|
|
| |
|
Thursday, November 01, 2007
|
| |
| 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 |
| |
|
| |
Thursday, August 02, 2007
|
| JUDGE AND PROSECUTORS KEEP KEY EVIDENCE FROM JURY IN THOMPSON MURDER TRIAL |
| Posted by: Justice On Trial |
| |
<5 YEARS, TO THE DAY, DEFENSE IN MICKEY THOMPSON MURDER TRIAL RESTS: The defense rested yesterday, December 13th, 5 years to the day Michael Goodwin, creator of Supercross racing, was arrested and charged with orchestrating the murders of Mickey and Trudy Thomson. Mickey Thompson was known as the "Fastest Man Alive" as he was the first to exceed 400 mph.
CASE DISMISSED ONCE: The charges against Goodwin were dismissed in 2004 by Orange County authorities when it was learned that key evidence used to arrest and charge Goodwin was false.
THE TRIAL - FORUM FOR TRUTH & JUSTICE: The American system of justice is based upon the premise that the trial is a forum where the truth is revealed and the officers of the court, judges, defense attorneys and prosecutors are sworn "to see that justice is done."
MICKEY THOMPSON MURDER TRIAL - THE ANTITHESIS: Sadly, the Mickey Thompson murder trial, with final arguments slated for Monday December 18th, 2006, has been the antithesis of that goal as prosecutors fought to keep out evidence that tended to point to Goodwin's possible innocence. Those listed below are but a few examples of prosecutor deception.
FALSE EVIDENCE - ERROR OR FRAUD: Detective Mark Lillienfeld, lead investigator in the Mickey Thompson murder trial is a veteran of more than 20 years on the L.A. Police Force, most as a homicide detective, and has handled more than 100 murder cases. He told the court he made an error and "misread" two ballistics reports, the FBI Ballistics Manual, Smith & Wesson's Tech Manual, when he testified on the stand and included in many affidavits that he had evidence showing that Goodwin provided a murder weapon in the Thompson Murder investigation. In fact, he had unequivocally eliminated Goodwin's gun shortly prior to his testimony and preparation of the documents. Is it really possible that this highly respected homicide detective could have made such an egregious misstep in so important an investigation? It was the defense that forced the D.A. to drop the evidence and the detective to admit gross incompetence and not willful deception
WITNESSES WAIT FOR 10 YEARS AND $1 MILLION REWARD TO COME FORTH: There are no reports of most prosecution witnesses informing the authorities for 10 years and not until a $1 million mega-reward was offered. Many changed what they saw/knew dramatically from their original statements to accommodate the L.A. prosecutor's case. Can there be a connection? Are these witnesses being truthful? Were they coached to change their testimony?
PROSECUTORS ELIMINATE PRIME SUSPECT: Prosecutors fought hard and won in their efforts to exclude a "3rd Party Culpability" suspect against whom there is a mountain of direct evidence. This suspect was excluded because he had/has no ties to Goodwin. There can be no doubt this evidence would have affected jury deliberations.
GOODWIN'S "FINANCIAL MOTIVE" WILDLY EXAGGERATED: Prosecutors either did not carefully review the documents in their possession or simply lied about Goodwin's financial condition in 1988, when Mickey Thompson was murdered. Goodwin owned, and still does, the name SuperBowl of Motocross; he owned the valuable Insport agreement permitting him to run AMA sanctioned races in California facilities, including Anaheim Stadium. He owned the Atlanta Fulton County Stadium that produced more than $200,000 in profits for many years. Mickey Thompson did not ruin Goodwin financially as prosecutors allege.
ALLEGATIONS THAT GOODWIN "FLED" THE US ARE FALSE: The Goodwins, both avid SCUBA divers and underwater photographers had planned the trip to the Caribbean for almost a year before the murders. Goodwin's attorney knew his whereabouts at all times and had advised authorities that Goodwin would be available to come back to the U.S.
INVESTIGATION WAS BOTCHED: The original investigator was ordered to drop the best suspect and pursue Goodwin, who was not a suspect at the time. Robbery was erroneously eliminated in spite of evidence that the murders resulted from an attempted robbery.
BIAS COURT: Although many rulings have obviously favored the prosecution, perhaps the egregious rulings were the judges acceptance of extreme attorney/client privileged material for use by the prosecutors, including a letter to Goodwin's attorney with the subject, "Strategy in the Thompson Murder Charges." Another outrageous example was the unprovoked outburst by an associate of Thompson's sister in the elevator where this person screamed at Elena Saris, Goodwin's defense attorney that she was lying about several issues during the trial. A juror was also in the elevator. Although Saris filed a motion for a mistrial, the judge denied it, inexplicably.
|
| |
| Permalink |
| |
|
| |
|
|
| JUSTICE ON TRIAL TELEVISION INTERVIEW |
| Posted by: Justice On Trial |
| |
Televised Interview of John Bradley, Director of Justice On Trial, by John Grover, host of "With Liberty And Justice For All." July 27, 2005, Reno, Nevada.
Dennis Grover: "Good evening. Welcome to LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. Many times on the show we've talked about the judicial system and/or the legal system and we're going to be doing it again tonight, only as we have explained in the past, we do not have a justice system. We have a legal system. John Bradley who is here with me tonight has come to town to tell us about his organization and how he is working to re-inject justice of all things into the system, from law enforcement, right up to the Judges. We've talked about them all, so he should know what we're dealing with. John, it is a pleasure to have you here on the show."
John Bradley: "Glad to be here."
Dennis Grover: "And you have a real interesting website, JusticeOnTrial.org, - and I'm not supposed to say that so I won't - Justice On Trial is just what it says. That is what you are doing. Is that exactly what you are doing or - "
John Bradley: "Well, not in the traditional sense. We are really putting it before the public and letting them be the jury. In that sense it's "on trial" before the public."
Dennis Grover:: "But we are supposed to be the people judging other people, but that's not what is happening."
John Bradley: "No. There are major problems with our system, and as you pointed out, it is a legal system not necessarily a justice system. The main problem is that the system depends upon the honesty of those who administer it. Unfortunately, there are as many dishonest people within the justice system, or within the legal system as there are outside it and that leads to problems with defendants being wrongfully accused and wrongfully convicted. That is where we come in."
Dennis Grover: "But it starts actually right at the law enforcement level. We have good cops and bad cops. This used to be called a game; it's not anymore. There in fact are good ones and bad ones. And, attorneys - I've discussed attorneys many times, and I think - I've heard 99% of them give the other 1% a bad name, I think that is true. I have not had any success with attorneys. And, there are so many studies out there that say what is the lowest respect for any profession and attorneys end up on the bottom. And then they put on a black robe and become a Judge and then all of a sudden they're exalted by the same people."
John Bradley: "Well you're right. The attorneys in the defense system are part of the problem, but before it gets to that, the law enforcement is really in a situation where it is not so much "good cops/bad cops". Even the good cops are guilty of what we might call a declaration of guilt. What that is, is when anyone is arrested the law enforcement who arrest them, wouldn't arrest anybody if they thought they were innocent. When we feel that presumption of innocence in the system is what follows it through, it's not true. You're really presumed guilty from arrest on through.
And when an officer arrests someone, they believe they are guilty. That follows them through and often and we see this many times in high profile cases and throughout the system, we see where a person has been arrested and immediately all of the evidence that is released is about this person, this suspect, and we don't see anything about anybody else. Much of that evidence is developed after this declaration occurs. The police officers often will use as evidence that which they speculate is going to be evidence and then they go out and develop it. And this is really a problem with the system.
When an affidavit is presented to a Judge for arrest or for search and seizure, and for any procedure by law enforcement, the Judge has no way of knowing if that evidence in that affidavit is accurate or true. He assumes that because the officer is a sworn officer of the law, that he is going to represent accurately and truthfully everything in there that is evidence to the Judge and therefore the Judge signs it. He has no way of checking it.
It is a system - "
Dennis Grover: "I've seen it many times - like you say, it is a declaration of guilt automatically when you are arrested. Then it becomes your function personally to establish, I guess, a declaration of innocence to prove your innocence. And if you don't have a lot of money, what do you do? An attorney looks at you with a straight face and says, 'Give me $10,000 and I'll take a look at it.' What is a person - what are the people going to do?"
John Bradley: "Well, the system is geared for those who have wealth. Public Defenders are overloaded, they are inexperienced, they are often dedicated, yet lack the resources to really appropriately defend a defendant. Now, when I say appropriately, I mean as in the cases of O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake where no cost was too much for investigation and for the number of attorneys that represented these people and so on. The average person could never in a million years afford that.
I had a case today, people called me and said that their son has been wrongfully accused. There is someone else who it is certain committed this crime. Their son has been in jail 12 years for this crime - "
Dennis Grover: "Twelve years?!"
John Bradley: "Yes, 12 years, because he plea bargained out and they are trying to get that overturned. They have spent over $200,000 dollars - the family is in danger of losing their home, they can't do anything.
They contacted me in hopes I might be able to do something with them. As it turned out, we had an inquiry from Dr. Phil's staff looking for a case like this. I am in hopes that I'm going to be able to get these people on there so they can present their case. They are out of funds, they cannot get an attorney. The Public Defender that they had had no experience with murder, which is what this was, and they are beside themselves.
This happens time and time again. In fact, those in the system - law enforcement, Judges, attorneys - admit that 5% of those in our jails are innocent. We believe that is low. We believe it is as much as 10%. There are over 2,000,000 in the jails in this country today. That would mean by our estimates, 200,000 and by theirs, 100,000 who are innocent. The United States incarcerates more people in our jails than any other country on this planet."
Dennis Grover: "Right."
John Bradley: "By comparison, Canada is 116 people per 100,000 population. The United States is 724 per 100,000. You mean to tell me that the citizens of this country are 7 times worse or more criminal than - of course not. It is our justice system that has really gone amuck. We are called "Law and Order" but we - I believe that prosecutors have a conviction to convict. They are paid on their conviction record, their reputation is based upon their conviction record, they are paid to convict, not to acquit. We see the results of this by the great number of people in our jails.
The Los Angels jail, with over 7,000 inmates is the largest inmate population of any building on this planet. And, it is just astonishing to me that we can incarcerate this many people knowing that as much as, by their admission, 5% are innocent, and by our estimates as much as 10% are innocent.
An organization much like ours, in fact we emulate ourselves after a non-profit organization called "Project Innocence" which is sponsored and administered by Barry Scheck, who you may have heard about. He has written a book called ACTUAL INNOCENCE. In that book he talks about some of the cases which they have been able to exonerate through DNA evidence. Project Innocence is now up to 159 people who have been exonerated in the last 8 years; some off of death row, some having served 20 years or more. The exoneration is irrefutable when it is DNA. Even with irrefutable DNA evidence, often times prosecutors still will not release defendants that they have convicted. You can read in ACTUAL INNOCENCE, it has taken as many as 2 years to get a defendant out of jail after he has been 100% exonerated on irrefutable DNA evidence."
Dennis Grover: "But can you imagine the damage to your mind, your body, your family, everything, after being in jail for a dozen years, and finally getting out?"
John Bradley: "Well I don't have to imagine it because a friend of mine of almost 40 years now, has been in jail 4 years without a trial and he and I talk almost daily. He is the defendant who is now featured on the website, JusticeOnTrial.org, the main case that we are now dealing with, and actually the case that Justice On Trial was originally set up to handle and after I saw what was happening to him and the system in general, I took the Justice On Trial into a non-profit status, and now we are handling other cases. But talking with him and seeing that - his brother dying while he is in prison, his mother dying while he is in prison. I know he is innocent, they know he is innocent, but it is a political prosecution because his enemies are wealthy and powerful in southern California. Everybody knows it, and the only way we are going to get him out is by messaging the system, working within it, and proving his innocence."
Dennis Grover: "But he's got to be - I would be a basket case. I would be just a raving crazy person. I - "
John Bradley: "Well, if he didn't have someone like me, he would. There is just no way he could survive. What we look at is all of the other prisoners that he comes in contact with who don't have an advocate outside like myself or other groups like mine who perform these services for people who they believe are innocent or who have proof they are innocent.
Imagine being in jail for this length of time knowing you are innocent, knowing that you shouldn't be there, and not having anybody to help you at all. I mean how - "
Dennis Grover: "I know. Again, it goes back to money. If you have a lot of money, you have a lot of justice. Now, speaking of money, I'm assuming that probably you are like all other organizations, you get a big bag of money from the government to fight your fight, right?"
John Bradley: "Well, I wish we did. Thus far - when we set it up on non-profit, until that time, my wife and I were funding it 100%. Since then, we have gotten contributions from supporters and those interested in helping those who are innocent and wrongly accused, so we survive on donations."
Dennis Grover: "That's the case I see all the time. People who are doing something good and helping people, just cannot get anywhere near any kind of real help that is necessary.
Now you know we have a D.A. in this town that is just a total - I can't say it on TV. We have this District Attorney that is just awful, and I'll say it out loud. He is awful, and he has proven it. But he's got all of these government grants coming down the pike paying him to be awful and he's doing it."
John Bradley: "Well I think that is a requisite, isn't it?"
Dennis Grover: "It sure seems like it. I see it all over the country. They - you know, the nicest people start out and turn into this horrible, horrible person."
John Bradley: "Well let me tell you a story about a D.A. The main case on Justice On Trial that we are dealing with now is the Mickey Thompson murder prosecution. You've probably heard of Mickey Thompson. He was known as the "Fastest Man On Earth" in the 60's. He was gunned down in his driveway in March of 1988 by unknown assailants and the person that we are working with, who has been charged, was charged 13 years after the murders with orchestrating those murders.
How the D.A. gets involved in this, is the sister of the victim hired an attorney - a young attorney at the time - to help establish the times of death of Mickey and his wife Trudy so that a larger share of the estate would come to her and she would inherit the businesses. Well 13 years later, this young attorney that she hired to help her establish the time of death, is now the District Attorney of Orange County. He is the one who prosecuted 13 years after the murders, Michael Goodwin, who is being charged with these murders and he worked with the victim's sister in many campaigns. She contributed to his campaign. There's a real, let's call it synergy there, between the 2 of them.
And, when he prosecuted our defendant, we said that there is no connection. The crimes actually occurred in Los Angeles. We maintained to the courts that it shouldn't be tried there, and after 30 months the court came out with a ruling that said to the contrary, 'The prosecuting county is not connected with the murders at all. That is the problem.' This is from a 3-Judge panel district appeal court.
Mike served 30 months in jail improperly, illegally and the case was dismissed with this ruling. And it was by this attorney who is now the District Attorney and who is being charged with 83 other anomalies, let's call them, in Orange County - influenced pedaling, all these kinds of things, so he is probably the rule rather than the exception as far as District Attorneys go. So that's my story."
Dennis Grover:: "Uh huh. Well, we've got one very similar, and I'm sure we could compare notes all night long."
John Bradley: "As I say, I think it's probably a prerequisite."
Dennis Grover: "Yeah. And it's sad when you have to sit here and have a 'My D.A. is worse than your D.A.' debate. That's really sad."
John Bradley: "Well, it really is true, and I think if you go up and down the state, there no doubt are good District Attorneys that are dedicated to serving justice, which by the way, is what a prosecutor is commissioned to do, is to serve justice to make sure that justice is served in the courts. But that's not the way it works. They want to win, they want to convict."
Dennis Grover: "Yeah, right."
John Bradley: "Innocence is irrelevant to prosecutors."
Dennis Grover:: "Well in my studies and in growing up, and just general learning, there was a thing out there that you automatically felt called the benefit of doubt. What happened to that?"
John Bradley: "Well the benefit of doubt - we all believe that the court system is a playing field that is heavily slanted towards the defendant. And that the Judge is sort of a referee, and that the benefit of the doubt, that is you aren't convicted if there is a reasonable doubt. You are given the benefit of that doubt as a defendant."
Dennis Grover: "Right."
John Bradley: "That's not the way it works at all. The Judges are just about all former prosecutors. The playing field is slanted heavily against the defendant or towards the prosecutor. The Judge favors the prosecutor heavily. We see these stories about someone pleading insanity and getting out on a technicality. That happens in less than 2% of the cases. There is no equity in our system and you are not presumed innocent. The burden of proof is not upon the prosecutor, it really is upon the defendant to show that he didn't commit this crime."
Dennis Grover: "Right."
John Bradley: "Take for example, what is called a preliminary hearing. It is supposed to be a presentation of evidence by the prosecutor that would determine whether or not there is enough evidence against a defendant to conduct a trial. But in reality, it's a rubber stamp for the prosecution to move on to the next step. All you have to prove at a preliminary hearing is that a crime was committed, and that the defendant could possibly have done it.
That is all you have to prove, and the defense really can't defend against the evidence presented at a preliminary hearing because if they do, then the prosecution knows what the defense is, and at trial, which almost inevitably results from a preliminary hearing, the prosecutor will work around the evidence that was presented in defense at the preliminary hearing. So defendants' defense attorneys at a preliminary hearing, do not make a defense at all. They merely, if it's some egregious thing that they can knock out there, they will do it. But if it's other than that, it's a rubber stamp.
Dennis Grover: "Yeah. So, it's a system of procedure, not of justice. That's my observation. It doesn't have anything to do with who did what to who and when, it's how you proceed with it. You dot all your I's and cross all your T's the way the Judge says, and if you don't, it doesn't matter who did what to who."
John Bradley: "Well, even worse, so much of what is presented even at trial is prosecution evidence which is false, or has been exaggerated. Now, when you say that to somebody, they just can't imagine that our system would allow that to happen. I think we were talking earlier and I said that in the affidavits that were used to arrest this defendant and seize his property and so on and so forth, 24 false statements - provably false statements - one of them was that the arresting officer said to the Judge in the affidavit, 'There is evidence to show that this defendant provided a murder weapon to the killers.'
In fact, and we now have proof of this, this detective, a top homicide defective, um detective in the Los Angeles Police Department in fact had an early ballistics test right after the murders in 1988 and one he himself conducted just before the arrest which eliminated the gun owned by the defendant from the universe of guns that were used in the murders. So it was impossible for the gun to have been given to the killers and he said he had evidence to show that that happened. This was just 1 of 24 statements, almost all as nearly as strongly false as that."
Dennis Grover: "Well there is a term, and I learned this on a show from someone who was very knowledgeable in this, but it is a very accepted term for law enforcement and attorneys. It's called 'testilying' instead of testifying. The Judges know it's going on. They condone it, they - and it's actually given a name and it's thrown around like, 'Well, I've been out testilying this afternoon.' They just do it. That's a sin!"
John Bradley: "Well there's good reason for it. Law enforcement, as I said, make a declaration of guilt and then they develop evidence. In order to see how this works and why it does, I might recommend a film. It's a feature film, call INSOMNIA. You may have already seen it. You probably wouldn't have gotten out of it what I am about to tell you. Al Pacino, Robin Williams and Hilary Swank are the 3 stars, so it's a top-grade feature film made in 2002. But in this, an L.A. police officer has been brought up on charges by Internal Affairs for falsifying evidence in a murder crime and he is asked why he did that, and his reason was that he had decided that this defendant was guilty and thought because there wasn't enough evidence, he might get off, so he went and planted evidence to make sure this person got convicted. So he declares this guilt, developed evidence to ensure his conviction, and this happens more than we know. It is just insidious.
And what happens to police officers, even the best police officers, they - and in this case, this movie, the defendant that he planted evidence on was child molester. He had committed the most heinous type of crime, so all of a sudden you start to think, 'Well, maybe that's justified.' And this is what the officers think. I'm getting this terrible person off the street by fudging a little bit."
Dennis Grover: "But he's being the Judge."
John Bradley: "He is. And this happens all of the time, and with this particular officer, the one that I'm talking about in the Mickey Thompson murder case, 23 years on the force and we assume that throughout his career every once in a while he came across a situation like this where fudging a little bit would help him get the conviction. It did. And so the next time, he fudges a little more to get a conviction. And pretty soon, he's got this great conviction record, and once they have declared the guilt, for them to back down is embarrassing, it's a problem for them to do that so they don't. They can't."
Dennis Grover: "Right."
John Bradley: "That's what happened - this officer came to believe, we think, in the guilt of our defendant and made these statements about the evidence, but then nothing added up. And he wasn't going to back off of that, so he started developing evidence in order to help him get him prosecuted."
Dennis Grover: "As absurd as what you just said sounds, I know it is a fact, and most people do. I even see - there was a poster out for a while that you'd put by your front door that says, 'There's no way, officer, you're coming into my home without a warrant, unless you strip naked because I don't want you bringing in anything that is going to cause me grief.' I mean people are concerned about that. It didn't used to be that way, but - and I did notice you made a mistake when you said detective. You said 'defective'."
John Bradley: "Did I?"
Dennis Grover: "I don't think that was a mistake."
John Bradley: "I didn't realize that."
Dennis Grover:: "I think it is true because I've seen a lot of this defective -"
John Bradley: "Well we refer to him s a defective detective, so that's probably why that slipped out. We also refer to him in light of the problem with the gun and the ballistics test, we call him Mr. Ballistics. When confronted with this, he said, 'Well, it was just an oversight. I just made a mistake. We went and filed a formal complaint with Internal Affairs at the Los Angeles Police Department. Twenty four charges, each supported with evidence.
The Internal Affairs Department held onto it for 7 months and we received a 3 paragraph letter from his immediate superior, a Capt. Peevey (sp?), who said, 'Thank you for letting us know about our personnel. We are interested in learning bout any problems the citizens encounter with our personnel, and we certainly have looked into it. We thank you for letting us know. We hope that your next encounter with the Los Angeles Police Department is more pleasant.' That was it. That was the end of it. We were just incredulous and each of these 24 false statements and evidence tampering and so on that went on is a felony, yet it was totally ignored. This happens all the time."
Dennis Grover: "That's because you're not one of them. And if you are one of them, I don't care how bad you are. And I'm not going to sit here and say that every one of them is bad, because there are good cops, good attorneys - that's as far as I'll go. I was going on to Judges, but I haven't seen that yet."
John Bradley: "There are - "
Dennis Grover: "I'm sure there are - "
John Bradley: "There are dedicated law enforcement, in fact probably most are, and probably many of those who do this are dedicated in kind of a perverted sort of way. Like I just said, they believe that they are performing a service that is beneficial to all citizens by removing these criminals off of the streets. Now if they have doubts about whether this person is guilty or not, sometimes that gets pushed aside, and they figure, 'Well, this is a dirt bag anyway, I don't care - "
Dennis Grover: "Yes. Exactly."
John Bradley: " - let's just go and I need this conviction for this month's promotion. And many, though, are - there is a thing that I just learned about that is affected our justice system and it really plays into what we are talking about here. It's called the CSI effect. What that is, is citizens who serve on juries or have contact with law enforcement or the judicial system, have come to expect certain things from those agencies that isn't there. Because they see LAW AND ORDER and CSI and CRIMINAL INTENT and all these television shows that are so well done and they see officers doing all these amazingly intricate studies into evidence and so on and so forth - none of which really happens in real life."
Dennis Grover: "Right."
John Bradley: "And it's effecting juries. It's effecting how people relate to the whole judicial system and law enforcement and the law enforcement is taking advantage of this because people think that they do this in order to develop a case and if they run across something that shows the innocence, they will bring that up. In reality, in many cases they do not; they hide it because it doesn't lead to conviction."
Dennis Grover: "That's been proven time and time again. So what do we do? How do we stop this, John?"
John Bradley: "I don't think it will ever stop. These are just human beings and they have foibles just like all of us, but I think we can reduce that great number of incidences like this happening by exposing it. This is what we tried to do with the Internal Affairs complaint, but we stopped because this defendant right after we got the case dismissed with the ruling I just pointed out, was charged in Los Angeles with the same crime 13 years after Los Angeles already turned it down. The political influence was sufficient that the L.A.D.A. charged. He's been in jail now on these charges, same case, for almost a year, he's going on a total of 4 years in jail now, with no trial and so we're trying to get the case dismissed again. It's an uphill battle because of the wealth and political influence that is opposing us in this."
Dennis Grover: "Right. Well, after you find somebody that's been in jail for a long time, and you prove they are innocent and out they come onto the street, does somebody look them in the eye, and say at least 'I'm sorry' or - "
John Bradley: "Never."
Dennis Grover:: "They just cut them loose? They rip 12 years out of their life and then they just cut them loose?"
John Bradley: "In some states, I think California, they'll give them $100 a day that they were in and they release them and it's a 'We were only doing our job.'. You'll never here them apologize. You'll never hear a prosecutor apologize for a conviction. He'll blame it on the jury, he'll blame it on the Judge, you know, 'All we do is present the evidence to a jury and that's it.'"
Dennis Grover: "They're just doing their job."
John Bradley: "No responsibility. Prosecutors are almost immune from prosecution. They have a total impunity. There's a book that I'd like to recommend that your viewers read if they'd like to learn more about this. Well, there's ACTUAL INNOCENCE by Barry Scheck, which points out the DNA exonerations. Another one, by a Pulitzer Prize winning author, Edward Humes, is called MEAN JUSTICE. This is a story of a prosecution in Kern County. While this prosecution was going on, there was the child molestation prosecutions that were going on at the same time there in Huntington Beach, the McMartin case - I couldn't believe what I was reading.
That this could happen in the United States in the 21st Century, is astonishing. You should read MEAN JUSTICE. The good thing about the book, is its written in an entertaining sort of way, as I say, he's a very good writer, a Pulitzer Prize winner, but what he does, is he endnotes every fact that he cites in there so that you can go to the back of the book and see who was interviewed, when this occurred, and it's all documented. So everything he says in this book, is documented fact. It will curl your toes to see what went on in this particular case and peripheral to it."
Dennis Grover: "What really upsets me is knowing that everything you are saying is true. I wish I didn't but - how, well I know how they got where they are; we let them. But we have to hold them accountable and now they are hiding behind government immunity or - they're all - "
John Bradley: "Judicial immunity."
Dennis Grover: "Yeah, judicial immunity. Well, I'm sorry Your Honor, you are not God and you have no immunity. You know somewhere, sometime, they have to pay personally."
John Bradley: "Well, rarely do they though. Rarely."
Dennis Grover: "I know, I know, and that's the problem."
John Bradley: "And even when exposed, you'll get a defendant out, you'll show that this prosecutor, this Judge or whatever may have been making improper illegal rulings, whatever - even during the case of a trial, you see it happening time and time again. The prosecution will come in and do something terrible. They won't provide evidence that they should have or they'll present false evidence or whatever it is. Rarely does anything happen to them. It's usually, 'Well prosecutor, you can't do that kind of thing. Don't do that again.' That's it. In this case that I told you about earlier, over 500 pieces of evidence have been withheld in this case and we have asked, asked and asked, and filed motion after motion after motion - "
Dennis Grover: "But you see it all the time and you see it on the national level. I mean some of the major incidences - the 9-1-1 stuff. There are thousands of questions and evidence that it's obvious that it's just simply you can't bring it up."
John Bradley: "Well there is a tactic that is common in our justice system that I am calling the "law of the jungle". What this is is as you probably know, in a trial situation, the defense is entitled to see the evidence that the prosecution has against them. This is done in the form of discovery. This happens in civil and criminal cases as well.
So, to give you a good example, in this case, the law of the jungle was applied by the same detective. His affidavit didn't entitle him to any documents from the defendant's home, but he confiscated 118 legal boxes of documents, some clearly marked "attorney-client privileged", some with subject matter to his defense attorney regarding the Mickey Thompson murder prosecution case. This is attorney-client privileged material and normally what should happen is the arresting officer/confiscating officer should bring in what is called the special master. This is sort of an ombudsman who comes in and looks at the material to be confiscated and determines whether it is attorney-client privileged and if it is, it's not confiscated and if it is, it's confiscated. Well, he did none of that.
He was not entitled to take any, but he took it all. So he takes it and he then Xeroxes everything/copies everything as discovery and sends it back to the defense attorney. He copies old rock-n-roll posters, he copies letters to this guy's wife, pictures of him and his family, all of this he copies and charges him a quarter a page for, and sends 400,000 documents back in the form of discovery.
Now on the surface that doesn't seem quite so bad, except when you consider in order to find out what the evidence really is, you have to go through all of that. If you are paying your attorney $300-$400 an hour, this gets big. If you have a paralegal, you're talking $75 an hour to go through this to find out what is pertinent and what isn't. And what we did in this case was one of the advantages, if you will, of him being in jail for that 30 months, was that we shipped all the stuff into him, and he went through it all and we did briefs on all of the accurate evidence and that is how we were ale to uncover the gun thing and some of these other anomalies in the affidavits because we went through all of that discovery.
Most defendants can't do that. They have no one that takes into them, they don't have the wherewithal for anybody to do anything with what they find, and so - not only did he copy 400,000 documents, but he changed them all around. He took the signature page off of one contract, and put it onto another one and jumbled everything so that it made it more difficult for us to figure it out."
Dennis Grover: "And so justice becomes a game."
John Bradley: "It is a game to them. And it's a game that they will win. They set out to convict, not to acquit."
Dennis Grover: "Well what happened to our courts, to the guilt and innocent thing?"
John Bradley: "As I say, innocence is irrelevant to prosecutors. They are there to do justice, but they don't practice justice. They practice what - "
Dennis Grover: "This should be the Judge, the person, who sitting up there in the black dress - "
John Bradley: "But he's a former prosecutor."
Dennis Grover: "I know. I know. That's the problem with the whole thing; one of them."
John Bradley: "All you have to be to be a Judge, is an attorney. Period. End of story. You don't have to have any experience - even at having been in a courtroom. As long as you have a California BAR card you can be a Judge. And these are the people who are supposed to adjudicate these things that involve people's lives."
Dennis Grover: "Yeah, yeah."
John Bradley: "We had it happen in this case many, many times where the prosecutor out and out lied. There was no question. He presented facts which were not misrepresentations, not misunderstandings, but actual lies. We brought it up and the Judge says, 'Well now, you can't do that. You're going to have to bring them the correct thing and don't do that anymore. It goes on and on every time."
Dennis Grover: "Right."
John Bradley: "We all believe that the defendant is favored; that he is given the benefit of the doubt. But he never is given the benefit of the doubt."
Dennis Grover:: "It's the brotherhood again."
John Bradley: "It is."
Dennis Grover: "The British Admiralty Registry. For those of you who don't know what "BAR" means, that what it is. Now figure that one out."
John Bradley: "I didn't realize that."
Dennis Grover:: "British Admiralty Registry."
John Bradley: "Really?"
Dennis Grover: "Yeah. That's the BAR Association." Well, it's a whole other show, believe me. We've gone into the Admiralty thing and the courts and how they work and how they are commercial. And the other mistake that people make and it's a natural mistake, because you are not informed, is going into the court waving the Constitution.
These are not constitutional courts. These are commercial courts. These are operated under commercial law. So when you go in waving your constitution, saying, 'I want my rights,' and they ignore the, well you don't have those rights. And if you know that, then it's a whole other ball game. Even if you do know it and you confront them with this as frivolous and they throw you out anyway. It's just an amazing thing that is taking place here and I feel so sorry for the guy that goes to the BAR when he comes up to a guy who is a member of the BAR, because they're 2 totally different animals. One is just a good person, and the other is an attorney."
John Bradley: "Well, one of our big problems in this country is that the Constitution is poorly understood, but our judicial system is really poorly understood by all of us. It is a game. It is a game of winning."
Dennis Grover: "Absolutely."
John Bradley: "The defense attorneys are equally as bad as the prosecutors, and as I said earlier, often a big part of the problem. A defense attorney who is a private sector often goes as far as the money and then says we have to plea bargain out; there is no more money."
Dennis Grover: "Right."
John Bradley: "And this person has a choice of plea bargaining out and often he is innocent and knows he's innocent - everybody knows he's innocent, but they need a conviction, so they plea bargain out or go to a Public Defender. While many Public Defenders are dedicated attorneys who are performing a public service, many are new attorneys, or inexperienced and this is how they are getting their experience to become high paid attorneys in a private firm. They're all overloaded and they have many more cases than they can adequately handle. Also, they are not given the resources that are necessary in order to conduct a fair trial."
Dennis Grover: "Well they don't conduct an investigation."
John Bradley: "Very little. Very little."
Dennis Grover: "And that's what I heard on JUANITA (?), they call them Public Pretenders because that's what they are doing."
John Bradley: "Well I have to say though, there's a fly in the ointment here as far as how a defendant can achieve a good defense or a better defense without a lot of money. And that fly in the ointment is the media. Now, the media reports what they are told by law enforcement. In fact, law enforcement and the judiciary in the collective are known as the authorities.
So, whatever they say is printed. They don't have to prove anything. They just say, 'This is under investigation; our investigation shows Joe Blow was here, etc., and they don't have to support that. However, if you give the media reason to doubt and they investigate, which is happening in our case with CBS, they have gone out an investigated on this. They have spent a lot of money on investigation in this case in order to come up with - we're going to air again as soon as this case is resolved finally."
Dennis Grover: "They will put it out there?"
John Bradley: "They have, yeah."
Dennis Grover: "They have?"
John Bradley: "There's a lot of dedicated people - it's more dramatic to uncover a problem with the investigation like Jon Bennet - all the Ramsey - the parents were accused at the outsight, and as it turns out, that probably was not the right thing to do, and there is a whole flap on that. So, generally speaking, the media, if there is a liaison with the defendant, the defense attorney and the media can be helpful in exposing some of these things that otherwise wouldn't come up.
We have gone to several of the media. We have some friends in the media now that when we bring up something and document it, they print it or broadcast it. It helps us to expose these problems and that's one of the functions that Justice On Trial hopes to achieve through media.
Our goal is to produce a television show series, weekly or at some interval, that will present cases of the wrongly accused in the hopes of making some sort of exposure of a problem and getting support for the defendant or exposing it to the point where the authorities re-examine the case or whatever the case may be. The program is going to be called JUCTICE ON TRIAL tentatively. We are in the pre-production phase of that now - "
Dennis Grover: "Good."
John Bradley: " - It will also be sponsor, grant and contribution based. We hope to get that started early next year and be able to present ideally once a week a case of someone wrongly convicted and help change that for the defendant."
Dennis Grover: "I really hope that works John, and I congratulate you for doing it. My only reservation, as I've seen time and time again, major networks that will do an investigation on something that is wrong and get it into production right up to the end, and then because of political pressure or sponsors, it's never put out there.
The prime example, and I can't network the network, although it was FOX, that did the growth hormone thing with the cattle. Two investigators went out, they found everything; found out all the bad stuff and there was some bad stuff. There was major money in production, ready to go on the air and report and one of their sponsors who happened to manufacture that particular hormone, threatened them and they never put it on. So people don't know. And it's still, to this day, going on. I just hope, I really hope that you can get CBS to do it. I mean I just -"
John Bradley: "I do too. And, frankly, the first 2 airings - we've had two 48 HOURS INVESTIGATES episodes already - were heavily slanted against our defendant because of the information they got from his opposition. And in many of the things that we did refute, they ran anyway; that's true.
But I've been working them and I believe now that we've reached some sort of plateau, where they now see that what went on before - and I won't know this until it airs - but you have to look at it - and the overview is that the Founding Fathers established Freedom of the Press not so that we could all say what we wanted, but although the government of the United States is a system of checks and balances, as we all know, the check that is sort of the wild card is the media. It is the whistle blower. It is the one who revealed the Nixon problems, the Watergate, you know all of those things are the result of media exposure. These are the possibilities that the media can perform, but it really takes some dedicated journalists and broadcasters to do this."
Dennis Grover: "But it's us too. We're the ones that have to put the pressure on the media."
John Bradley: "Well - and/or a liaison - "
Dennis Grover. Not just John Bradley and his organization. It's everybody; everybody watching everybody in this room. You have to demand the truth."
John Bradley: "That's right. And people say, 'How can I do that?'. Well, by watching programs like this, by making contributions to organizations like ours, of which there are several, and by learning about the problems with the system through the media and also through books like the ones I recommended - ACTUAL INNOCENCE, MEAN JUSTICE - and even be entertained and go see a film and learn why a police officer might do this kind of thing and feel like he's doing the right thing and be entertained at the same time."
Dennis Grover: "And for you watching out there, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Do not, under any circumstances, take what we say to be true. Find out for yourself. Don't listen to us except for the fact that, 'Oh my goodness, could this be going on?' Go out there and find out, because when you start uncovering rocks, it's everywhere."
John Bradley: "One of the things that we've done with Justice On Trial is there are tremendous amounts of resources on the website where people can go to do exactly what you are talking about. They can go to learn about these books I'm talking about, they can go see other cases that are being handled across the country, where they can go if they have a case that they want to help expose, where they can go and find organizations that will be helpful to them in that. The tremendous amount of resources that we built into the website to help people do exactly what you are talking about."
Dennis Grover: "Yeah, they've got to find out. And the other thing is a message to Your Honor and You Esquire, if we're wrong, come down here. We'll give you equal time. Come down and tell us we're wrong; prove to us we're wrong because I really wish we were wrong."
John Bradley: "I do too. And I'd like to be out of a job."
Dennis Grover: "Me too. This is ridiculous, that we're even here. But we are, and we will be if we can help. And I know that is exactly what you are doing. I've read your website, I've read several of the cases, and I know how tough it is to do something like this, especially when there is no funding. I mean we have basically the same thing doing this show, but - "
John Bradley: "And we are up against the most powerful resources that exists - the government - "
Dennis Grover: "Exactly - "
John Bradley: " - in what we do, and when there is political corruption as there is in the Mickey Thompson case, it is almost impossible to do, even when you do have the funds and resources. We're fighting an uphill battle, but we are keeping the fight going."
Dennis Grover: "But it's persistence."
John Bradley: "Uh huh."
Dennis Grover: "But what they do is they try to wear you down. They run you out of money and then wear you down, and you give up and they win. And people - I understand it in some cases. I've seen people devastated; their lives, their family, everything because of some prosecutor somewhere, or some defective detective - I kind of like that - who starts the ball rolling and you end up caught in the middle of it."
John Bradley: "It's a tragedy. It really is, that the system has been perverted by those who would use their power and influence for nefarious purposes."
Dennis Grover: "Right."
John Bradley: "And the perversion is rampid. When you consider the number of those that are convicted in this country compared to everyone else - even Russia has only 524 per 100,00 versus our 700 in chains. (?not clear?) When you consider this number of convictions in this country, something is wrong. We aren't that much worse than the rest of this world."
Dennis Grover: "But there is a moral absence of some sort, because if I could say that I know that 5% of the people of jail are innocent, I couldn't live with myself. I couldn't deal with that myself if I knew I was part of that."
John Bradley: "It's collateral damage."
Dennis Grover: "I know, I've heard that one too."
John Bradley: "That's what it is."
Dennis Grover:: "And I've had people just regurgitate that, not even realizing what they are saying."
John Bradley: "That's the way they look at it - collateral damage."
Dennis Grover:strong> "Yeah. So, John, I've always said that Your Honor is a term that is earned. Your Honor out there, this is Your Honorable John Bradley. You're doing a great job."
John Bradley: "Thank you."
Dennis Grover: "Thank you for watching. We'll see you next week, unless we really pissed you off." last appeal Goodwin won, resulting in a dismissal, took 17 months
|
| |
| Permalink |
| |
|
| |
|
|
| Michael Goodwin, Wrongfully Convicted of Double Murder |
| Posted by: Justice On Trial |
| |
In the Pasadena courthouse, on March 1st, 2007, Michael Goodwin was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences, for the murders of Mickey and Trudy Thompson, by Judge Teri Schwartz. Schwartz denied a motion by the defense for a re-trial, in spite of the obvious, gross judicial errors she made, all favoring the prosecutors. The defense also filed a motion to dismiss the case based on established rule of law governing such trials that occurred so long after the crime. Although the basis for the motion to dismiss was well established in law and the motion was detailed, citing the issues and law cites, Schwartz denied this also.
There can be no doubt that the surprising guilty verdict in the Thompson murder trial resulted from Schwartz's adverse rulings. One can only wonder how Schwartz can justify such an obtuse outcome when the criteria for such a verdict is clearly "beyond a reasonable doubt" and there has never been even one link, not a scintilla of evidence, that Goodwin had anything to do with these crimes.
Schwartz must take full credit for the Thompson murder trial conviction. She refused to allow the defense to admit evidence of "3rd Party Culpability." This was a suspect who confessed, twice; failed three police administered polygraph exams; knew facts about the murders that have never made public. He had no alibi or business being near the murder scene at the time of the murders yet was described by two witnesses as having been AT the crime scene and identified by 5 more witnesses as having been frantically trying to hitchhike out of the area shortly after the murders. There is other evidence linking this suspect to the Thompson murders. Schwartz would not permit the defense to present this compelling evidence because the police never made a case against the suspect. Amazingly, however, the defense presented evidence that the original investigators were ordered to drop the suspect and pursue Goodwin, against whom there was no evidence liking him to the murders.
Schwartz would not allow all the evidence to be admitted that Mickey Thompson bought $250,000 in gold that was delivered in white canvas bags just before the murders. Witnesses saw the shooters leave the murder scene with white canvas bags over their shoulders and the gold has never turned up. The safe in the garage had pry marks that prosecutors allege was caused by locksmiths.
Schwartz would not recuse herself in the face of her long professional relationship with the lead prosecutor, that, it appears, played a role in her clearly biased, pro-prosecution rulings. Schwartz denied a defense motion to recuse that same D.A. after his admission that he viewed more than 400 attorney/client privileged documents directly relating to the charges against Goodwin. These glaring judicial errors combined to add up to a path to this conviction. Legal professionals who have looked at Schwartz's jury instructions concerning conspiracy are appalled.
Patrick Dixon, Head Deputy District Attorney and lead prosecutor in the Thompson murder trial, and Alan Jackson, his co-counsel, are patting themselves on the back for this conviction. Certainly, Dixon-Jackson theatrical team's dramatizations and their obvious gross misrepresentation of evidence were convincing to a jury that was denied the opportunity to see all the evidence. However, it was Schwartz's disregard for prosecution misbehavior and misrepresentations, despite defense objections, combined with the skillful witness manipulation and evidence fabrication by the lead investigator, Detective Mark Lillienfeld, that resulted in this wrongful conviction, not the Dixon-Jackson melodramatic Hollywood spin on the crimes.
Goodwin will appeal this appallingly mistaken verdict. We have located an excellent appeal attorney and we are now awaiting court approval for the appointment. Goodwin's best case, however, is two years in state prison, level four, the worst of the worst, to get a hearing and reverse the verdict or get a new trial. The last appeal Goodwin won, resulting in a dismissal, took 17 months
|
| |
| 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 |
| |
|
| |
Friday, January 12, 2007
|
| ANATOMY OF A WRONGFUL CONVICTION |
| Posted by: Justice On Trial |
| |
THOMPSON MURDER TRIAL ENDS - GOODWIN FOUND GUILTY
GOODWIN FOUND GUILTY: At about 11:30 AM on January 4th in the Pasadena courtroom where the Thompson murder trial had played out over 5 weeks, it was as an auditory eclipse. Stunned, the courtroom went from hushed quiet to eerie silence as the word "guilty" leapt from Judge Schwartz's lips, convicting Michael F. Goodwin of the brutal murders of Mickey and Trudy Thompson. Schwartz read the verdict as though she was describing the daily special to hungry diners, mechanically, cavalierly.
TRIAL JUDGE INSTRUMENTAL IN CONVICTION: Judge Teri Schwartz, the judge who had presided over the Thompson murder trial, seemed detached from the dire verdict, yet, it was her extraordinary, obvious bias and obtuse rulings that fed L.A.'s conviction machine and secured a surprised Patrick Dixon his umpteenth guilty verdict. Before becoming a judge, Schwartz previously had, for many years, been a prosecutor herself, working for Dixon, top attorney in the L.A. District Attorney's office and lead prosecutor in the Mickey Thompson murder trial.
"I was surprised how often Schwartz overruled Saris' objections and denied her motions while, conversely, sustaining prosecutors' objections and granting their motions," said Frank Mickadeit, covering the trail in his popular Orange County Register column.
PROSECUTORS ASSAULT THE DEFENSE WITH AID FROM COURT: Perhaps the turning point of the trial was the frontal assault on the court lodged by Dixon and Alan Jackson, assistant prosecutor, besieging the court not to allow evidence of others who may have been responsible for the Thompson murders. In spite of an overwhelming body of evidence, much of it direct, (7 witness identifications, 2 confessions, 3 failed polygraph exams and more, against just one suspect, who was in no way connected to Goodwin), Schwartz would not permit the defense to present this evidence to the jury. The judge called the evidence "irrelevant," mainly because much of it was circumstantial and police officials "never made a case against this suspect." However, the original lead detective, who had developed the prime suspect, had been ordered, in 1988, to drop his investigation when it was determined there was no connection to Goodwin. Those investigating the Thompson murders were then directed to pursue Goodwin as a suspect, even though there was little or no evidence implicating Goodwin.
JURORS NOT GIVEN CRITICAL INFORMATION ON OTHER SUSPECTS: In a statement to the media following the trial, the jury foreman echoed the position of other members of the jury: "There were so many reasons in everyone's mind that it would be a logical, reasonable deduction to say, 'Who else?' You know what I mean? Who else?" Judge Schwartz effectively blocked a possible answer to the jurors' overriding question, "Who else could possibly have committed the crimes?" It is probable that this crucial evidence would have instilled some doubt about Goodwin's guilt in one or more jurors.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OK FOR PROSECUTION: NOT FOR DEFENSE When the Mickey Thompson murder trial defense attorneys attempted to introduce evidence that robbery was a possible motive, Schwartz again stepped in, ruling for the prosecutors' objections, a desperate attempt on Dixon's part to prevent the defense from creating reasonable doubt. It worked. In spite of the fact that all of the case against Goodwin was circumstantial, theory, supposition or innuendo, Schwartz would not allow admission to the jury, because it was circumstantial, additional evidence of other suspects, none connected to Goodwin. The defense presented a theory that the killings could possibly have been a robbery of $250,000 in gold that Mickey Thompson had purchased days before, and that had disappeared at the time of, the murders. Schwartz defused this by excluding key portions of the testimony identifying the purchase as gold, how it was delivered to Thompson and how the killers might have carried it off in the satchels witnesses saw them with as they escaped.
COURT ASSIST IN CONVICTION: It is undeniable that the Dixon/Jackson prosecution team's theatrics and blatant misrepresentations of the facts in the case, played well to the jury. They could not have accomplished this fete of conviction with no concrete evidence, however, without massive support from the court. Dixon/Jackson were able to take a case with no direct evidence and convince 12 people of Goodwin's guilt using highly questionable circumstantial evidence.
"PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE" VS. "REASONABLE DOUBT:" Jurors misunderstood the jury instructions since, following the trial, some spoke of "preponderance of evidence," the standard in civil cases when the much higher standard, "beyond a reasonable doubt," is the only standard that can be used in criminal cases. Although the defense theme was ".this is not what 'beyond reasonable doubt' in a murder case looks like!" the jury chose the much lower standard, inappropriately, of "preponderance of evidence" to convict Goodwin.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE VS. DIRECT EVIDENCE: Although Dixon went to great lengths to mislead the jury into believing that circumstantial evidence is always equal in weight to direct evidence, this is far from the truth. "There was no one thing," said the jury's foreman, Mark Matthews. "What really changed our minds was when we found out circumstantial evidence held the same weight as physical evidence." The truth is, the jury must weigh circumstantial evidence as to its reliability. Serious questions as to reliability of most prosecution witnesses linger, especially in light of the $1 million mega-reward and the fact that virtually none of those claiming to have knowledge of alleged death threats "came forward" until after the reward was announced, 10 years or more (some, not for 17 years) after the murders casting doubt on the veracity of their testimony.
THE DEFENSE WILL FILE A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON MARCH 1ST: Because of the many "anomalies" in the trial, Elena Saris, lead defense attorney for Goodwin, will file a motion for a re-trial. Goodwin and the defense team is confident the court will recognize these severe problems that prevented Goodwin from getting a fair trial and allow a new trial.
|
| |
| Permalink |
| |
|
| |
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
|
| THE ENORMOUS IMPACT OF THE $1 MILLION MEGA-REWARD IN THE THOMPSON MURDER CASE |
| Posted by: Justice On Trial |
| |
2 WRONGLY CONVICTED FOR $1,000 REWARD: In a Brooklyn, New York, murder case, two men, Anthony Faison, 35, and Charles Shepherd, 38, were convicted in 1987 in the murder of Jean Ulysses, a Haitian livery driver. Their conviction hinged on the testimony of a witness who later admitted she had lied to collect a $1,000 reward. The police arrested the man they now say was responsible for the killing, Arlet Cheston, who confessed to the crime. Faison and Shepherd were released, after 14 years in prison.
THREE MAIN FORMS OF REWARD FOR INFO LEADING TO CONVICTION: Rewards for information that leads to conviction in criminal cases primarily take three forms: 1) cash rewards for information and/or testimony leading to conviction and 2) other benefits, such as shorter sentences, release or immunity for jailhouse informants, accomplices or other interested parties. 3) "Whistle Blowers" often derive some benefit for releasing information that exposes criminal conduct, such as a 10%-50% "commission" to informants to the Internal Revenue Service.
PRIME EXAMPLE OF AFFECT ON TRIAL: Such rewards can and do affect the outcome of criminal prosecutions, often dramatically. In Los Angeles, the Mickey Thompson murder trial finally began in October of 2006, 5 years after the defendant, Michael F. Goodwin, was charged and 18 years after the brutal murders of Thompson and his wife Trudy.
NO WITNESSES UNTIL REWARD OFFERED - THEN DOZENS: In this case, no witnesses came forward to report "death threats" until 10 years after the crimes and following the announcement of a $1,000,000 reward in several national television programs. This is the largest reward posted in a criminal case in the U.S. Thompson's sister who vowed to see Goodwin convicted, in spite of the lack of evidence, posted the extraordinary reward.
MEGA-REWARD ANNOUNCED ON NUMEROUS NATIONAL TV PROGAMS: The TV programs, featuring images of Goodwin and statements implicating him in the crimes, even though there was no evidence linking him to the crimes, generated hundreds of calls. The "leads' were fielded by the L.A. Sherriff's Department homicide detective, Mark Lillienfeld. Many witnesses testified against Goodwin because of the more than a dozen national airings.
2ND FILING A RESULT OF TV GENERATED "WITNESSES:"
Despite a dismissal of the Mickey Thompson murder charges against Goodwin in Orange County, L.A. authorities cited the "new evidence" generated from the $1 million reward, as their reason for filing charges against Goodwin in 2004.
$1 MILLION MEGA-REWARD IS UNPRECEDENTED: There are no comparisons, since the size of the reward in the Mickey Thompson murder prosecution is unprecedented. Although most of the prosecution witnesses admit seeing at least one of the TV programs announcing the reward in connection with Goodwin, none admits that the reward influenced their testimony.
ALL SUSPECTS DROPPED, EXCEPT GOODWIN: Goodwin is not charged with the actual shootings but as the person who hired the shooters to kill Thompson and his wife. Investigators now admit that the search for the actual killers was dropped and authorities concentrated on building a case against Goodwin.
MICKEY THOMPSON MURDER TRIAL MADE POSSIBLE BY REWARD: There can be no doubt that the $1 million mega-reward has dramatically affected the outcome of the Mickey Thompson murder trial. After 7 weeks, the trial ended on December 22nd. The jury has not yet returned a verdict.
WHY WOULD WITNESSES LIE AND RISK PERJURY: Because they can. There is no way to disprove what a witness says they think they saw/recall. There is no chance of prosecution for perjury for witness testimony of this kind. Also, the witnesses in a case like this, may believe they are simply helping to convict someone who is an extraordinarily evil person, as depicted by law enforcement, prosecutors and those driving the prosecution. Besides, they have been told that everyone else is testifying to these same facts and the evidence of guilt is overwhelming.
WILL THE JURY BELIEVE THE QUESTIONABLE WITNESSES? In the Brooklyn case, only $1,000 and the testimony of one witness led to the wrongful conviction of two men. With $1 million at stake and a dozen witnesses who will, apparently, have to divvy it up for their contribution, one wonders how affected the Thompson murder trial jury will be.
|
| |
| Permalink |
| |
|
| |
Thursday, December 14, 2006
|
| THOMPSON MURDER TRIAL DEFENSE CLAIMS EYE-WITNESSES UNRELIABLE - MURDERS WERE A BOTCHED ROBBERY |
| Posted by: Justice On Trial |
| |
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
DEFENSE RESTS: The defense in the Mickey Thompson murder trial, rested this afternoon. Defense attorney Elena Saris presented witnesses who attacked the credibility of the prosecution's case. Virtually all of the prosecutor's case is hearsay with no direct evidence implicating Michael Goodwin, the creator of Supercross racing. Goodwin and Thompson, the first man to exceed 400 mph, attempted to merge their companies but, after a 3 ½ month association, they split. Thompson sued Goodwin for $500,000. More than 3 years later, Thompson and his wife were murdered in their driveway as they left for work.
EYE-WITNESSES UNRELIABLE: Saris called memory experts to the stand to testify of how reliable eyewitness memory is, over time. Kathy Pezdek, an expert on memory and a psychologist, testified that after less than a year, eyewitness identification reliability was only 10%.
"WITNESSES" CLAIM RECOGNOTION AFTER 18 YEARS:
Witnesses claim they saw a person in a car almost a mile from the Thompson's briefly as the suspect peered through binoculars at an elementary school across from their house. There are no records of a report at the time of the murders. 13 years later, in 2001, the witnesses, shortly after seeing national TV programs where Goodwin was named as the most likely perpetrator of the Thompson murders, they identified Goodwin, with difficulty, in a "photo lineup" of 6 photos and subsequently, with 5 dissimilar men, different from those in the photos, in a live lineup. (The Innocence Project has now exonerated 188 persons, 101 of them were because of mistaken identification.)
RELIABILITY OF EYE-WITNESSES DIMINISHES OVER TIME: Pezdek told the court that the reliability of someone's memory after 13 years, ".is just off the scales ... for identifying a person you just saw briefly."
DEFENSE PRESENTS EVIDENCE OF BOTCHED ROBBERY: Saris then called a sheriff's detective who said that his notes indicated that Eric Miller, a former Thompson employee, stated that Thompson talked of taking possession of something of great value. The defense contended that what Thompson purchased was gold which disappeared after the murders. Saris attempted to establish that the Thompsons' murders were the result of a botched robbery in which the killers may have stolen the gold from a safe at the Thompson's home. The safe had extensive pry marks and other evidence of tampering on the door. Also, witnesses saw the killers with white satchels as they fled.
Saris rested her case late in the afternoon.
Jurors will be bused to the crime scene on Thursday and court will not be in session on Friday. Closing arguments are scheduled for 9 AM Monday, December 18th. The jury will then begin deliberations.
|
| |
| Permalink |
| |
|
| |
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
|
| THOMPSON MURDER TRIAL - A COG IN L.A.’S CONVICTION MACHINE |
| Posted by: Justice On Trial |
| |
PROSECUTION BIAS: The public believes that in the forum designed to reveal the truth and see that "justice is done," a trial, that the playing field is level or, if tilted at all, it is tilted toward the defendant ...that the person who hasn't been convicted is given the benefit of doubt, because he is "presumed innocent." But, that isn't the case in most trials and a prime example of prosecution bias is the Thompson murder prosecution.
EVIDENCE MANUFACTURING: There is not now, nor has there ever been enough evidence to "prove beyond reasonable doubt" that Michael Goodwin had anything to do with these crimes so the lead investigator, Detective Mark Lillienfeld of the L.A. Sherriff's Dept. and prosecutors, Alan Jackson and Patrick Dixon, have simply made up evidence, coached witnesses and prevented the defense from admitting evidence that might exonerate Goodwin.
COURT RULES OUT REAL EVIDENCE: Judge Teri Schwartz has ruled for the prosecution in virtually every case of doubt during the Thompson murder trial. She ruled that Elena Saris, Goodwin's defense attorney, could not present evidence on Joey Hunter, the suspect against whom there is a plethora of direct evidence: i.e. 7 witnesses identified or described him as the person near or at the murder scene; 2 credible confessions; failing 3 Thompson murder specific polygraph tests; no alibi; no business being in the area; a vehicle similar to the station wagon allegedly seen in Bradbury before the murders was seen parked outside Hunter's house; and more. Yet, the judge contends this is irrelevant.
DEFENSE STILL CONFIDENT: In spite of these adverse rulings, the defense remains confident that the lack of evidence will lead the jurors to an acquittal since, after all, given the evidence in this case, can anyone believe, beyond reasonable doubt, that Goodwin had anything to do with the Thompson murders?
JURY GETS CASE BY DECEMBER 19th: The defense in the Thompson murder trial expects to wrap its case by Thursday so that the court can visit the crime scene Friday. It is hoped that closing statements will take place Monday and possibly into Tuesday. That means the jury should get the case for deliberation no later than Tuesday morning.
|
| |
| 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."
"Micke | | | |
