UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
Petitioner
James V. Crosby, Jr,
Respondent
STATUS REPORT PER AUGUST 1, 2003 ORDER IN RESPONSE TO PRO SE MOTION SEEKING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Petitioner apologizes to this court for filing an untimely motion seeking appointment of counsel. Petitioner had no way of knowing Chief Judge David A. Demers, of the sixth Judicial Circuit, had appointed Bjorn Brunvand, (1) to represent Petitioner. As a layman to the law Petitioner prays this court will not take these pleadings as frivolous.
Petitioner feels he has the fundamental right to representation, representation that will proceed according to Petitioner’s direction. Petitioner feels he has been prejudiced throughout the legal process due to the withholding of exculpatory evidence in each aspect of the State’s case. Since the Record will speak for itself, Petitioner believes through taking depositions of former Prosecuting attorneys Bruce Young and Bruce Bartlett, they will have to admit that all the evidence they presented is irreparably tainted to such a high degree as to become a classic example of an innocent being railroaded. Thus, Petitioner feels compelled to seek this court’s indulgence as a mediator in order to insure these depositions are taken in a timely manner.
Petitioner concurs with the States August 6, 2003, response to court order of August 1, 2003, believing this court now has sole jurisdiction over this case. Petitioner prays with due respect this court will compel an order for the expeditious taking of depositions of Bruce Young and Bruce Bartlett, for which Petitioner seeks to be present in order to assist newly appointed counsel Bjorn Brunvand, in the taking of said depositions.
Respectfully submitted,
Milo A. Rose, Petitioner
Milo Rose # 090411
Union Correctional Institution
7819, NW 228th St. P5112S
Raiford, Florida, 32026 – 4450
(1) Petitioner has sent Bjorn Brunvand three correspondences – July 17th – August 7th and August 14th 2003, outlining the fundamentals of how withholding of exculpatory evidence prejudiced this case and perverted a fair and impartial trial.
ATTACHMENT TO PETITIONERS STATUS REPORT
On August 26th 2003, Petitioner received the enclosed copy of letter, along with copy of August 20th 2003 “ Motion and memorandum for appointment of counsel for representation in Federal Habeas Corpus Proceedings in a Capital case and request to hold case in abeyance “, from counsellor Bjorn Brunvard.
Petitioner fully appreciates the concerns of counsellor, to have adequate time to thoroughly acquaint himself with this case and its legal issues. Even though counsellor failed to address three requests made to him by Petitioner.
1. To file to have Petitioner appointed co-counsel, since Petitioner has over 20 years of knowledge and experience with issues in this case.
2. To file to withdraw DNA testing, since state has already admitted only one blood type was found, (that of Petitioner) and further testing would only prove redundant.
3. To follow Petitioner's direction in review of the record, so as to see how fundamentally basic and easy it becomes to show beyond doubt that Petitioner did not receive a fair and impartial trial.
Petitioner will now outline for this court his reasoning, in prayer this court will agree with the merits.
Among numerous examples of exculpatory evidence that were withheld from the defence, there are three primary pieces that simplify the understanding of how Petitioner was not afforded a fair and impartial trial.
1. Blood Test results.
2. Initial eyewitness statements and description of perpetrator, which eyewitnesses state they are highly certain.
3. Attempt by alleged alibi / confession witnesses Poole / Borton to bribe former prosecuting attorney Bruce Young, in exchange for their testimony.
It becomes blatantly clear through reading the State’s closing argument at trial, that the Clearwater Police withheld the Blood test results and Initial eyewitness statements from prosecuting attorneys, showing two Clearwater Police Detectives to be guilty of obstruction of justice. Their obstruction of justice irreparably tainted the entire legal process and in no way can be condoned or excused.
Finding these two pieces of exculpatory evidence is a simple matter of going to the initial 3.850 filed in September 1987.
The third piece of exculpatory evidence (discovered by Petitioner in 1996) goes toward the credibility of Poole / Borton, of whom the Prosecuting attorneys bolstered the testimony, by stating “they had no reason to lie“ - even though Poole / Borton initially denied any knowledge of this crime and only later changed their stories. The fact that Poole / Borton were both on probation (which was never violated) and that Poole matches the initial eyewitnesses’ description of the perpetrator, makes the prosecuting attorneys failure to reveal the attempted bribery by Poole / Borton in exchange for their testimony, inexcusable misconduct as well.
Petitioner does not feel his request of counsellor Bjorn Brunvard to recognise how basically simple it will be to quickly resolve this case through the taking the depositions of former prosecuting attorneys, Bruce Young and Bruce Bartlett, to be unreasonable. As outlined it is a simple matter of locating discovered exculpatory evidence in the record and comparing it to closing arguments.
As such Petitioner has no objections to placing this case in abeyance for 6 months so counsellor can adequately acquaint himself with all of the issues, but prays this court will empathise with the undue hardship placed on Petitioner in delaying to compel the taking of said depositions and thus order counsellor to take said depositions within 60 days of formal appointment, with a mandate to have Petitioner present to assist counsel.
IN CONCLUSION
Petitioner prays this court and counsellor Bjorn Brunvand as learned men of the law will recognise the unique opportunity they have to expeditiously correct an over 20-yr injustice; especially over and above any objections the State may have, since they should not and cannot be allowed to benefit from their own misconduct.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. mail to Carol M. Dittmar, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Concourse Centre 4, 3570E. Frontage Rd, Suite 200, Tampa, Florida 33607. And to Bjorn Brunvand esq. 615 Turner St, Clearwater, Florida 33756-5314. On this 27th day of August 2003.
Milo Rose
Petitioner