(Lander, Wyo.) – Gabrial Drennen’s attorney Tom Jubin, who successfully worked to appeal his client’s first degree murder conviction to the Wyoming Supreme Court, has issued an 11-page statement about the case in which he calls the former prosecution team’s actions “appalling.”

Jubin’s statement follows Fremont County Attorney Michael Bennett’s motion to dismiss charges against Drennen. Bennett said after reviewing the case, and the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Drennen’s conviction, that he believed Drennen had acted in self defense. As of 3 p.m. today, Ninth District Court Judge Norman E. Young had not yet granted the motion to dismiss.

(Jubin’s complete statement can be read here. The Supreme Court’s decision can be read here.)

“In order to have an informed opinion, you have to know the facts – not the “facts” arising from a predetermined view of the events, but facts based on evidence and competent investigation,” he states after reviewing some of the elements of the investigation he conducted. “I believe I have a valuable perspective in this case because I believe I know the facts surrounding this shooting better than anyone, including those lawyers who presented the case at trial in 2011.”

Jubin, too, makes the case that Drennen acted in self defense. During the shooting, Drennen was wearing a tape recorder, and Jubin says a cleaned up version of the recording reveals the alleged murder victim Leroy Hoster yelling “You f***ing…I’ll kill you, you son of a b****” shortly before pushing Drennen over a fence.

He states the Riverton Police failed to document the precise locations of where the shell casings from the five shots fired landed, resulting in a skewed diagram.

“The prosecutors acted, as the Supreme Court determined, in spite of the facts, with a raw desire to achieve a conviction, even by improper means,” Jubin writes. “The Supreme Court found that the prosecution was infected by many and repeated instances of prosecutorial misconduct.”

“County Attorney Bennett’s decision that Drennen acted in self-defense (or at a minimum that the State could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self- defense), and that the charges should be dismissed is absolutely correct,” he writes in conclusion. “That decision is refreshingly honest given the history of this case.”