chain was not safeguarded enough to “prevent the bullets recovered from Kylie Schwartz from being switched or altered.”
Boyer said the doctor and the nurse who operated on her did not testify that the bullets in evidence were the actual bullets that were taken from her during surgery.
Kinzer said unless there is a specific incident that occurs to suggest tampering there is a “reasonable probability” considered for chain of evidence, that it is reasonably probable the chain of evidence is uncompromised.
A couple of the points that were made in the original motion by Boyer were not discussed during Monday’s hearing, with Boyer saying he didn’t want to address them.
Kinzer said he was not going to grant either a mistrial or an acquittal. He asked if the attorneys can attend a sentencing hearing at 11 a.m. July 16, to which they agreed.