|
Author
|
Topic: Steve Gilmore (Read 6620 times)
|
|
Sydney Carton
|
As you well realize ,Steve,there are lots more unlucky people out there.And it is always great to see you showing the heart to chip in for them as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S.G.
|
http://whowhatwhy.com/2009/03/13/preventive-reporting/"Almost every day, I learn about yet another instance of an individual convicted of a crime he or she did not commit, and an eventual exoneration. Frequently, journalists play roles in those exonerations, and those roles are cause for congratulations. Still, I wonder, where were the journalists when the innocent individual got arrested, indicted, and then either pled guilty under pressure or pled not guilty, went to trial, and endured the wrong outcome? Why are journalists usually involved in exonerations only after the innocent individual has spent years, sometimes decades, in prison trying to be heard? I am proposing a plan for journalists to practice preventive reporting, rather than retrospective reporting. You can read about the plan in an article I wrote for Miller-McCune magazine." ----------------------- That's what I wonder everyday, I am enthralled in case that encompasses every aspect of what is wrong with our judicial system today (a lying judge suppressing a not guilty verdict creating double jeopardy, altered evidence by the prosecution in a case sans any evidence w/ a LAW that is SO precise against any "legal jeopardy" and court appointed counsel who protects the judicial violations instead of the defendant) and while I read, watch and hear everyday about so many who are so upset with the failures of our court system, yet in over 4 years I have not received one (1) favorable reply to my many many request for assistence. Not one. Instead a court / legal reporter for the largest paper in the state capitol merely finds it "interesting". the local paper is TOO close with the prosecutors and judge they refuse to tell the truth. Is it no wonder that so many of these cases are happening today, there is no prevention against them nor any light of day shown on them till it's too late. How can the Indiana Judicial Nominating Comm. say a judge who has lied and is suppressing a not guilty verdict and has violated judicial canons has done nothing unethical or the Disciplinary Comm Of The IN. Supreme Court or the States Atty. General, refuse to investigate a prosecutor who has altered evidence? "APATHY The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it. --Albert Einstein" "CHANGE Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, commited citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that has. --Margaret Mead" http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?f...ndId=324775929http://plaindealer-sun.com/SiteImages/DisplayAds/122.pdf"Mark Wynn, another Madison resident, withdrew from the case. Wynn requested to be removed from the case because of a breakdown in communication with Gilmore." The break down was due to Mr. Wynn refusing to have the not guilty verdict and altered evidence addressed. However, notice how it went from a "break-down" in comm. to “Gilmore is apparently seeking to pursue a legal strategy Wynn cannot, in good faith, pursue,” the court stated. Like what? What would the judge know about any legal stratagy between defendant and counsel and what business does he have in making such an unfounded statement? "However, the order noted he does not have the right to counsel of his choosing, or the right to make representing him so difficult that no attorney will be able to do so." Is it really asking too much to expect one's counsel to address judicial and prosecutorial abuses and Constitutional violations? How is it they contacted the court reporter for the local paper so she could report these unfounded, unethical accusations, but no one contacted me so I could defend myself and ask him what he was talking about and make him elaborolate. What purpose would ANY judge EVER make such statements in an open court hearing w/o the defendant present? RULE 2.10 Judicial Statements on Pending and Impending Cases (A) A judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending* or impending* in any court, or make any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing. By the way "they" do know about my accusations against them. The deputy prosecutor, Drew Dickerson has a myspace account and is subscribed to the one someone set up so I could tell this story. In fact, that's why I went public with this. I figured if I went public and if ANYTHING I say is untrue, they can sue me for slander, to shut me up, however, then I would be able to present the truth, finally in an OPEN court. What does thay say about our leagl system when a defendant is pressed to such extremes and is forced to defend hinself in such a manner? Sydney, I do thank you so very much for bringing this to the attention of some of the public and I do thank talkleft and it's hostess for allowing this venue for the truth to be told. THANK YOU.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
S.G.
|
"and the defen-dant introduced in his motion to correct error a news article reporting on this conference." So there really is such a thing as a Motion to Correct Errors, I thought it was a mere figment of my imagination since my court appointed attorneys spoke to the jurors in the hallway outside the court room and found out they were unanimous not guilty but failed / refused to file one on my behave. Even after a juror wrote a letterto the local paper: "Dear Editor, Because of so many who do not understand the full story of the Steve Gilmore case, I write this letter. The instructions given at the trial to the jury by the judge were to consider the innocence or guilt of the defendant for murder. If that consideration became not an option, we should consider his innocence or guilt of (the lesser charge of) reckless homicide. It was a unanimous decision by the jury to not consider a murder conviction. After hours of intense delibertion, we could not come to a unanimous decision for the lesser charge. The judge was informed that the jury was at an impasse and we were recalled to the courtroom, polled and dismissed. Never did we receive a verdict form or send a form back to the judge blank. I hope this helps. A jury member "(Editor's note: According to Jennings Circuit Court Judge Jon Webster, the jury that heard the Gilmore trial was given (a) verdict form that was returned to him unsigned.)" or after a Motion to Dismiss Hearing where the judge decides: "ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS1" June 1 2008 "Defendant is again inviting this Court to impanel the original jurors in this case to ask them one (1) question, that being "Did you find the Defendant not guilty of murder?". " The only way to answer this question with certainty would be to impanel the jury and ask them individually about their decision on murder." " and the Court declines to permit the original jury to be impaneled for even one (1) question regarding their verdict(s) or lack thereof" then even though he has dicussed this matter (verdict forms) with the editors (more than once) and who knows who else, he declares: "Defendant has alleged, without any credible evidence" "There is no independent evidence the forms were not sent back. " "The Defendant's unfounded assertion that no verdict forms were given to the jury is just that, unfounded." ------------------------------ So, even though the judge knows the jury is refuting the existence of the verdict forms, knowing the judge has read the reports the jury was unanimous not guilty as has been reported several times in a local newspaper in a community of only 6-7000 people, the judge then refuses to allow the jury to testify (suppressing, credible, independent evidence), he then declares there IS no independant evidence the forms ever existed. and of course he refuses to recuse himself from the case. why is a judge SO adamant in suppressing a not guilty verdict, other than covering up a severe malicious prosecution case? -------------------------------------------- In a letter to the editor of the local paper entitled "Why is innocent man being sent to trial again?" from June 28, 2006 the editor asked the judge about verdict forms then and in the editors note wrote: (Editor's note: In an impasse, if a jury cannot agree on a verdict there is no verdict form to complete.) So the judge is on record, publically, stating that (1) verdict forms weren't necessary, (2) was given (a ) verdict form, (3) he was in possession of two verdict . Of course I am merely a simple uneducated lay-person who hasn't had the opportunity to study the law, however, I am wondering how highly educated "officers of the court" who HAVE studied the law and passed the bar, are incapable of relating the law: "No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or..." with: "We (the jury) were unanimous not guilty of murder." Then proceed to violate every Consitutional right as it relates to Due Process of Law, Rule of Law and Equal Protection of Law therefore dening me the most basic rights of: LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. ----------------------------------------------- After being falsely arrested and accused, there was NO grand jury hearing, there was NO probable cause hearing, during a Motion to Dismiss / Bond hearing the state refused to present ANY probable cause w/o objection and even during a trial did the state not present simple probale cause, as is evident by statements by the jury in an article dated November 8, 2005; "We (the jury) based all our feelings not on the courtroom procedures, but on the interviews in the jail house." Therefore indicating the jury gave the states case/evidence neither credence nor consideration. Then according to the jury foreman, the impasse was caused becuse he and a few others thought; "There were several things Gilmore could have done - run and hide or call the police." (Again read the LAW, "to prevent or terminate the other's person's...", you can not prevent or terminate someone's attack by running and hiding.) However, by LAW and final instructions those are not considerations they are to contemplate, as you can see in a following blog. http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=324775929&blogId=407306935 In fact, by law and final instructions the lesser charge should of never been introduced to be contemplated to begin with, but then again by LAW, no charge should of ever been filed, period. ------------------------------------------- Also in that same article by Lilian Carmer of November 8, 2005 she reported: "Although the first jury thought Gilmore was not guilty of murder, the murder charge remains. "As it stands, that is the intent," Jennings Prosecutor Gary Smith said." ------------------------------------------ Again ( forgive the redundancy) I ask how / why do "officers of the court" refuse to relate the most precisely written law on the books as it states: "No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind what so ever for protecting the person..." with; "We (the jury) were unanimous not guilty." ? ---------------------------------- and again my court appointed counsel instead of filing Motions to Correct merely state this is all merely "water under the bridge" and of no concern. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
S.G.
|
http://www.abanet.org/cpr/pubs/plattsmier2.pdf"--Model Rule 8.3(a) “imposes a mandatory reporting obligation on every lawyer with respect to other lawyers’ violations of the professional rules. Probably no other professional requirement is as widely ignored by lawyers subject to it.”1 “Moreover, the lawyer’s duty to report professional misconduct is the foundation for the claim that we can be trusted to regulate ourselves as a profession. If we fail in our duty, we forfeit that trust and have no right to enjoy the privilege of self regulation or the confidence and respect of the public.”2" "Okay, so when must the lawyer report the misconduct? Again, the rule is silent in that regard. While the language found in opinions around the country vary somewhat, the prevailing view is that reporting should be made ‘promptly’.5 As the Louisiana Supreme Court noted in the Riehlmann decision, “The need for prompt reporting flows from the need to safeguard the public and the profession against future wrongdoing by the offending lawyer. The purpose is not served unless Rule 8.3(a) is read to require timely reporting under the circumstances presented.” "While such trends are encouraging to see, that such a sense of honor and duty does not yet permeate the entire legal profession requires that, at a minimum, the duty to report serious misconduct carry with it the very real potential for disciplinary sanction. As the Court in Riehlmann noted, “Lawyers are in the best position to observe professional misconduct and to assist the profession in sanctioning it.”8 The harm that can and often does befall the unsuspecting client, unless stopped, threatens to spread like a cancer, metastasizing within a law practice, causing untold damage and injury to others. And the misfortune is not that of the victim clients alone. Each serious violation of the ethics rules by lawyers sworn to uphold the law further crumbles the already brittle respect that the legal profession enjoys in the public eye." "Few, if any, would extol the virtues of transferring responsibility for regulating the practice of law from the judiciary to either an executive or legislative branch of government. Yet public outcry for accountability can translate to voter accommodation by those of the political persuasion. Proper stewardship of our ethical obligations can serve as a powerful bulwark against the improper and truly frightening specter of political intervention in disciplinary regulation. A naïve notion? Not at all. The ‘privilege’ of self regulation could so easily drift towards the view that it is but an ‘option’, one that can be easily removed if not treated with the serious sense of purpose it deserves.Self regulation is no myth. It is at the core of a viable legal profession. The duty to report ethical misconduct rests within the nucleus of that core, often hidden from view but as real as are the consequences should we fail; for if we do, “we forfeit that trust and have no right to enjoy the privilege of self-regulation or the confidence and respect of the public.”9
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
S.G.
|
"Self regulation is no myth. It is at the core of a viable legal profession. The duty to report ethical misconduct rests within the nucleus of that core, often hidden from view but as real as are the consequences should we fail; for if we do, “we forfeit that trust and have no right to enjoy the privilege of self-regulation or the confidence and respect of the public.”9"http://www.brennancenter.org/content/elert/few_judges_disciplined_on_conduct_complaints"Article reports that the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications _dismissed 85 percent of the complaints filed in the past four years and rarely publicly disciplined judges._ Instead _private cautions,_ confidential letters of warning, were issued to many of the offending judges. About 1 percent of the more than 1,000 cases investigated by the Commission resulted in public discipline. Meg Babcock, an attorney for the Commission, explained that _If there are no priors and they [the offending judges] feel remorseful, we may go ahead and do the private caution._ Moreover, Babcock said that many allegations of misconduct are actually issues for legal appeals and therefore fall outside of the Commission_s jurisdiction" http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=21&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=42&S=1"While the jury was considering Gilmore's fate, all of its members agreed that the defendant was not guilty of murder, according to the jury foreman." "John H. Mann, a former state police officer...served all the summonses to the jurors ... "All 12 were unanimous," he said, as he noted their comments that Gilmore was not guilty of murder." http://plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=76&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=40&S=1"Murder charge stands Judge: failure of jury to complete verdict form means Gilmore will have 2nd trial" "This court had no way of knowing whether the jurors were deadlocked on murder or reckless homicide," Webster said. "Apparently, this information came to light after the jury was discharged." How could any sensible, unbiased judge not know "whether the jurors were deadlocked on murder or reckless homicide." (which, by LAW, should of never been included, see below) before he dismissed them? ---------------------------------- The only judge in American judicial history to suppress a not guilty verdict , who has suppressed the jury from "validating their verdict" causing double jeopardy and the same Meg Babcock who from 2004 is still running interference for judicial investigations. ------------ Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications 115 West Washington Street Suite 1080 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-3466 (317) 232-4706 FAX (317) 233-6586 October 12, 2007Mr. Steve Gilmore Commiskey, IN 47227 Re: Complaint against Judge Jon W. Webster, Jennings Circuit Court Dear Mr. Gilmore: Pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 25, the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications has concluded its review of your complaint against Judge Webster. Based upon all the information presented to the Commission members, they determined that the judge did not commit ethical misconduct. In light of this determination, your complaint has been dismissed and our file will be closed. Please understand that the Commission's decision is final. The Indiana Constitution created the Commission to make the decisions about judicial ethical complaints, and there is no right to review. Also, Supreme Court rules prohibit me from discussing the nature, scope, or details of the Commission's inquiries into complaints. Thank you for addressing your concerns to the Commission. The members appreciate your patience and cooperation. Sincerely, Meg W. Babcock Counsel MWB/ah --------------------- Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications 115 West Washington Street Suite 1080 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-3466 (317) 232-4706 FAX (317) 233-6586 June 20, 2006 Mr. Stephen L. Gilmore Commiskey, IN 47227 Re: Complaint against Judge Jonathan W. Webster, Jennings Circuit Court Dear Mr. Gilmore: Pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 25, the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications has concluded its review of your complaint against Judge Webster. Based upon all the information presented to the Commission members, they determined that the judge did not commit ethical misconduct. In light of this determination, your complaint has been dismissed and our file will be closed. Please understand that the Commission's decision is final. The Indiana Constitution created the Commission to make the decisions about judicial ethical complaints, and there is no right to review. Also, Supreme Court rules prohibit me from discussing the nature, scope, or details of the Commission's inquiries into complaints. Thank you for addressing your concerns to the Commission. The members appreciate your patience and cooperation. Sincerely, Meg W. Babcock Counsel MWB/db ----------------------------------- "and there is no right to review. Also, Supreme Court rules prohibit me from discussing the nature, scope, or details of the Commission's inquiries into complaints." No reviews and no right to ask if they did ANY investigation at all. A juror has publically refuted the judges claim about the verdict forms The jury is on public record they arrived at a unanimous not guilty verdict and an ex-state policeman testified they ALL related to him that were unanimous not guilty, yet this judge and this state refuses to recognize the most basic rights of Due Process and Rule of Law by ignoring and suppressing a not guilty verdict.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
S.G.
|
In the Brennan Center article Ms Babcock is quoted as saying:
"Moreover, Babcock said that many allegations of misconduct are actually issues for legal appeals and therefore fall outside of the Commission_s jurisdiction"
Is it due to my naitivity and feeble mind or did Ms Babcock say that if a judge's misconduct rises to the extent to cause an appeal and by performing such misconduct they are beyond investigation, reprimand and discipline?
If their conduct was in such error to warrant an appeal, isn't that "the" reason and basis for investigation and discipline?
Isn't it the judges job to make sure that, due process and rule of law is followed and to preside over a trial in a manner to prevent and avoid any appeals, not create them, but the person who administers the commission that investigates and disciplines judges, says if a judges error / malice / misconduct rises to the level that due process and rule of law are not followed and causes a case to be appealed he is beyond investigation?
Since this is the only commission that investigates and disciplines judges, then whose jurisdiction does such misconduct / error fall under?
A judge can deny a defendant a fair trial and if it is considered an issue for appeal, then he is beyond reprimand?
So a judge can lie and suppress not guilty verdicts causing double jeopardy and cause the defendant to be tried again and if the defendant is found innocent oh well, but if the judge keeps appointing ineffective counsel and he is found guilty, it is cause for appeal and all is well in Indiana.
and the judge is beyond investigation and discipline.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
S.G.
|
FOR THE RECORD
U.S. Constitution: Sixth Amendment
RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL
Application and Scope .--Because the guarantee of a speedy trial ''is one of the most basic rights preserved by our Constitution,'' it is one of those ''fundamental'' liberties embodied in the Bill of Rights which the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes applicable to the States. 16 The protection afforded by this guarantee ''is activated only when a criminal prosecution has begun and extends only to those persons who have been 'accused' in the course of that prosecution.'' Invocation of the right need not await indictment, information, or other formal charge but begins with the actual restraints imposed by arrest if those restraints precede the formal preferring of charges. 17 Possible prejudice that may result from delays between the time government discovers sufficient evidence to proceed against a suspect and the time of instituting those proceedings is guarded against by statutes of limitation, which represent a legislative judgment with regard to permissible periods of delay. 18 In two cases, the Court held that the speedy trial guarantee had been violated by States which preferred criminal charges against persons who were already incarcerated in prisons of other jurisdictions following convictions on other charges when those States ignored the defendants' requests to be given prompt trials and made no effort through requests to prison authorities to obtain custody of the prisoners for purposes of trial. 19 A state practice permitting the prosecutor to take nolle prosequi with leave, which discharged the accused from custody but left him subject at any time thereafter to prosecution at the discretion of the prosecutor, the statute of limitations being tolled, was condemned as violative of the guarantee. 20
When the Right is Denied .--''The right of a speedy trial is necessarily relative. It is consistent with delays and depends upon circumstances. It secures rights to a defendant. It does not preclude the rights of public justice.'' 21 No length of time is per se too long to pass scrutiny under this guarantee, 22 but on the other hand nei ther does the defendant have to show actual prejudice by delay. 23 The Court rather has adopted an ad hoc balancing approach. ''We can do little more than identify some of the factors which courts should assess in determining whether a particular defendant has been deprived of his right. Though some might express them in different ways, we identify four such factors: Length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.'' 24 The fact of delay triggers an inquiry and is dependent on the circumstances of the case. Reasons for delay will vary. A deliberate delay for advantage will weigh heavily, whereas the absence of a witness would justify an appropriate delay, and such factors as crowded dockets and negligence will fall between these other factors. 25 It is the duty of the prosecution to bring a defendant to trial, and the failure of the defendant to demand the right is not to be construed as a waiver of the right; 26 yet, the defendant's acquiescence in delay when it works to his advantage should be considered against his later assertion that he was denied the guarantee, and the defendant's responsibility for the delay would be conclusive. Finally, a court should look to the possible prejudices and disadvantages suffered by a defendant during a delay. 27
A determination that a defendant has been denied his right to a speedy trial results in a decision to dismiss the indictment or to reverse a conviction in order that the indictment be dismissed. 28
---------------------------------
I have had 4 trials postponed, within 30 days of trial date, now due to court appointed attorney's assistance.
The first, Brad Kage / Alan Marshall drop from case because of "major disputes regarding trial strategy". Yes I thought they should of filed a Motion to Correct (not guilty verdict) and have the case dismissed since the state had never produced any evidence and to have their good friend investigated (the prosecutor) for altering evidence.
Next Mark Wynn, asked to drop due to "a break down in communication between attorney and client", which was never explained to me. Mr. Wynn was my attorney when the letter by the juror was published after the judge refused to let them "validate their verdict". After I sent him a copy of the letter and asked him to have the judge investigated, he ask to drop from the case.
Ms Mary Jean Stotts allowed the state to postpone the next one so the state could improperly depose my hired expert witness, so she allowed the state to improperly postpone my trial for an improper deposition.
Special prosecutor was appointed January 30, 2009 with a trial set for June 8, 2009, special prosecutor asked for continuance on March 26, 2009 and trial has been set for April 8, 2010.
This happen February 18, 2005, I was tried, w/o any evidence whatsoever to support any part of the states case along with altered evidence allowed to be presented, on August 15, 2005 with a judge and appointed counsel so negligent they knew not to inquire which count the jury was at an impasse on after allowing a lesser charge to be introduced which should not have been allowed to be considered.
After numerous attempts by me to get appointed counsel (Kage/Marshall) to file a motion to correct after they were made aware of the unanimous not guilty verdict in the hallway immediately following the trial and to have the prosecutor investigated, they refused and dropped from the case.
Mark Wynn did file for a dismissal based solely on the not guilty verdict (refused to add lack of evidence & IC 35-41-3-2) where the judge improperly used Rule 606(b) to suppress their testimony so they could "validate their verdict". After not being allowed to testify a juror wrote a letter to the paper stating their not guilty verdict and how they were never furnished any verdict forms let alone returned any to the judge. When I informed Mr. Wynn of this letter, he asked to be dropped from the case.
Ms Stotts did file for a dismissal (I think only to prolong the matter) since again, she filed solely on the verdict issue (knowing the judge would deny)and refused to include the lack of any evidence and the law into the motion. Ms Stotts did file an appeal, improperly, so that it would be denied.
She then allowed the state to postpone solely so that the state could improperly depose a defendants witness who is covered under the attorney/ client privilege.
I can not ask the court to replace Ms Stotts for he has threatened me with contempt if I do.
-----------------------------
Bradley K.Kage
Attorney at Law
524 North State Street
Post Office Box 328
North Vernon, Indiana 47265
Telephone: (812)346-6566
Fax: (812)352-8676
April 19, 2005
Mr. Steve Gilmore
c/o Jennings County Jail
P.O. Box 367
Vernon, IN 47282
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
I read your letter and I have the following thoughts:
1. If you insist, we'll file a Motion for Speedy Trial;
2. I will prepare and file a Motion to Dismiss this week.
Once the officers are deposed in May, we'll have a better handle on what the State considers its evidence to be. Then, we can consider other depositions.
Sincerely,
Bradley Kage
-----------------------------
Even though I insisted, they never did.
I had to threaten them and did file my own motion to dismiss to get them to file one themselves, where the state simply stood up and said we refuse to present any evidence at this time.
If the state refused /failed to present any evidence to refute the motion the dismiss why wasn't it dismissed?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
S.G.
|
"Once the officers are deposed in May, we'll have a better handle on what the State considers its evidence to be."
Shouldn't this had been spelled out in the probable cause affidavit? Three months after arrest and three months prior to trial they're just now trying to get a handle on the evidence
Which never did materialize.
Not till the states last close, did we learn of what they say happen. Never before the trial, not during the trial ONLY in second closing, w/ nothing to support any of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
S.G.
|
The states forensics "expert" agreed it could of happen the way I said it did. These are questions from "my" attorney asking if he was facing the house. Yet the state says he was turned and running away. He couldn't be doing both. This testimony was taped a month before the trial and even though she says it could of happen the way I said it did, which would disprove he was running away and with the most precise law ever written, this preceded to trial and still continues to this day.
Odd how we get in such an uproar over other countries violating our Constitutional and civil rights but careless about our own courts violating them.
pg 399, transcript;
Q.) But if Mr. Akers were for instance, in the vicinity of the window, bent over looking in the window facing the trailer, and then shot from this angle, would that be consistant?
A.) Well, because of the angle, if he's at this door, he would, we have to have, this guy would not actually be looking through the window, he could be turning away from the window, cause see you've got to have this angle.
Q.) This angle?
A.) Yeah he would have to have this angle.
pg 400, transcript
Q.) And isn't it true that that turn could be because, because somebody was looking like this?
A.) Yeah, well you could get that angle upward like that that way, yeah.
pg 401,
Q.) Looking at whatever in a window or looking somewhere, but you could get that angle like that, isn't that true?
A.) Yeah, pretty close.
pg 407,
Q.) Well, I mean for instance his feet. He could have been originally facing and then bent over looking in the window. That could create the proper angle.
A.) It's possible, yes.
----------------------------
In order to obtain that angle of trajectory, he would of had to have turned at the exact time I fired, so he had to be facing the house, then turned. Over 70 % of all police shootings hit their subject in the side or back even though they were at first face to face, due to reactionary movement at time of firing.
This is where the state closed their case.
With their expert saying it was possible to have happen exactly the way I said it did.
So NO eye witness evidence against me, NO ballistic evidence against me and the ONLY tangible evidence in the entire case (the trajectory of the wound) proves it could of happen the way I said it did, proven by the states' expert forensic witness.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
S.G.
|
I just noticed I never posted this before. This is part of judge Jon Websters instructions to the jury.
pg 929 transcript / Final Instructions from judge Webster
"The question of the existence of an apparent danger and the amount of force necessary to resist force can only be determined from the stand point of the Defendant at the time and under the then existing circumstances."
pg 930
"Actual danger is not necessary to justify self defense.The question of the existence of such danger, the necessity or apparent necessity to act as well as the amount of force necessary to employ to resist the attack can only be determined from the standpoint of the accused at the time and under all the then existing circumstances. There has been evidence introduced in this case that the accused was exercising his right of self-defense."
----------------------------------------------
The judge, himself, points out in final instructions:
"There has been evidence introduced in this case that the accused was exercising his right of self-defense."
So what nullifies THE LAW?
“No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.”....
The judges own instructions disallows for any legal jeopardy of any kind what so ever, so how did this proceed to trial and WHY is he suppressing a NOT GUILTY VERDICT?
----------------------------------
That's how asinine this is, a judge who admits I was acting in self defense, a law that disallows ANY legal jeopardy of any kind if one acts in self defense, with the states own forensic expert relating it could of happen the very way I said it did. If it happen the way I said it did, it's impossible to happen the way the state said it did and since the JUDGE says I was acting in self defense it couldn't of happen the way the state said.yet...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
S.G.
|
In a Vanity Fair Article; http://www.vanityfair.com/online/pol...-everyone.htmlAndrew Cohen wrote; "Judges and juries convict innocent people all the time in this country. Usually, the defendants are people of color or are disadvantaged because they are poor, ignorant, or just downright unlucky. Sometimes their court-appointed lawyers are a sham. Sometimes their prosecutors cheat. Sometimes the media helps tighten the noose. Sometimes the judge in their case is just plain bad. And sometimes jurors are prejudiced. That we don't hear much about the vast majority of these sad cases—and certainly not before it's too late and the sentence is imposed—owes more to human nature and poor journalism than it does to the alarming level of injustice foisted upon the wrongfully convicted. The thousands of innocent people in our prisons are there in part because they couldn't, by dint of race or lack of sophistication or poverty, gin up any sort of public clamor about the manner in which they got there." My question is, if these people who speak of these injustices reported about more of them, would these injustices cease with the knowledge that they may be reported? http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05....shtml#addcomm |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sydney Carton
|
Thanks a lot for this link ,Steve.
I thought I had heard about every possible piece of forensic malfeasance but this one landed like a kick to the stomach:
"Recent studies have demonstrated the risk of inadvertent bias affecting the outcome of forensic testing. One 2006 study in the Journal of Forensic Identification asked experienced analysts to evaluate a series of fingerprints to determine if they matched. These analysts believed they were examining prints for an open, unsolved case, but they were in fact re-examining prints that they had previously analyzed accurately. The prints were given to the analysts along with artificial contextual information, such as the fact that the suspect had confessed. In cases where analysts were given contextual information about the fingerprints, they were wrong in almost seventeen percent of the cases."
Prior to DNA discoveries,fingerpriniting was recorded as the one infalliable mode of identification(save in a single case which involved identical twins).Now it comes out that the fingerprints are no better than the quite erratic(17% off!) expert doing the identifying.
How many more contested identity cases should now be up for review?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Advertise Here
