| |
|
Thursday, January 14, 2010
|
| Lake Tahoe's Environmental Protection Agency- A Different Kind of Green |
| Posted by: Justice On Trial |
| |
Lake Tahoe has become, unfortunately, a prime example of developmental destruction of habitat, for profit. Many view the Lake Tahoe Basin as a reservoir of profit, protected an impotent government agency partially sustained by its own fee generation; a police force paid for by funds levied upon potential lawbreakers.
Since the Tahoe Regional Protection Agency (T.R.P.A.) was established in 1969 by Richard Nixon to protect the Lake Tahoe Basin, it has been the primary buffer between all developers and their prey. In 1980, Public Law 96-551 expanded the T.R.P.A's mission and powers and in that same year issued a permit for a project named "Sandy Beach Campground" in Tahoe Vista, on the north shore of Lake Tahoe. The project's permit was for 25 campsites, however, 49 sites were cleared, and roads were added without permits and were for over 13 years.
The T.R.P.A. determines the use of any Tahoe Basin property by applying rules and standards of "coverage," in square feet (sf), of the land by paving and permanent structures. "Sandy Beach Campground's" original permits and a 1984 survey, determined the maximum coverage was 81,000sf for the parcel. By factoring in the illegal roads and campsites in 2000, a second survey concluded coverage had expanded to 92,000sf with no permits to substantiate a 10%+ increase of coverage. The historic records and permits for the 25 campsites/81,000sf, according to T.R.P.A. officials, were mysteriously "misplaced" and were not "discovered" until late 2009, 29 years later and long after the T.R.P.A. approved a new project, manifestly too massive for the parcel, by T.R.P.A.'s standards.
Nine months after the 2000 survey, a partner in Tahoe Vista Partners, LLC (TVP), Timothy Wilkens, ordered a new survey. Amazingly Wilkens' survey resulted in 174,000sf of coverage, coincidentally verifying, to the T.R.P.A, that coverage was more than sufficient to accommodate TVP's monstrosity project when previous surveys, the original permit, and all other documents related to the parcel did not. TVP's plans to build thirty-nine, 2000-3200sf time-share units, euphemistically referred to as "luxury fractionalized housing," densely packed on this tiny site, requiring a staggering 164,000sf, more than double the 1980 permitted 81,000sf coverage. The project would also result in removal of 2/3 of the trees and grading of 95% of the site, unheard of ratios of destruction.
Despite the T.R.P.A's newly announced mission to "Go Green," a permit was issued for Wilkins' hulking project, generating huge fees for the T.R.P.A. Vociferous Tahoe Vista community protests were ignored. The "Friends of Tahoe Vista": and "The League to Save Lake Tahoe" banded together and filed suit against the T.R.P.A. and Placer County requesting an investigation of the proper and legal coverage for this site.
The T.R.P.A. is now prepared to save the huge fees, rather than this prime piece of Lake Tahoe real estate, by approving a "compromise position," arbitrarily granting TVP/Wilkins "revised coverage" of 125,000sf; 65% over their own established maximum. A project of this scope, a clear violation of the T.R.P.A.'s rules and standards, would create severe traffic and parking problems, burdening public services in this small community, and endangering Lake Tahoe.
Lake Tahoe's residents' impassioned opposition to this monster project, justified only by massive T.R.P.A. fees, appears to have had less effect on T.R.P.A. officials than retaining the fees paid by the Wilkens' Group. Residents of Tahoe Vista, unlike the Biblical hero David, are locked in a battle against not only the goliath but the also the law enforcement agency that has the power to stop him
Submitted by D.Tessin
|
| |
| Permalink |
| |
|
| |
Thursday, June 25, 2009
|
| LEGISLATION TO REVIEW CRIMINAL JUSTICE STYSTEM INTRODUCED |
| Posted by: john bradley |
| |
Legislation To Review Criminal Justice System Has Been Introduced
Glenbrook, NV
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Senator Jim Webb, (D-VA), after decades of investigation and more than two years of intensive fact-finding in the U.S. Senate, on March 26, 2009, introduced the National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009 This bipartisan legislation would create a blue-ribbon commission charged with conducting an 18-month, top-to-bottom review of the nation's entire criminal justice system and offering concrete recommendations for reform. The bill has a number of bipartisan cosponsors, including high-ranking Republican members of the Judiciary Committee. The bill has also received initial support from the White House, the Department of Justice, and numerous criminal justice organizations.
The National Criminal Justice Commission will be comprised of experts in fields including criminal justice, law enforcement, public heath, national security, prison administration, social services, prisoner reentry, and victims' rights. Commissioners will be tasked with proposing tangible, wide-ranging reforms, including reducing crime and the overall incarceration rate; improving federal and local responses to international and domestic gang violence; restructuring our approach to drug policy; improving the treatment of mental illness; improving prison administration; and establishing a system for reintegrating ex-offenders.
In a recent statement to John Bradley, Managing Director of Justice On Trial, Senator Webb said of this legislation, ". we [are working] to provide much-needed reform to our nation's broken criminal justice system"
For materials relevant to the National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009, please visit: Details on Justice Reform
John J. Bradley
Managing Director
Justice on Trial
Glenbrook, NV
775-749-5522
530-725-8557
|
| |
| Permalink |
| |
|
| |
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
|
| Supporters of the Wrongly Convicted to March on State Capitols |
| Posted by: john bradley |
| |
Supporters of the wrongly convicted and those committed to criminal justice reform will march on state capitols in 12 states on Saturday
The state involved are: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas.
About Freedom March 2009: an opportunity to raise united voices for justice. Modern science and technology have shaken the once strong faith many once placed in the accuracy of judgments made by our criminal justice system. Thanks to DNA analysis of biological evidence, hundreds have been exonerated-many after spending years on death row. Research by Seton Hall law professor D. Michael Risinger indicates that 3.3%-5% of those convicted of crimes are factually innocent. Those who value justice demand that the justice system apply the lessons to be learned from the many cases of wrongful conviction, and support policy initiatives that:
1. Raise the accuracy rate in judgments of guilt and innocence.
2. Resolve credible post-conviction claims of innocence.
3. Remedy the tragic impact of wrongful convictions.
For those who are guilty of crimes, we support enlightened approaches to incarceration that nurture genuine rehabilitation and reintegration of productive citizens whenever possible.
FACTS ABOUT OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM:
. The United States incarcerates more people than any country in the world, including the far more populous nation of China[1]
. One in 100 Adult Americans is incarcerated in a prison or jail
. One in 31 Adult Americans is incarcerated, on probation or parole
. Incarceration rates heavily concentrated among men, racial and ethnic minorities, and 20-and 30-year olds
. 1 in 9 Black men 20-34 years old , 1 in 15 Black men 18+, 1 in 36 Hispanic men 18+
. Texas leads the nation in verified wrongful convictions. To date, 38 people have been exonerated in Texas using DNA
. Nationally, 133 people have been exonerated from death row[2]
. Expert estimates of wrongful convictions range from 3% to 12%, based on data from DNA & other exonerations [3]
. Executed But Possibly Innocent: Of the 8 cases frequently cited as those executed despite strong evidence of innocence, 5 are Texas cases[4]
. How many innocent people are in prison? No one knows, but experts agree that "any plausible guess at the total number of miscarriages of justice in America in the last fifteen years must be in the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands"[5]
For more details, visit www.freedommarchusa.org
SOURCES:
[1] Pew Research Center - http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/8015PCTS_Prison08_FINAL_2-1-1_FORWEB.pdf
[1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty
[1] Research by Seton Hall law professor D. Michael Risinger and other expert estimates
[1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent
[1] http://truthinjustice.org/exonerations-in-us.pdf
|
| |
| Permalink |
| |
|
| |
Friday, August 29, 2008
|
| HOPE FOR WRONGFULLY CONVICTED |
| Posted by: Justice On Trial |
| |
Justice On Trial a nationally known non-profit advocacy for the wrongfully accused has been approved by American Express' Members Project for possible funding to assit in the work this organization has been doing since April of 2002.
Once convicted, there is little hope for the wrongfully accused to ever prove their innocence, in spite of often overwhelming evidence confirming it. With an estimated 150,000 to 250,000 innocents in our jails and prisons (see The Innocence Project) the work done by Justice On Trial and other organizations like us is the only hope for most of those wrongly accused/convicted. The American appeal process is prosecution oriented (read John Grisham's "The Innocent Man") click on this link and hear what the famous attorney/author says about the problem in America today. Those people who do not have an advocate have little hope of ever proving their innocence.
You can help out on this with just a few minutes of time, no cost or any obligation of any kind and they won't spam you later. You can read below what it is and here's the link:
http://www.membersproject.com/project/view/WONBSI (Copy and Paste into your Internet window or type in)
You do not have to be an AMEX member to nominate/comment. There's no cost or obligation of any kind to you and AMEX won't spam you on this program. If you feel what Justice On Trial has done, and proposes TO do, is worthwhile, please click on the red link below, nominate us for funding from AMEX for our project and, if so inclined, make an anonymous comment. The funds have nothing whatever to do with your own AMEX account, you are completely anonymous.
Since April of 2002, Justice On Trial, a non-profit advocacy organization for the wrongfully accused, has been working on several cases of persons wrongfully accused.
Funding for our work has come from supporters of those wrongfully accused and Justice On Trial. Over the last 7 years, we have applied for various grants and to many philanthropic organizations for funding, unsuccessfully. Most recently, the Justice On Trial Project has been submitted and was just approved for nomination for funding/promotion by American Express as part of their Members Project program. This is a highly successful program of philanthropy for worthy projects. AMEX makes determinations of the worthiness/credibility of the project through its own panel and based on nominations and comments by visitors to the Members Project website.
If you believe the work Justice On Trial has accomplished was beneficial and that continuation of Justice On Trial's advocacy of the wrongfully accused is worthwhile, we need your help by visiting the Members Project website, reviewing the outline of our project, the impact we expect to have on the pervasive problem of wrongful convictions in this country and, should you feel it is worthy of funding, nominate Justice On Trial for eligibility.
You may also make suggestions or offer comments about Justice On Trial and/or this problem with the justice system that it is our goal to suggest legislation to lawmakers that will help avoid the current high percentage of wrongful convictions. Also, many other worthy projects are listed for your review. Please click on this link Members Project website
|
| |
| Permalink |
| |
|
| |
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
|
| WHO PAYS WHEN A PERSON IS WRONGFULLY CONVICTED? |
| Posted by: Justice On Trial |
| |
Plumas County, California Judges Olney, Kaufman and Pangman conspired with county Prosecutors Cunan and McGowan to wrongfully convict and imprison Joseph Robinson through knowing, willing and malicious violation of his right to counsel and his right to present a defense to the jury while California allowed them to do it and then condoned it.
On July 31, 2001, Cunan and Olney wrongfully convicted and then falsely imprisoned Robinson for 567 days before the California State Prison paroled him. Thirty days later, the California Third District Court of Appeal reversed Robinson's conviction because the aforementioned individuals violated his right to counsel. When his case was remitted back to the Plumas County Court for a fair trial, Cunan and Olney dismissed all charges against Robinson.
When Robinson sued the aforementioned individuals and California for monetary damages, they all claimed immunity and United States District Court Judge Burrell ruled that they were all immune from civil liability and ordered the suit to be dismissed.
Robinson's appeal in the Ninth Circuit requests that court to resolve the following issues:
1. Do people who have been unlawfully convicted and falsely imprisoned have the right to a civil remedy? If no, why not? If yes, who pays?
2. Are judges and prosecutors in a court with subject matter jurisdiction immune from civil liability under all circumstances no matter how outrageous their conduct, without exception?
3. Are the following circumstances narrow enough to constitute an exception to judicial and prosecutorial immunity pursuant to this Court's conclusion in Ashelman v. Pope that the exceptions to immunity must be narrowly drawn?
. Allegation of judicial/prosecutorial conspiracy to wrongfully convict and imprison a defendant through intentional violation of his right to counsel
. Post-conviction imprisonment
. Appellate court reversal of the conviction for the violation of right to counsel
. Subsequent acquittal or dismissal with prejudice of all charges
4. If not, how narrow does an exception to judicial immunity have to be?
5. Is the state liable under the foregoing circumstances?
The essential question here is: "Who Pays?"
When state judges and prosecutors violate the right to counsel to unlawfully convict and falsely imprison an individual for 18 months and then dismiss all of the charges when the case is reversed upon appeal and remitted back for a fair trial, who pays, the state the judges and prosecutors, or the individual who was wrongfully convicted and imprisoned?
Support Documents:
1. California Appellate Ruling
2. District Court Complaint
3. Appeal Opening Brief
4. Appeal Response Brief
5. Appeal Reply Brief
For further information on this case, contact Justice On Trial JJB@JusticeOnTrial.org
|
| |
| Permalink |
| |
|
| |
Saturday, June 23, 2007
|
| Are Bad Cops Accountable? |
| Posted by: Justice On Trial |
| |
Apparently, no.
Current events provide a graphic reminder of society's obligation and need to treat our citizens, all of them, fairly and equally under the law. A recent incident, drawn from the pages of the Los Angeles Times begs an answer to this question:
Are bad cops held as accountable as junior-high school students are when they break very same law?
Senior O.C. Asst. D.A. Michael Fell said about these three young girls:
"The girls are a danger to society"
The L.A. Times article reports the arrest of the girls for falsely accusing Eric Nordmark, a drifter, of molesting them, a crime they now admit he did not commit. He was imprisoned for 8 months, however, before one of the girls admitted she lied:
The commissioner in charge said, after the false statements came to light:
"You cannot tell when they may commit another crime."
Officials did not cite previous criminal records, malicious intent or other reasons for making such a statement. Therefore, it would seem that officials made those accusations to keep two of the girls in custody until their trial. One of the girl's mothers, Veronica Ochoa, is now under investigation by the District Attorney in Orange County for allegedly not quickly enough reporting to authorities that her daughter admitted to her that the girls had lied to falsely accused Nordmark.
The girls were charged with violating California Penal Code 182, Conspiracy to Use False Evidence to Convict a Citizen. Ironically, dozens of far more serious charges under the very same penal code have been alleged against a veteran Los Angeles Sheriff's Office, (L.A.S.O.) homicide investigator, Detective Lillienfeld.
Sr. Asst. D.A. Fell made the statement about Ms. Ochoa, one of the girls' mothers, for not calling as quickly as she could have:
"She let this guy sit in jail.. If we had known that Nordmark was possibly innocent, we would have done whatever we had to, the second we heard it, to put in motion whatever needed to be done to get him released."
Fell went on to say, "No criminal charges are filed unless we are sure there is sufficient evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt."
Respected Orange County lawyer, John D. Barnett, when asked about this case, confirmed that:
"The girls are being fairly treated considering a man was deprived of his freedom for 8 months.. Very serious consequences are called for."
It is obvious the O.C.D.A. legitimately feels that a conspiracy to falsely convict someone is an extremely serious matter that deserves the immediate attention of law enforcement and the judicial system
It would seem, however, a clear line is drawn. Members of law enforcement are not ordinary citizens. The rules for them are drastically different. They can and do operate outside the law with impunity.
On January 24, 2004, Jeffery Benice, lead attorney in Orange County, Michael Goodwin prosecution, presented the Los Angeles Sheriff's Office, Internal Affairs Bureau, with a formal request that a complaint be filed against one of their Detectives, Mark Lillienfeld. Benice's letter was accompanied by a list (letter and list available at www.JusticeOnTrial.org) of dozens of instances of perjury, witness tampering, evidence fabrication and destruction and other conspiratorial crimes as part of a conspiracy to falsely convict Michael Goodwin of the Mickey Thompson murders.
Following the refusal of L.A. District Attorney to prosecute this crime for lack of evidence, Lillienfeld met, personally, with the top O.C.D.A. official, Tony Rackauckas, long-time friend, business associate and former employee of the victim's sister, Colleen Campbell. Subsequent to this unprecedented meeting of an L.A. detective and the highest ranking D.A. in Orange County regarding a case with no ties to Orange County, Lillienfeld "developed" venue-specific aspects about evidence that had been discarded early on in the investigation.
Lillienfeld would have the courts and public believe that dozens of previous investigators, over more than 13 years of investigation, "missed" this "evidence" which his superlative investigative skills enabled him to "discover," yet, he was unable to decipher the most basic of ballistics reports. The last official report, which he signed, left no doubt that it was impossible for Goodwin's gun to have been a murder weapon. Only weeks later, he swore to the courts that, ".Goodwin provided a murder weapon to the killers from his home in Laguna Beach."
Although the prosecution has admitted some of the evidence they used to charge Goodwin was false, including Lillienfeld's absurd claim of Goodwin providing a murder weapon, and the evidence proving Lillienfeld's implementation of the conspiracy is compelling, there has been no confirmation of an investigation of these crimes by Internal Affairs. To date, Michael Goodwin has been in jail for 27 months based solely on this "new evidence" that Detective Lillienfeld "developed."
As a result of this conspiracy to convict Goodwin, he and his attorney, Jeffrey Benice, have had to expend over $500,000 on Goodwin's defense and it has put Goodwin's 90-year old father out on the street when they lost their home.
Every allegation by Lillienfeld has been or can be proven as false with evidence that Lillienfeld and Sr. District Attorney David Brent initially withheld from the defense until Goodwin was formerly charged and "bound over" for trial. Any withholding of evidence is also illegal.
The defense has proof that Lillienfeld and Brent have lied, under oath, to judges and the Grand Jury over 100 times. Goodwin appealed to the courts to prevent the illegal, out of jurisdiction, prosecution. Admitting that there were obvious and serious flaws in D.A. Brent's erroneous contention of venue, the court "stayed all proceedings." Brent and Lillienfeld have been using this stay as an excuse to continue to withhold production of additional discovery to the defense to prevent further charges against them. Literally hundreds of witness statements and other evidence, referenced elsewhere in the discovery and requested by the defense, has never been produced. To make matters worse for Goodwin, because of this "stay of proceedings," he has no court of jurisdiction to file Motions to Dismiss based on the defense evidence.
In another case reported on 2/12/04 also in the L.A. Times, Internal Affairs, Los Angeles Sheriff's Office immediately put Deputy Joe Martinez on administrative leave when witnesses reported to authorities that Martinez lied in a KABC-TV interview about his role in a rescue. An investigation has been launched and criminal charges may be filed. However, in Lillienfeld's case, to date, evidently nothing has been done.
The difference? Goodwin's defense team has evidence proving that, in this prosecution, O.C.D.A. Rackauckas is illegally prosecuting Goodwin with false evidence as a favor for Colleen Campbell. The County of Orange has no other interest in this case. She is a well-connected politician who, for 15 years, in spite of evidence to the contrary, has claimed that Goodwin is guilty and she has sworn to get him convicted, "no matter what." Goodwin now has evidence to prove that it is only these misguided, unsupported claims by her that have galvanized government and law enforcement at the highest levels to arrest and attempt to convict Goodwin, fulfilling her prophecy. With the cooperation of Detective Lillienfeld, also a Campbell family friend, she may have succeeded were it not for Goodwin's supporters.
Ms. Campbell is a nationally prominent "victims' rights" advocate, known to many U.S Presidents. She spoke in support of top U.S. Cop, John Ashcrot's confirmation. She created, as a result of Mickey Thompson's death, and still administers, Memories Of Victims Everywhere, a lobbying group, purportedly one of the largest "victim's rights" organizations in the country. She is now attempting to have the U.S. Constitution amended with a "Victims' Bill of Rights."
However, we have been unable to locate any crime "victims" who have been helped by M.O.V.E. Moreover, Goodwin's defense now has a considerable body of evidence showing that this organization is a conduit of campaign contributions to politicians in Orange County and elsewhere. To date, we have found no reference to this organization anywhere in association with any other victims' rights organization(s). There appears to be no mechanism by which crime victims can access this "help" that M.O.V.E. purportedly offers to them or advise M.O.V.E. of any rights violations.
Campbell's son, Scott, was convicted of murdering a man, Aubery Wix, in a drug deal gone bad, making victims of Wix's family. We hope to ask Campbell if M.O.V.E. has ever offered protection of the rights of the victims of Scott Campbell's murders?
Innocent, accused people are the worst kind of victims, betrayed by the badly perverted judicial system. What will Ms. Campbell's M.O.V.E. say about the victims in this case once the truth of her involvement in this outrageous conspiracy to convict an innocent man is fully exposed?
Goodwin asserts, "Campbell and political contributors like her, to further their own nefarious agendas, under cover of legitimate causes, have perverted the American justice system."
|
| |
| Permalink |
| |
|
| |
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
|
| No Accountability For Wrongful Conviction |
| Posted by: Justice On Trial |
| |
WHO PAYS WHEN A WRONGFUL CONVICTION TAKES PLACE?
In light of the current controversy on medical marijuana, here is a classic case of law enforcement/prosecutor overreaching just to get a conviction, then claiming immunity so that no one within the justice system is accountable.
On September 27, 2000 about 20 Plumas County, California Sheriff deputies and federal agents with camouflage clothing, ready weapons, roaring vehicles and helicopter swarmed onto the property of Joseph Robinson. They found Robinson and three friends processing marijuana. Although it was determined that all four had medical certification, they were arrested. Deputies also verified that Robinson had formally offered the California Medical Research Center Research Center to distribute Robinson's excess marijuana to their patients.
Plumas County District Attorney James Reichle prosecuted Robinson in spite of California Health & Safety Code Section 11362.5, which states that Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes.
On November 22, December 7, December 14 and December 20, 2001, when Robinson requested that Plumas County Court Officers appoint an attorney to assist Robinson, Judges Garrett Olney, Ira Kaufman and William Pangman conspired, combined and cooperated with prosecutors James Reichle, Jeff Cunan and Gary McGowan to refuse to appoint an attorney for Robinson.
On December 14, 2001, at the preliminary hearing, in spite of Penal Code Section 866.5, which states that a defendant may not be examined unless the defendant has counsel or has waived counsel, Judge Pangman and Prosecutor Cunan examined Robinson. Robinson freely admitted that he intended to distribute some of his marijuana to medical patients and justified this distribution on the ground that most people with the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes have no way other than distribution to obtain the marijuana that a physician had prescribed to ease their suffering.
On August 1, 2001, at trial, Judge Olney and Prosecutor Cunan, prevented Robinson from presenting his justification defense to the jury, in spite of California law, which states that a justification defense may be used for any act. Over Robinson's written objection, Olney and Cunan deleted the justification part of Robinson's unlawfully obtained preliminary hearing testimony, gave it to the jury and told them it was a confession. Olney and Cunan instructed the jury that, if they found that Robinson had intended to distribute any of his marijuana, for any purpose, they must find him guilty. The jury obeyed the judge and prosecutor. Olney and Cunan sentenced Robinson to a three-year term in state prison. Robinson appealed his conviction immediately.
On February 18, 2003, Robinson was released from prison on parole.
On March 18, 2003, the California Third District Court of Appeal reversed Robinson's conviction, ruling that the Plumas County Court officers had violated Robinson's right to the assistance of counsel for reasons that are "without support in California law", California Penal Code Section 866.5 and "all the rules of fair play". The California Attorney General did not appeal to the Supreme Court. When the case was remanded back to the Plumas County Court for a fair trial, Judge Olney and Prosecutor Cunan dismissed all charges against Robinson "in the interest of justice".
On July 4, 2004, Robinson filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court. This court refused to issue Robinson's lawful summons for California and the Plumas County judges, proclaiming them immune. The prosecutors claimed immunity and moved to dismiss. District Court Judge Burrell dismissed Robinson's case.
Robinson made administrative complaints to California Governor Schwarzenegger, California Attorney General Lockyer, the California Commission on Judicial Performance, the California State Bar, and the Plumas County Board of Supervisors.
Robinson made criminal complaints to the Plumas County Grand Jury, California Attorney General Lockyer and United States Attorney Mcgregor Scott. All of the aforementioned agencies and individuals acknowledged receipt of Robinson's administrative and criminal complaints. None investigated.
Robinson's appeal in the Ninth Circuit requests that court to resolve the following issues:
1. Do people who have been unlawfully convicted and falsely imprisoned have the right to a civil remedy? If no, why not? If yes, who pays? Who is accountable?
2. Are judges and prosecutors in a court with subject matter jurisdiction immune civil iability under all circumstances no matter how outrageous their conduct, without exception? Can this be?
3. Are the following circumstances narrow enough to constitute an exception to judicial and prosecutorial immunity pursuant to this Court's conclusion in Ashelman v. Pope that the exceptions to immunity must be narrowly drawn?. Allegation of judicial/prosecutorial conspiracy to wrongfully convict and imprison a defendant through intentional violation of his right to counsel . Post-conviction imprisonment . Appellate court reversal of the conviction for the violation of right to counsel . Subsequent acquittal or dismissal with prejudice of all charges 4. If not, how narrow does an exception to judicial immunity have to be?
5. Is the state liable under the foregoing circumstances?
The essential question here is: "Who Pays?
When state judges and prosecutors violate the right to counsel to unlawfully convict and falsely imprison an individual for 567 days and then dismiss all of the charges when the case is reversed upon appeal and remitted back for a fair trial, who pays, the state, the judges and prosecutors, or the individual who was wrongfully convicted and imprisoned?
In a one-page memorandum, the Ninth Circuit ruled that California, the judges and the prosecutors are all immune from civil liability to Robinson. This ruling means that Robinson is not entitled to a civil remedy for the 567 days of false imprisonment that judges and prosecutors and the state are immune no matter how outrageous their conduct, and that the right to the assistance of counsel in a criminal prosecution and all other court-related rights have been abolished.
The following documents are available via email upon request:
1. California Appellate Ruling
2. Statement of Facts
3. Appeal Opening Brief
4. Appeal Response Brief (Prosecutors)
5. Appeal Reply Brief
6. Ninth circuit Memorandum
7. Petition for En Banc Hearing
Documentation of the facts, including Plumas County Court File and transcripts are available in hard copy upon request.
|
| |
| Permalink |
| |
|
| |
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
|
| MURDER ON THE LAST TURN From L.A. Weekly Magazine |
| Posted by: Justice On Trial |
| |
Murder On the Last Turn
Written by PAUL CIOTTI for L.A. Weekly Magazine
Mickey Thompson was a renowned race-car driver and promoter. Mike Goodwin was the brash, egocentric creator of motocross. They became business partners. Then all hell broke loose.
First there were the threats. "I'm going to kill that son of a bitch. I'm going to kill that motherfucker. I'm going to take out Mickey. I'm too smart to get caught. I'll have him wasted. He'll never see a nickel. I'll kill him first. Mickey doesn't know who he is fucking with. He is fucking dead."
"Mickey" was Mickey Thompson, a dynamic, charismatic and much-admired former off-road racer and promoter. Fearless on his own behalf, he was "scared to death," he told his sister, that someone was going to hurt his "baby" - his beloved wife, Trudy. He hired a guard to watch his house, asked the sheriff for extra patrols, wore a bulletproof vest, loaded his shotgun with buckshot, avoided standing in front of lighted windows, varied his work routine, but none of it made any difference in the end.
At 6 a.m. on March 16, 1988, as Trudy backed the van out of the garage of their home in Bradbury, a small gated community in the San Gabriel foothills just east of Monrovia, two black males in their 20s, wearing dark, hooded jogging suits, suddenly materialized out of the shrubbery. One fired a 9 mm bullet that shattered the side window and penetrated the windshield. The van rolled back and hit a wall. Trudy jumped out, lost her balance and tried to crawl away, breaking her acrylic fingernails on the concrete drive. At the same time, Mickey apparently ran out around the side of the garage screaming, "Don't shoot my wife." One shooter crippled Mickey with a volley to the legs and abdomen. Even as Mickey begged the gunmen to at least spare Trudy, the second shooter killed her with a shot to the back of the head. Then, to complete the job, the first gunman administered the coup de grâce to Mickey as well.
As the screams and gunshots brought early-rising neighbors rushing to their windows and decks, the killers jumped on two 10-speed recurve-handlebar bikes and fled downhill at top speed. Narrowly avoiding being hit by a woman driving her dog to canine-assertiveness training, the men pushed their bikes across North Royal Oaks Avenue, went through a break in a grape-stake fence, down an embankment, and disappeared along a jogging path, which had once been an old railroad right of way.
News of the killings flashed like summer lightning through the Thompsons' family and friends. One of the neighbors called the Mickey Thompson Entertainment Group offices at Anaheim Stadium to say that he didn't know what had happened, but shots were fired and "someone is lying in the driveway." By the time Thompson's vice president for operations, Bill Marcel, got there, the Thompson compound was cordoned off with yellow tape, behind which he could see the bodies of Mickey and Trudy lying in the drive "50 feet apart."
Marcel spent the rest of the morning waiting to be interviewed by Sheriff's investigators. When they finally got around to him, they asked, "Do you know anyone who would want to do this?"
Yes, said Marcel. As a matter of fact, he did.
Next week, after 18 years of investigation, 40,000 pages of discovery, 1,000 interviews, four different lead investigators and a 61-volume murder book that took the defense attorney seven months to read, another dynamic and charismatic - though far less admired - race promoter, Michael Goodwin, will go on trial in Pasadena Superior Court for the murders of Mickey and Trudy Thompson.
It is a case that has engendered deep and bitter hatreds on both sides. For the prosecution and Thompson's family members, it is the chance (finally) to make Goodwin pay for his vicious crimes. But for Goodwin and his supporters, it's just the latest chapter in a wrong-headed vendetta.
As his longtime friend John Bradley tells it, Goodwin is not only innocent but a deeply wronged man, hounded by corrupt prosecutors and criminally out-of-control investigators who essentially made up evidence without which Goodwin never would have been arrested, let alone indicted for murder. And the person Goodwin most blames for all of this is the woman he sees as the power behind the throne, Orange County victims' activist and politician Collene Campbell, who is also Mickey Thompson's sister.
Goodwin's defense attorney, Los Angeles public defender Elena Saris, readily admits that the fact that her client is innocent doesn't mean he's an admirable guy in every way. (Even Goodwin's friends call him an "asshole.") But just because someone is a complete jerk doesn't mean he's a murderer too. And she's not saying that just because Goodwin is her client and it's her job to defend him. "He has never wavered on his innocence," she says. "He's never asked for a deal or a plea bargain."
For one thing, says Saris, he doesn't have to. The prosecution essentially has no case. It can't put Goodwin at the scene of the crime. It has no murder weapon, DNA evidence, tape recordings, letters, documents, phone records or photographs to prove that he hired the men who shot the Thompsons (or did anything else to help, assist or further their deaths). Sheriff's deputies have never caught the hit men nor do they even know who they are (though they suspect they live in the Caribbean). Other than a "couple of people" who claim to have heard Goodwin threaten Thompson 18 years ago, says Saris, "they have no evidence whatsoever tying Goodwin to the crime."
If the prosecution has no evidence, then why wasn't Goodwin acquitted long ago? That's a good question, says Saris. Deputy district attorneys stop her in the halls of the Criminal Courts Building to ask her the same thing all the time.
At the other end of the spectrum are people like Campbell and the lead investigator, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Detective Mark Lillienfeld, who feel in their bones that Mike Goodwin plotted, directed and paid for the Thompson hits, but worry that because all the evidence against him is circumstantial, it is entirely possible that a jury might not convict him. "I've had stronger cases, that's for sure," says Lillienfeld.
That said, Lillienfeld adds, all the circumstantial evidence that he does have points to no one else but Mike Goodwin. "Ray Charles or Helen Keller could figure this one out. This is not a difficult case."
I first began investigating Mike Goodwin in May 1988, when I wrote a story about the Thompson murders for the Los Angeles Times. But I never got a chance to meet him, because he and his wife had recently left the country to sail the Caribbean on their $400,000, 57-foot, single-mast yacht, the Believe. In 1992, after two years spearfishing and doing underwater photography, and another two years skiing in Aspen, Goodwin finally returned to Southern California, where, on his way out of court after filing a lawsuit, he was arrested on secret bank-fraud charges. When his trial started, I drove down to Orange County to watch the action in court.
Goodwin, I discovered, was a big, commanding presence in a nicely tailored sports coat. But he seemed, I thought, to know nothing of how a jury might perceive him. Everything he did was oversize and over-dramatic. He acted as if he were less a defendant on trial than an actor onstage. When his attorney handed him a document, he would hold it at arm's length, furrow his brow and study it in the most transparent manner. If someone made even a feeble attempt at humor, Goodwin would chuckle longer and louder than anyone, in his confident, masculine way.
Although resolution of the matter took four years, in the end Goodwin was convicted of failing to list an unpaid prior loan on a new loan application and sentenced to 30 months in federal prison. Part of the reason, I think, was his phony public persona. ("I told him to be sincere," John Bradley would later say of Goodwin's TV appearances, "but I don't think he has it in him.")
There was nothing in Goodwin's early childhood to suggest that he might one day find himself accused of double murder. By his own (and sometimes shifting) accounts, he was a Navy brat from Pensacola, Florida, and a chronic overachiever who claimed to make Eagle Scout in record time. After high school, he says, he ruptured a lung scuba-diving off Catalina, floated to the surface unconscious and was choppered to USC University Hospital, where an orderly put a dead-on-arrival tag on his toe before he regained consciousness. After taking off a year to recover, he enrolled at San Diego State, where he started out in mechanical engineering and ended up in marketing. He also began holding TGIF parties, charging girls 50 cents, he says, and boys $1.50. According to Goodwin, he dropped out of college six credits shy of graduation to take a job in sales for Procter & Gamble. He soon left to join a small promotion firm in San Diego. Bradley, who was the junior member of the company at the time, initially didn't like him. "He was too loud and too brash," says Bradley. And he had an explosive temper.
On the other hand, there was no denying Goodwin's quick intelligence and relentless enthusiasm. No matter what they asked him to do, says Bradley, he always answered, "Super!" He actually seemed to like dealing with avaricious agents and their drug-addled stars. He was good with money. Unlike their clients, he apparently didn't do drugs, and, because he was such a big guy - 6 feet 3 inches, 200 pounds - with self-confidence to spare, he could serve as his own bouncer. After it became clear that he was a better promoter than his bosses, he struck out on his own, eventually promoting concerts, Bradley says, with stars like Ray Charles, Jimi Hendrix, the Doors, the Stones, the Beach Boys, the Supremes, Sonny & Cher and Petula Clark.
The glamour notwithstanding, concert promotion was such a stressful, financially precarious business that, after what Goodwin once called the "traumatic experience" of Janis Joplin's final tour, he decided he'd had enough. He bought a beat-up VW van and decided to spend a couple of years traveling around North and South America with his then-wife, Diane Seidel.
One day, Goodwin found himself in a men's room in a Belize hotel reading a motorcycle-magazine story about a Madison Square Garden race that, despite poor sightlines and little in the way of professional production, still managed to attract 17,000 fans. This, says Bradley, gave Goodwin the idea of putting on a motorcycle show in a stadium with comfortable seats, clean toilets, hot dogs that were actually hot, and cold beer. When Goodwin got back to the States in 1972, he persuaded the manager of the Los Angeles Coliseum to rent the stadium to him for an event Goodwin called "the Superbowl of Motocross."
Goodwin trucked in hundreds of tons of dirt, built all kinds of jumps and turns, and advertised it heavily. Celebrities like Steve McQueen came to watch. There were scantily dressed women, and prizes for the fans. But the big attraction was the famous peristyle jump. The riders rode a dirt ramp up through the stands and disappeared into one of the smaller side peristyle arches. Then, a moment later, they'd come flying back into the stadium through the big central arch, sailing 100 feet through the air before hitting the downhill ramp. It was "fantastically suspenseful," an Internet motor-sports historian would later write. "The fans went wild."
Goodwin's shows made money virtually from Day One. He was soon running what are now known as Supercross events not only in the Coliseum but at the Rose Bowl, San Diego, Anaheim and other places around the country. But Anaheim was the big cash cow, and every year, the show got bigger. Goodwin put more people in the seats than the NFL; the only person to outdo him was Billy Graham. Goodwin once claimed to have made $600,000 in a single day.
In short order, Goodwin was driving a Clenet (an expensive hand-built reproduction of a '30s touring car), wearing full-length fur coats, dining on pâté de foie gras and sipping champagne. He bought a 17th-century tapestry, an antique billiard table, a Frederic Remington sculpture and a Rolls-Royce supposedly once owned by Princess Grace of Monaco.
He traveled around the world on big-game expeditions, spearing a 185-pound wild boar in Tennessee and killing a Kodiak bear in the Aleutians with a .44 Magnum handgun (albeit, according to a fellow hunter, after first breaking the bear's spine with a rifle shot). He fell off a motorcycle at 132 mph and, wrote Shav Glick of the L.A. Times, ground off "one cheek of his butt." He won a contest to spend a "wild wicked weekend" with "lusty Gloria Leonard, the queen of porn." The opening line of his winning entry: "I enjoy successful attractive ladies who share my zeal for exotic sex."
Besides sex, he loved dogs and hummingbirds. He cried bitterly when his black Lab Jocko died. He spoke to his mother a minimum of twice a day, and when she suddenly died of a heart attack, says the friend who broke the news, "he began screaming, 'My mommy! My mommy!' He was sobbing uncontrollably."
To display his animal trophies and artwork in high style, he built a three-story cedar-wood-and-white-stucco hillside home with an ocean view in Laguna Beach. The house featured a spiral staircase, an indoor waterfall, a bear rug, an elk's head on the wall, and a roll-top desk that he says once belonged to the infamously sharp-dealing Gilded Age financier Jay Gould. According to Sports Illustrated, Goodwin kept two tape recorders with him at all times, one for incandescently creative thoughts and one for merely important ones. He had a main office in downtown Laguna Beach and, for his inner circle, a smaller office in his home, albeit one with 12 phone lines. He was driven, dominating, and terrifying to new employees. Most of his secretaries left in tears after two or three days. Goodwin didn't care. "I'm not a people person," he told Thompson's lawyers in a deposition. "All I care about is results. If someone has a contract with me and they don't perform, I'll take their legs off."
Unlike Goodwin, who blazed a trail through school, Mickey Thompson was lucky to graduate at all. Recognizing that he was not learning anything in class, his high school English teacher would let him work on her car instead. Mickey never learned to spell. Today he'd be labeled ADD, "but," says Sheriff's Detective Lillienfeld, "he was a genius with his hands."
Thompson built his first car at age 7 using the engine from a washing machine. He went on to race cars, trucks, buggies, boats and planes. At the time of his death, he was the owner of or a partner in some 27 companies and held upward of 100 major patents. His companies manufactured high-performance precision parts for race cars, and heavy-duty tires used by both the Israeli army and the shah of Iran. He invented an early hydraulic version of the Jaws of Life (to cut him out of his own vehicle in case he wrecked it during an assault on the land-speed record at the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah). He manufactured a water-filled plastic vehicle barrier, which police used around St. Vibiana's Cathedral when the pope visited Los Angeles. He designed the wide-oval, low-profile tires that later became standard at Indianapolis.
But his first and last love was racing.
"He crashed cars and sunk boats in two continents," the L.A. Times said about Thompson in 1973. He entered more than 10,000 races in his lifetime and won 500 of them. Feature writer Jan Golab once described his racing strategy as "stand on the gas," which is to say, driving as fast as he could until he wrecked his car or won the race. In the process, he was hospitalized 27 times, four times with a broken back, once for six months.
While such competitiveness (if not recklessness) made Thompson a dominant force in off-road racing, it also "pissed off, alienated and offended many people," said Sal Fish, president of Score International, a sanctioning body for off-road races, shortly after Thompson's death. "In his negotiations, Mickey got the job done, but in getting it done, he left a lot of carnage around. Mickey was the kind of guy who would pound on you and pound on you till he won." You could spend all day negotiating with him, and then, by 10 p.m., when everyone would be exhausted, "Mickey would say, 'We're going to settle it right now. Let's do it. Let's do it right now.' And 99 percent of the time," said Fish, "the people would fold. I'd put him up against any graduate of Harvard, Yale or MIT, and Mickey would consume him. He was a street fighter."
Thompson was so incredibly competitive that when he couldn't find an even match, he'd challenge people to competitions he knew he couldn't win: tennis, badminton, bowling. He'd challenge kids to races in swimming pools. "If you were flicking peanuts," his son Danny Thompson once said, "he wanted to win that too."
With Thompson, the term "Fightin' Irish" wasn't just a football metaphor. Once when he was still a teen, five kids in a car shouted obscenities at him. He jumped in his car, ran them off the road, knocked out two and scared off the others. On another occasion, a former concessionaire said, Thompson punched out a security guard who ventured one word too many about his wife. "I wouldn't want to get in a fight with him," said former Coliseum general manager Jim Hardy. "You wouldn't beat him on points."
On the other hand, says Fish, "Once you had a deal, Mickey kept his word. If he said you were going to get [paid a certain amount], you would get it and you would get it on time - no hanky-panky, no 'Can you wait 20 days?,' no 'Can you take it on installment?' But when you negotiated, you better get what you wanted, because what you got was what you agreed on."
"I really liked him," said another former Coliseum general manager, Joel Ralph. "He was a very imaginative guy. He was enthusiastic, exciting. He wasn't afraid to take a chance." And it wasn't just Thompson himself. Both he and his second wife, Trudy, were warm, outgoing people who would attend any social event, even a retirement affair for an accountant. "They didn't just pop in and shake your hand either," Ralph said. "They would stay and talk. He would talk to the maintenance guy. Even the guy who handles the gate came to his funeral."
It was obvious to everyone who saw them together that Mickey adored Trudy Feller. She was a Jewish kid from the Bronx who came out West and got a job as secretary to the publisher of Hot Rod magazine, where the first thing they told her was, "Here's your desk, here's your typewriter, and whatever you do don't date Mickey Thompson." She was feminine, petite and very engaging, and before she quite knew what happened she was married to him.
Thompson didn't just adore Trudy. He depended on her. She protected him from himself. He was a wild man. She was a systems person who made everyone feel a part of the plan. She wrote the checks. Mickey never made a decision without running it by her first. "She was his bullshit detector, his eyes and ears," says Thompson's attorney, Phil Bartenetti. "She kept him grounded."
In 1984, Trudy had orthoscopic surgery for a problem with her knee. Her doctors said there was a good chance she might end up in a wheelchair or lose her leg altogether. For Mickey, that was the last straw. "That's it," he said. "I'm going to spend more time with Trudy."
The problem was what to do with his business. Ever since Thompson quit racing himself (Trudy told him she'd divorce him if he entered another off-road Baja race), he'd been putting on races in stadiums with pickup trucks and Baja buggies, much as Goodwin had been doing with motorcycles. "He took a hunk of Baja and put it in [a stadium]," Danny Thompson said at the time. "He would lay down 1,100 sheets of plywood to protect the field and cover that with 25 million pounds of dirt." Then, to keep the spectators from being bored, he ran off something like 18 off-road truck and buggy races in three hours.
But even though the shows ran like clockwork, they still didn't make any money. Sometimes, Thompson lost hundreds of thousands in a single night. It wasn't until 1984 (and the cumulative loss of $3 million) that Thompson's races began to break even. That was also the time when he learned that Trudy might never walk again. "All I could think of was, the heck with everything," Thompson would later say in a deposition. "I just got to take care of her. I didn't know what I was going to do. Then the idea came up to merge the companies. I would get paid a good salary and I wouldn't have to work."
Although Thompson considered himself a pretty shrewd negotiator, Goodwin was in another league entirely. In their merger talks, Goodwin held himself out to be a "promotional genius" who understood accounting better than a CPA and who had created a "proven product with Supercross that [threw] off gross and net profit" like a golden retriever shaking itself dry. Goodwin told Thompson he had the experience to take Thompson's company bigtime, put people in the stands and increase profits in everything from the gate to the T-shirt concession.
But the thing that really sold Thompson, Mickey said, was Goodwin's contention that he could protect Thompson from Pace International, a big Houston-based motor-sports entertainment company, which, Goodwin suggested, had imminent plans to move into Southern California, start running truck and Baja buggy events, and drive Thompson out of business.
On April 1, 1984, Thompson and Goodwin signed the merger agreement, which called for what Goodwin would later describe as an 18-month "engagement" period, followed by a full merger after that.
Unfortunately, their first combined production, a race in Indianapolis in the summer of 1984, lost money, and their second event, at the Pontiac, Michigan, Silverdome, went broke before it started. When Thompson made a conference call to Goodwin and his company's president, Jeannie Bear Sleeper, to find out what was going on, Thompson said in the deposition, Sleeper was crying so hard she was incoherent. "She said she didn't know what she was going to do," Thompson said. "We had to write checks. There was no money. And they were going to yank the advertising. We needed over $100,000 to put on the event."
Thompson couldn't understand why the event needed money. As he understood his contract with Goodwin, he was supposed to put in 30 percent, Goodwin would put in 70 percent, and they'd share the profits and losses accordingly. "Then," according to Thompson, "Jeannie Sleeper said, 'Mike, you know, we don't have any money back here. You have got to put money in this thing.' " Thompson was stunned. "I said [to Mike], 'What do you mean you've not put any money in?' Mike said, 'I have never put any money in, and I am not going to put any money in now.' " (In Goodwin's version of this conversation, Sleeper was upset all right, but because Thompson wouldn't put up any cash.) When Thompson subsequently called Goodwin's office to ask for a financial statement, he was told, he said, that Goodwin had issued orders not to give him one.
Realizing now that he'd made a terrible mistake, Thompson demanded his company back. But Goodwin, says Bartenetti, simply told him, "No, I'm going to keep it." At this point, Thompson sued Goodwin to return both his company and all the money he'd lost during the 1984 racing season. Goodwin responded with a $2 million countersuit, charging that Thompson had never made good on his promise to develop an artificial racetrack. Soon enough, 14 lawsuits were flying back and forth like misguided missiles.
Goodwin had never been a stranger to lawsuits. The difference this time around was that he was losing them. In October 1984, a judge ordered the return of Thompson's company. And in May 1986, Thompson won his original lawsuit, with Superior Court Judge Pro Tem Lester Olsen ruling that Goodwin's failure to provide Thompson with financial statements was "an intentional or recklessly careless act designed to mislead Thompson into continuing to advance cash." Olsen awarded Thompson half a million dollars. When interest and attorney's fees were added, the total came to $768,000.
Although Goodwin's friends urged him to settle - "You lost the judgment, pay it off" - Goodwin adamantly refused, saying that Thompson won only because he "lied" in court.
When Thompson realized Goodwin had no intention of paying him, an L.A. County marshal, John Williams, was dispatched to seize Goodwin's Mercedes 380 SEC luxury sedan. But Goodwin and his wife, Diane, cursed out Williams, he would later testify, in such vehement and profane language that he had to threaten first to have the pair arrested, and then to seize the car anyway. At this point, Goodwin transferred his rage from Williams to his business partner: "Mickey Thompson is fucking dead. He doesn't know who he is fucking with."
The first time Mickey Thompson was threatened by Mike Goodwin, he couldn't believe what he was hearing. He had been an off-road racer, a businessman, a promoter, a world land-speed record holder, a man who had been invited to the White House by John F. Kennedy. In all that time, not once had anyone threatened his life over a business deal. "Can you believe this?" Thompson told a friend. "This guy threatened to kill me if he lost the civil suit."
It wasn't only Thompson who was getting threats. Phil Bartenetti says that Goodwin hired a "defrocked Sheriff's deputy" to follow him. Jeff Coyne, a court-appointed trustee whose job it was to collect money from Goodwin's bankruptcy estate, said that on one occasion, when Goodwin was popping pills from a little pillbox, he warned Coyne, "If you don't lighten up, bad things will happen." Mike DeStefano, a former top motorcycle racer who worked for Goodwin before teaming up with Thompson, says that Goodwin called late one night yelling and
Continue reading "MURDER ON THE LAST TURN From L.A. Weekly Magazine"
|
| |
| Permalink |
| |
|
| |
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
|
| "ACTUAL INNOCENCE" --- IRRELEVANT TO THE COURTS? |
| Posted by: Justice On Trial |
| |
If a convicted person can show evidence of his claim of innocence, will the courts listen?
Probably not. Former Live Oak, Florida resident, Roy Wilford Minton, in the 14th year of a life sentence for a crime he claims he did not commit, submitted to an extensive polygraph test in March. Dr. Louis Rovner, one of the top five polygraph examiners in the U.S., confirmed Minton's claim of innocence: "After reviewing, analyzing and evaluating the polygraph test, there is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Minton was telling the truth when he denied sexually molesting his stepdaughter."
Polygraph examinations, if stipulated to by the defense, prosecution and court can be admitted as evidence, and often are, in many states, including Florida. The polygraph is now used extensively, especially in sex offender cases, in the state of Florida, to verify there have been no re-offenses.
However, in spite of the prevalent use of such examinations at many levels of law enforcement and in the court system, since Minton's exam is only evidence of "actual innocence" (as differentiated from a verdict of guilt or innocence resulting from a "fair trial") the courts may consider it irrelevant. William Kent, a prominent Jacksonville attorney, said it best: ".The courts are not receptive to claims of actual innocence as a basis for relief - - - I know that is crazy but that is what the courts say."
Previously, Minton claimed ineffective counsel at trial since his court-appointed attorney failed to present the evidence proving that Minton was never alone with the alleged victim and, because of his physical anomalies, could not possibly have performed the acts described in court. Moreover, Minton can prove that the place where the acts were alleged to have occurred did not exist at the time of the incident and photo-verified that the physical conditions in another area that was similar to what the victim described rendered it a physical impossibility for the acts to have occurred there. There is no DNA or other direct evidence linking Minton to the crimes and the medical examination of the victim failed to indicate the alleged acts ever occurred in the way described by her.
Minton's attorney also failed to present to the jury the body of evidence pointing to coercion of the victim by the investigators who questioned her, some of whom were unqualified to conduct such interviews. The release of the 22nd defendant wrongfully convicted in the Kern County, California child molestation trials, is indicative of law enforcement fervor to convict overriding psychological prudence in the handling of children who are being questioned. In addition, the jury at Minton's trial was never presented with the evidence of additional coercion by family members, some previously convicted of sexual crimes, who had opportunities to have molested the victim during the times and at the place alleged by the victim.
A new writ of habeas corpus will soon be filed on Minton's behalf in the hopes the courts and prosecutors will consider the issue of Minton's claim of, and significant evidence indicating, his actual innocence.
For more information on this case, contact Justice On Trial, 877-275-9463 or Info@JusticeOnTrial.org.
|
| |
| Permalink |
| |
|
| |
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
|
| BUNK JUSTICE |
| Posted by: Justice On Trial |
| |
WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALLTelevised Interview with John Bradley from Justice On Trial
March 8, 2006, Reno, Nevada
BROKEN JUSTICE: John Bradley, Director of Justice On Trial, an advocacy organization for the wrongfully accused, and host, Dennis Grover, discuss the "CSI EFFECT" on juries along with other television programs (1/2 of the nation's top 20 programs deal with crime) some of which portray the justice system in dramatically naive and, often, totally false perspectives. Bradley explains the IRRELEVANCE OF INNOCENCE and PRESUMPTION OF GUILT so pervasive in the legal system in the U.S. today. Bradley explains that it is guilt not innocence that is presumed from arrest through conviction.
Other topics discussed are the dangers of plea-bargaining as one of the reasons for the amazingly large population of innocents in American jails and the justice system's reliance on the honesty of those administering it with the disappointments that dependence brings.
Dennis Grover: "Good evening. Welcome to LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. I've been saying on this show repeatedly and I hope that we can drive this point home tonight and explain a lot of things to you. This country is totally without a justice system. We have a legal system, but we do not have a justice system.
John Bradley has graciously come in tonight to help me out. John has
a website, JusticeOnTrial.org and has been studying this and studying the courts and has been having some successes that he will be talking to you tonight about. John, welcome to the show.
You sent me 2 information sheets, or articles, whatever they are, but
they are your opinion, no they are not your opinion because I have seen this - exactly what you've written going on and many people deny it. Prosecutors will deny that what you are going to tell people tonight actually goes on. It does. Believe me, it does. So, I want to start right out with this article that you wrote about broken justice. What an appropriate name."
John Bradley: "Yeah."
Dennis Grover: "It just simply is not justice. You start out with what you term the CSI effect. Would you give them or me or everybody an overview of what that is?"
John Bradley: "Sure. With regard to the title 'Broken Justice' you've heard of the term that 'Justice is blind', well I've come to believe from what I have seen that it is not only blind, but is brain dead at this point in time. Some of the things you were mentioning have come from dealing with actual cases which we get through our website, so I come to this place, Broken Justice by virtue of the tears and trials of a lot of innocent people who have been reamed by the system.
CSI is one of - the CSI effect is what it is called, and it is not only
called that by me, but by legal professionals, both defense and prosecutorial legal professionals. What it is is that right now on all of our networks, 6 of the top 10 shows deal with crime and justice. Shows like CSI, Cold Case Files, like Law and Order and 2 new ones that are just coming out Injustice on NBC and Convictions on CBS - brand new, hasn't even come out yet - these are sustaining the networks now. They are all about crime and punishment.
For many people and for people who come into juries, their only
experience with a justice system is what they see on these crime shows. They come to see themselves as experts in criminal justice by virtue of what it is they see on these shows. They are using their TV crime busting experience in trying to determine the guilt or innocence of people when they are on the jury. Both defense attorneys and prosecutors are beside themselves with this. They don't know how to deal with it because the jurors who think that they have some sort of expertise are starting to evaluate forensic evidence as an expert might in making a determination of guilt or innocence.
It's gone so far as when a jury is seated, many times they will ask
them if they are fans of these shows so that they can determine whether they are going to have to deal with this particular juror. So it has become a situation where our entertainment is starting to drive the criminal justice system in many ways and it is adversely effecting, unfortunately, what happens in trials."
Dennis Grover: "But one thing that I have to say bout what is on TV on these programs, is they portray that there's justice going on. They portray what should be, but it's not what happens when you're in the courtroom, and actually it is so far from it that it's really appalling if you have experienced both."
John Bradley: "Well that's true. The jurors have expectations of defense attorneys and to what they should bring to show the innocence of the defendant and they have expectations from prosecutors what kind of evidence they should bring to for. Why didn't you do a DNA test on this one? That's really not within the realm of the juror, those kinds of things. One of the biggest problems with the CSI effect is that the jurors tend - because of what they view as their expertise - they tend to grossly misinterpret the concept of reasonable doubt.
They look at a preponderance of evidence as presented by the
prosecutor as evidence of guilt rather than if there is a reasonable doubt to acquit. They discard the idea of reasonable doubt. They don't really understand it. They take this preponderance of evidence and think that the defendant must be guilty and it really - as you were saying, they have greater expectations of both the defense and the prosecution as to what should happen in that courtroom as to what really ever does. This is really - so defense attorneys who don't have the resources to go out and do the investigation that the jury is expecting, don't want those kinds of jurors, and the same with the prosecutors."
Dennis Grover: "But those jurors, I mean the jury, is supposed to be a jury of our peers. It is supposed to be somebody like you. But, like you say, they go in with this concept already in mind of what is supposed to be in there."
John Bradley: "Well it's a warped view of what happens in a courtroom."
Dennis Grover: "Boy, I'll say."
John Bradley: "When what really happens does happen, they're disappointed. And when their expectations aren't met, either from the prosecution or defense, it effects their verdict."
Dennis Grover: "Well they're even not just disappointed, they're - they don't - many jurors I've talked to that have been there, don't even believe it. It's like something foreign from what they think it should be. Which in fact, I think it is."
John Bradley: "Well, it is. The justice system has gone far field from what it was conceived to be. What happens in the courtroom today is nowhere near what the Founding Fathers in devising the system initially envisioned. It's - for example, prosecutors are commissioned and swear under oath to see that justice is done in the courtroom. But they don't.
To them, they interpret justice as changing criminal behavior, as taking
criminals off the street as getting convictions. There's ideological mandate to convict. Irrelevance as far as innocence is concerned, or guilt, is rampant among prosecutors. They don't look at whether or not a defendant is innocent or guilty. They look at if they can convict him. Period. End of story."
Continue reading "BUNK JUSTICE"
|
| |
| Permalink |
| |
|
| |
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
|
| THE REALITY "SPEEDY TRIAL" = QUICK CONVICTION |
| Posted by: Justice On Trial |
| |
By John J. Bradley, Director, Justice On Trial
IS A "SPEEDY TRIAL" CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED?
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." These guarantees ''are the most basic rights preserved by our Constitution;'' fundamental liberties embodied in the Bill of Rights. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes them applicable to all States.
WHAT IS A "SPEEDY TRIAL"?
Most jurisdictions in the U.S. have defined "speedy trial" to be within 75 days of the person's arrest. This Constitutional guarantee is for the protection of both the defendant and society, since persons in jail must be supported at considerable public expense and if a guilty person is mistakenly released they may commit other crimes.
HOW CAN "SPEEDY TRIAL" WORK AGAINST A DEFENDANT?
In most cases, preparation for trial takes much more than two or three months. Defendants are not presumed innocent. They must prove to a jury that there is "reasonable doubt" of guilt. Prosecutors "hold all the cards." Contrary to common belief, courts are not the forum to "see that justice is done," but more a machine to convict. Prosecutors are heavily favored in rulings; most judges are former prosecutors and their role is not of neutral referee, but more to adjudicate and interpret law in a dispute over guilt versus innocence between prosecutor and defendant. Therefore, the defendant must be prepared to show a judge and/or jury why he should be acquitted of a crime that the government has expended months, often years, massive resources and vast amounts of money investigating and formulating a case geared to convict, not necessarily expose the truth.
INNOCENCE IS IRRELEVANT - RESOURCES ARE THE KEY:
In fact, an innocent person has a more difficult time building a defense against what is unknown. Moreover, in the overwhelming percentage of cases, defendants cannot afford to spend as much money and/or time on building a defense as the government does building its case against him. Two or three months is not even enough time for an attorney to become familiar with the facts, allegations and charges in serious cases, let alone build a defense. This is especially true when evidence is weak and suspicion of innocence is strong, for this is when law enforcement and prosecutors, desperate to win, "fudge" on evidence, making defense against false, exaggerated or manufactured evidence extremely difficult. The prosecution is much more prepared to convict a few months following arrest than the defense is to acquit. Prosecutors view every case as a battle to win; conviction the goal and the only acceptable outcome of a trial. They believe that their purpose is to convict, not to judge guilt or innocence; that, they preach, is the province of the court.
Continue reading "THE REALITY "SPEEDY TRIAL" = QUICK CONVICTION"
|
| |
| Permalink |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
