In this appellant’s brief, Luke Wenke challenges the district court’s decision to involuntarily commit him to a mental health facility. Authored by Wenke’s public defender at the time, the document argues that there was insufficient evidence to justify hospitalizing Wenke, even if he suffered from a mental illness.
The defense accuses the prosecution’s expert witness, forensic psychologist Dr. Corey Leidenfost, of failing to perform a thorough analysis because he only met with Wenke once in person. Furthermore, the document alleges that Dr. Leidenfrost fell short of conducting a full assessment because he didn’t consult Wenke’s family or legal counsel about the defendant’s mental state.
Wenke’s public defender goes on to argue that Wenke is not delusional, and that Dr. Leidenfrost’s conclusion as such is erroneous. To support this claim, the defense highlights the findings of forensic psychologists Dr. Robin Watkins and Dr. Kaitlyn Nelson, who observed and analyzed Wenke for an extended time period at a U.S. Bureau of Prisons facility in Chicago.
Interestingly, the document notes that Luke Wenke was housed in general population at MCC Chicago with no major behavioral issues, proving that he understands and is capable of following rules. I couldn’t agree more. And while the defense highlights this awareness as proof that Wenke did not endanger fellow inmates, I personally would argue that it proves that Wenke acts deliberately.
In my opinion, Wenke’s lack of disciplinary issues in jail proves that he knows exactly what he’s doing when he does act out-of-line, and that his timing is also very intentional.
(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or legal expert. Please don’t ever rely on my opinion as anything except that, and please keep in mind that I’m offering my opinion from the standpoint of someone who has known Wenke for many years and is currently at the top of his shit list.)
The document states that Luke Wenke had no arrest record prior to his cyberstalking case.
On page 16, the document states that Luke Wenke had no prior arrest history before his federal cyberstalking case. I was shocked to read this because it is untrue, plain and simple. Luke Wenke was arrested in Indiana on misdemeanor drug charges in December 2020, roughly 13 months prior to his cyberstalking arrest.
I’m not accusing the person who wrote this document of purposely misstating the facts. Perhaps the author meant that Luke Wenke had never been federally charged prior to his cyberstalking case, or that he had never been charged with any felonies prior to his federal case (the Indiana charges were misdemeanors). Or maybe the lack of any serious convictions in the Indiana case was factored into the statement. I don’t know.
It’s also possible that I’m misinterpreting the document — after all, I am a layperson — but it seems misleading. I find it strange that anyone representing Luke Wenke would state that he had no arrest history prior to January of 2022.
Luke Wenke Appeal – Appellant’s Brief
July 22nd, 2025
CASE #25-1165, DKT. #17.1
Luke Wenke Appeal – 25-1165 – Appellant's Brief – Doc. #17.1Categories: Luke Wenke, appeals, competency, Court Documents
Tags: Chicago, conditions of supervised release, contact ban violations, Dr. Corey Leidenfrost, cyberstalking, Indiana v. Luke Wenke, Illinois, indirect contact, interstate threats, involuntary commitment, Dr. Kaitlyn Nelson, MCC Chicago, probation violations, psychiatric/psychological evaluations, public safety, Dr. Robin Watkins, U.S. Bureau of Prisons, unwanted contact, violations of supervised release (VOSR)