Mark Jensen’s defense attorneys might believe the Wisconsin Supreme Court is the best, and only, court to hear the convicted killer’s appeal.

But they would be wrong, Assistant Attorney General Marguerite M. Moeller explained in a brief filed this week.

Jensen’s defense team asked last week for state justices to consider taking the long-awaited appeal directly, instead of letting it wind through the state Court of Appeals.

Because the court adopted the rule that Jensen’s lawyers now are challenging as part of their attempt to overturn his conviction, attorney Terry Rose said the move makes sense legally and in terms of “judicial economy.”

In her brief, Moeller agreed that state justices might be best suited to answer the challenge Jensen’s attorneys pose — namely that, in light of a federal Supreme Court decision on a California case, the Jensen court acted too broadly in adopting an evidence standard that allowed a damning letter from Julie Jensen naming Mark as the key suspect in her death to be used at his 2008 trial. That letter led jurors to convict Jensen of murder.

Defense attorneys argue the letter robbed Jensen of his chance to question an accuser.

The Wisconsin court decided Mark Jensen forfeited his right to that cross-examination because he was responsible for Julie’s absence. The court did not discuss Mark’s motive for keeping Julie Jensen away from the witness stand, historically considered a key second prong in the so-called “forfeiture doctrine.” The California case was remanded for that reason.

Moeller conceded that the federal decision in Giles v. California essentially reverses the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Jensen. She also agreed, as defense attorneys contend, that only the Wisconsin Supreme Court has the ability to reverse a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision.

But to bypass the Court of Appeals, Moeller argued, would mean the state Supreme Court would be hearing the entire appeal, which deals primarily with issues of law and discretion, instead of focusing on the one forfeiture-related issue worthy of the state’s highest court.

Moeller suggested that the Court of Appeals could best answer the numerous other issues and address forfeiture because it is a matter of federal law. Courts of appeal are bound to follow federal law, in this case as adopted in the California decision, which says both parts of the forfeiture doctrine must be met in order for the standard to be applied.

In the brief, Moeller also said that Jensen’s team might be jumping ahead because she has not even filed an answer to their initial appeal. Case law suggests that filing a request to bypass a court before the other party’s brief is filed is premature and, therefore, the bypass request can be dismissed.