Summary
Eyewitnesses. In 1987 my state mandated appellate
attorneys received two pieces of exculpatory evidence that
changes the state's case of overwhelming evidence of guilt to one of a travesty
of justice in the conviction of an innocent man. One of the pieces of exculpatory
evidence my appelate attorneys received is evidence that the eyewitnesses
did in fact vary dramatically from their initial descriptions
of the perpetrator. Yet in 1987, when the trial judge was presented with the
exculpatory evidence on a 3.850 appeal she refused to grant me an evidentiary hearing. She had already
labeled me a problem client because I adamantly maintained
my innocence in light of what she deemed overwhelming evidence of guilt. She
would even state in her ruling that it did not matter about the eyewitness identification
and blood test results (See Defense Case #2)
because the rest of the evidence was overwhelming as to guilt.
Now it is 1999 and I still have not been given an evidentiary hearing on the
trial issues that will vindicate me of the murder of my friend. I feel at this
point and time it is in my best interest to argue my case before the world in
the hope that it will speed up the process that will free me from this false
imprisonment. The state's attorneys cannot argue in good faith that the denial
of initial eyewitness statements given to the first officer to arrive on the
scene of the crime and later that night at the Police station would not have
made a difference as to the verdict of guilt by the Jury. This is evidence the
states attorney's should of known about themselves, and because it appears they
did not know of this exculpatory evidence that would explain why they would
tell the Jury over ten times in closing arguement that never once did the eyewitnesses
ever stray or waiver in their identification of the perpetrator.
Why have the state's attorneys not come forward to condemn
the withholding of the eyewitnesses initial statements? They did
not hesitate to argue the eyewitnesses identification when they
believed it to be true. Maybe they did not know of the initial
eyewitness statement and fear charges of misconduct. I suggest to
them to come forward now and to join me at being appalled by the
travesty of justice I suffer. The initial eyewitness
descriptions are of a white, tall, slim male in his
mid twenties, with shoulder length styled dark brown hair,
wearing a black T-shirt with a white design and writing on it,
light coloured pants and white tennis shoes. The eyewitnesses
gave this description, individually and collectively to the first
officer to arrive on the scene of the murder. Later that
night the witnesses would go to the police station and repeat the
initial descriptions to a detective who happen to record their
statements.
What happens next to cause the eyewitnesses to dramatically
change from their original description to one of positively
identifying me as the perpetrator would become the only avenue
open to me by way of arguing the eyewitnesses were mistaken in
their identification of me because they were subjected to a highly
suggestive photo array. A photo array in which I am the only
dark complexioned male among four predominately white males. I am
also the only one with black hair, an unnatural facial
expression, blood shot eyes and most importantly wearing a black
T-shirt with a white design and lettering on it. Plus all the
photos are of men with full beards
which none of the eyewitnesses gave in their initial
descriptions. Wouldn't a full beard be a most
distinguishing facial feature to remember when giving a
description of someone you just saw commit murder? What are the
odds of four witnesses failing to mention the perpetrator had a
full beard? I had no way of knowing the eyewitnesses never gave
the description of a full beard in their initial statements
because their initial statements were never
given to me on demand for discovery.
There are many discrepancies that an evidentiary hearing will
bring out about the eyewitnesses identifications, statements and
testimony they gave. Along with the evidence of police misconduct
on the part of the arresting detective, as well as the detective
that took the initial tape recorded statements from the
eyewitnesses. A lot of evidence will come out and be revealed
through an evidentiary hearing. And all of it will be strong
evidence pointing to the fact I was railroaded due to a false
arrest. Here are a few examples of what I mean. The first
police officer on the scene was never deposed
by my defense attorney. This officer knew I did not fit the
description given by the eyewitnesses. There were any number of
people besides this officer that could have and would have
testified as to my appearance that night, most
important being I wore my hair in a ponytail and I wore a long
sleeve red flannel shirt. Three other witnesses as to my
appearance are the two alleged alibi witnesses and the victim's
mother. This point will become more pronounced as we progress
with the evidence and facts of my case.
Another issue that will come out is that one eyewitness was
questioned separately by a detective that my attorney failed to
depose. Her statements would not be recorded - nor would the
composite drawing she drew of the perpetrator be preserved as
evidence. Why? Also detective Luchen, who took the tape recorded
statements of the other three eyewitnesses would give many conflicting
and inconsistent statements. He is also the one to
construct the photo array which he testifies he did based on the
eyewitnesses description, which the evidence shows is not true.
The failure to turn over the initial eyewitness
statements cannot be dismissed as a harmless error, as
suggested by the Trial Judge, Susan Schaeffer, when she ruled to
deny me an evidentiary hearing - not only on eyewitness
identification but on all the trial issues. There is also
compelling evidence that Susan Schaeffer's ruling was not based on
the facts of Law, but more on politics, which will be bought up
later as well. The eyewitness testimony in my case is highly
tainted. It is not the overwhelming evidence as to guilt as it
was professed to be.
I am innocent and should be released immediately....