Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Texas Monthly roundtable on innocence, punishing prosecutors

Must-read stuff from Texas Monthly, including a fascinating roundtable discussion among exoneree Anthony Graves, the prosecutor who helped clear him, Kelly Siegler, state Sen. Rodney Ellis, Austin police chief Art Acevedo, Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Barbara Hervey, and Dallas District Attorney Craig Watkins:
Lots of interesting tidbits from the roundtable, but let's point out one element of the discussion below the jump about whether training is sufficient to cause prosecutors to hand over exculpatory evidence to the defense, or if punishment is needed for noncompliance.

Remarkably, Kelly Siegler declared that " I have been a prosecutor my whole life, and I am telling you, we are not properly trained in how to deal with Brady. That’s separate and apart from criminal prosecutors like Charles Sebesta. We are talking two different things here." Given that Brady has been around since (just) before Grits was born, I find that extraordinary. So did Chief Acevedo, who had this exchange with her:
Acevedo: ... I’ve got to tell you, it really bothers me when I hear prosecutors say that prosecutors don’t understand Brady, when, as a police chief, I use Brady to fire people.
Siegler: You’re thinking that Brady is this black-and-white, clear-cut thing. That’s not what Brady is in the world of prosecutors. ...
Acevedo: I’m not an attorney, but if I’ve got information that is exculpatory, I have a moral obligation to—
Siegler: “Exculpatory” is an easy word to use, but we’re talking about inconsistent evidence, mitigating evidence—that too. And I guarantee you every single one of the cops that work for you don’t put in their offense reports every single little inconsistent thing they know.
Acevedo: Oh, absolutely. But you know what? Here’s the piece that is missing, that Anthony’s talking about. You can train people all you want, but you’re dealing with human beings. If there are not consequences for willful misconduct, you can have all the training in the world, you can have all the rules in the world.
Graves: You gotta do more than train.
Acevedo: It drives me nuts that I have 180 days [from the time of misconduct to discipline a police officer]. That’s all I have. One hundred and eighty days. That’s nothing. There should not be a statute of limitations when it comes to violating the public trust. And cops will hate me for saying that. Prosecutors will hate me for saying that. But in a democracy, if our criminal justice system doesn’t work, we are in deep trouble. And it starts with those consequences.
Acevedo called for criminal prosecution of prosecutors who break the law, as Kelly Siegler alleged Charles Sebesta did in Anthony Graves' case. (She called the retired DA a "criminal"; I'll bet TM's libel lawyers had a field day vetting that one!) The problem with criminalizing prosecutor misconduct is, as in Sebesta's case, what prosecutor would prosecute it, especially against a sitting elected DA who's the boss of all the prosecutors who might do so?

On the civil side, Siegler insists there can be no reduction of immunity, but I wish Acevedo had pressed that point, too. Police officers only have "qualified" instead of "absolute" immunity like prosecutors, which basically means they can be held liable only when they knowingly and intentionally violate someone's civil rights. (In practice, qualified immunity covers nearly all lawsuits citizens bring against police - very few get past the summary judgment stage.) But the actions for which police officers have immunity are usually things done in the blink of an eye - the gun fired, the punch thrown, the chase engaged, the red light run, etc.. By contrast, prosecutors can sit in their offices for months deciding whether or not to disclose exculpatory evidence, but if they knowingly, intentionally withhold it they have "absolute" immunity. Grits sees no good reason prosecutors should have greater immunity than police officers, and I'd love to hear any prosecutors or their defenders please explain in the comments WHY they should.

There's quite a bit more in the roundtable discussion, from which I just pulled one interesting tidbit, so read the whole thing.


Anonymous said...

As a lawyer, I can tell you one thing. Law schools don't teach Brady and it's not a topic that is included on the bar exam or the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam that lawyers must pass before they become licensed. Whatever training they get is either within their offices, through professional CLE training or through self study. Seigler is probably right.

Acevedo is, frankly, full of shit. The biggest problem with Brady material is not with the DA's office. As best as I can tell. Most prosecutors offices in the state now have some form of an open file policy. The biggest source of Brady error is, without a doubt, law enforcement agencies not sharing all of their investigative material with the DA's office.

I've seen innumerable instances where officers determined on their own that some tip didn't fit their working narrative of the case and the information never got documented. And that's not to mention all of the crimestoppers tips that come in to different law enforcement agencies which never get forwarded to the agency handling the investigation.

With that said, whatever law enforcement knows that isn't shared with the prosecutor is still deemed to be "Brady error" and is easily, and incorrectly, called "prosecutor misconduct."

At the end of the day, the prosecution of any criminal case rests very much on the quality of the investigation by law enforcement on the front end. This is just one reason the immunity standards should be different.

On a different note, the police have the ability to arrest you right now, to use physical force to subdue you, to shoot you, or to drive 100 miles an hour down the road in pursuit of a subject. Most decisions made by prosecutors, in theory at least, are vetted by a grand jury, a judge, a jury, and perhaps even appellate courts. That's another reason for the distinction between qualified for cops and absolute immunity for prosecutors.

Anonymous said...

Seems like if there's some question as to whether something should be turned over to the defense, it should be turned over to the defense.

Honestly, though, that's probably not enough. Look at Ken Anderson. He didn't disclose the check or the credit card use or the statement from the 3 year-old because he thought it was irrelevant. In his world, it couldn't be potentially exculpatory because it didn't fit with his view of the case. And it's not like he's the only prosecutor to get tunnel vision when prosecuting a case (and yes, that's a generous explanation for his behavior in the Morton case).

If prosecutors can't figure out how to apply Brady after nearly half a century, then it needs to be taken out of their hands completely.

States like North Carolina have open discovery and don't seem to have criminals running rampant specifically because of that (sure, even with open discovery, a prosecutor can still try to hide evidence, like Mike Nifong did when he entered into a conspiracy to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence and police can suddenly decide that they should only take notes in their head like Sgt. Mike Gottlieb did in the same case, but at least they know it's against the law when they do it then). There's no reason to believe that letting defense attorneys have access to everything would undermine the cause of justice.

And think of all the money you'd save from having to train prosecutors who are, for some reason, entirely too dense to be able to figure out a Supreme Court ruling from decades ago (and all the money you'll save not having to retry all those cases that are thrown out because you didn't bother turning over the evidence you were required to turn over).

If you're a prosecutor and you can't win a criminal case without hiding evidence, you should probably rethink your entire career.

If any other profession broke a nearly 50 year-old rule as often as prosecutors violate Brady, those professions would come under severe scrutiny and, very likely, strenuous government oversight with the individual violators subject to any number of harsh punishments.

But since they are the government, there's no punishment and no ability for aggrieved parties to sue.

Anonymous said...

"At the end of the day, the prosecution of any criminal case rests very much on the quality of the investigation by law enforcement on the front end. This is just one reason the immunity standards should be different."

But if you're, let's say, Ken Anderson, and you just decide to not turn over evidence (evidence that may have led to a murderer who went on to kill at least one more person) even after the judge asks for it, should you still be immune?

Supreme Court seems to say yes.

jimbino said...

The best way to insure quality throughout the legal profession would be to deregulate it, as Milton Friedman proposed.

Lacking that, there could be a rule imposed that the state pay the defense attorney a fee amounting to some percentage of what they have expended in prosecuting the case.

Unfortunately, minimum standards of competence, like law classes and bar exams, always become the maximum standard of competence.

My particular gripe is that you have to be ignorant of math, science, engineering and statistics to qualify for admission to law school.

I know: There were only 5 students in my UT law class of 135 who were minimally competent in "thinking like a scientist," and I earlier had the thankless task of trying to teach science and math to aspiring lawyers, who took only baby math and baby physics and still could hardly wait to get it over with.

It's bad enough that such incompetence is rife in the legal profession, but it's super-depressing that most all our legislators are trained in the law and likewise untrained in STEM. Sadly, only Breyer on SCOTUS has a clue; the rest are proud holders of degrees in English, Psychology, International Studies, History and other fluff. I guess that doesn't matter much, now that they're exclusively Jews and Roman Catholics.

I await rebuttal from you fluff-major jurists.

Anonymous said...

Prosecutors do not enjoy absolute immunity across the board. It is only for things that they do in court, grand jury or those matters inextricably related to the judicial process. If they wander too far into criminal investigations, search or arrest decisions; or if they publically comment on cases, they only have qualified immunity.

Defense lawyers and judges also have absolute immunity for things they do or say in court. The theory is that courts should be a place for zealous advocacy and the uninhibited exchange of arguments and ideas. We don't want courtroom zeal on either side being tempered by some fear of being sued.

Anonymous said...

6:33, you are about 100 years off. That's the way it was more than a century ago. Prosecutors, who were often hired by the victim's family instead of being employed by the state, and defense attorneys only had immunity for things they said in court. Today, it is very different. Prosecutors have absolute immunity for ANYTHING that is considered to be part of the prosecutorial function, whether in or out of court. You are correct, if they take some action that is considered an investigative function it is not covered by absolute immunity. However, things such as intentionally withholding evidence, pressuring witnesses to testify falsely, and the typical types of misconduct we see so frequently are considered to be part of the prosecutorial function and, thus, covered by absolute immunity.

There is absolutely no rational justification for continuing the absurd policy of absolute immunity for prosecutors in the face of the frequent and egregious instances of misconduct we have seen over the years. Qualified immunity is sufficient not only to protect police officers but most other government officials and it is certainly sufficient to protect prosecutors from frivolous suits.

Now, I predict that very soon, a proseuctor will post on here that the sky will fall if prosecutors are not protected by absolute immunity. Don't believe it. Its just a bunch of spoiled crybabies who think they should be above the law and not held accountable.

Branodn W. Barnett said...

I taught a course on Brady to a group of young prosecutors and I was shocked to discover how little I knew about the subject. It is a woefully undertaught and misunderstood area of crimina law.

Anonymous said...

Prosecutors do have accountability for pressuring witnesses to testify falsely. That's a crime. It's called Tampering with a Witness and they can be prosecuted for that.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Good comments here but I wish all you anons would adopt pen names to help sort opinions.

8:31, who would prosecute it? The county DA has jurisdiction, will s/he prosecute themselves?

9:30, thanks for correcting 6:33. I was too tired to respond when I saw that last night. You're correct that prosecutors have "absolute immunity" for anything considered part of the prosecutorial function, which includes Brady, etc., and "qualified" immunity in investigative functions. To be clear: defense attorneys do NOT have similar protection; they can and do get sued, which is why they carry malpractice insurance and prosecutors don't.

I've still seen no good reason why prosecutors merit greater immunity than police officers.

Anonymous said...

I read that article yesterday and enjoyed it very much.

It is ridiculous for prosecutors to have absolute immunity. I work in the CJ system, I am not an attorney, but I am an intelligent human being.

The system is flawed, extremely flawed. Court appointed attorneys cannot do their clients justice, not enough resources period.

Prosecutors are often young,inexperienced, and way too overzealous. Even if they have experience, often they simply want a conviction much more than they want justice. Often, the elected DA is just a popular local guy or gal from the community who is out of touch with the real world.

Judges are way too quick to approve the multiples of plea agreements they hear just because the "esquires" are standing before them as officers of the Court.

The legislature doesn't think in terms of what is right and wrong. Just like most politicians, they think in terms of their value system and what they think the voters would want.

More money needs to be funneled to defend defendants.

More money needs to be applied as sanctions for prosecutors offices when prosecutors get it wrong. Prosecutors need to be charged with criminal sanctions when they withhold information a defense attorney could have used to vigorously defend their client.

Every body (except Prosecutors and Judges)in the CJ system is funded somehow and the funding has strings attached causing each entity to have to adjust to the way the wind is blowing within the halls of the Texas Legislature. Judges and prosecutors have too much protection, too much power, and are the only entities who are elected, except most of the prosecution is done by the minions of the elected DA. Many of those minions would have a snowballs chance in hell of winning an election. Many ADAs are generally pompous and have -0- humility.

if 1 defendant is wrongfully convicted and we can't admit it and make it right, that is scary. Too much ego on the part of Jurists and prosecutors.

john said...

You are reacting to technicalities, but the law was supposed to protect the innocent, not create a great work environment for career lawyers who don't quite want to go into elected politics. The gov is an enormous (and growing) machine that grinds up the citizens. BIGGEST PROBLEM IS IMMUNITY. PART OF TAKING THOSE JOBS IS THEY KNOW THEY'RE HOME FREE. By comparison, why would anyone want to be a cop? I guess they couldn't afford to pay a law school. TOO MANY FOLKS USE THE FREEDOM IN AMERICA TO LIVE OFF OTHER PEOPLE, BASED ON LOOPHOLES AND TECHNICALITIES. Jurisprudence was supposed to side with the defendant, who was to be presumed innocent.
Geebus, it's CAPTCHA!

System is schizo said...

Grits at 8:53: Wrong again. The protection for defense attorneys is the same as it is for prosecutors. What you are pointing out is that the defense attorneys get sued by their clients, i.e., the person on the same side of the case. That would be like the state suing prosecutors for losing a case, not for cheating to win. Can you show me a single case where a defense attorney lied in court or concealed inculpatory evidence or any of the other things you think prosecutors should be prosecuted for?

And that is the root of the problem. We have established a system whereby we expect only one side to play fair, and that's the prosecution. I'm sure it can be very frustrating to prosecutors to have to turn over everything they know about a case when the defense isn't even required to tell the state what they know about it.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

12:06, I'd just reiterate 9:30's explanation to you above that "Today, it is very different. Prosecutors have absolute immunity for ANYTHING that is considered to be part of the prosecutorial function, whether in or out of court. You are correct, if they take some action that is considered an investigative function it is not covered by absolute immunity. However, things such as intentionally withholding evidence, pressuring witnesses to testify falsely, and the typical types of misconduct we see so frequently are considered to be part of the prosecutorial function and, thus, covered by absolute immunity." Otherwise, we must agree to disagree on that question.

Now, to the issue of whether I or anyone else blames just "one side," I'm totally with you that a BIG part of the problem is crappy criminal defense attorneys working cookie-cutter style at plea-mill volumes. I don't believe anything I've said would imply otherwise, but rest assured I'm with you, I've blogged about the problem as well as discussed possible improvements. How much time has been spent lamenting the infamous "sleeping lawyer," etc.?

Focusing on recent examples of prosecutorial misconduct does not mean reformers are ONLY focusing on DAs, it means they're FINALLY focusing on them after focusing on the defense bar's shortcomings since the passage of the Texas Fair Defense Act in 2001 and subsequent related legislation. There has been no comparable reform legislation to fix what's wrong on the prosecutors' side, and it's high time the Lege and the courts got started.

Anonymous said...

"The typical types of misconduct we see so frequently..." Grits says.

Well, just how frequently is it?

In the recent study of "prosecutor misconduct" in Texas which Grits has referenced several times on this blog, there were only 91 instances of "prosecutor misconduct" discovered since 2004. I use that term in quotes because no one on here seems to define exactly what they're claiming constitutes "prosecutor misconduct." In any event, out of that 91 cases only THIRTEEN identified "failure to disclose evidence" as a "type of misconduct." Out of those 13, only SEVEN involved cases where the failure to disclose evidence was determined to be harmful to the defendant.

Now Grits will surely claim that there must be a lot more misconduct that has simply never been uncovered. Alternatively, I would submit that it's just as likely (if not more) that Texas prosecutors are doing a lot better job adhering to the law and ethical standards than you think. That's exactly why cases like Graves and Morton (cases tried decades ago, by the way)generate such big headlines. Kind of analogous to commercial airline crashes. They are statistically extremely rare but when they happen, they are really big news.

The fact of the matter is that we DON'T "frequently" see meritorious claims of prosecutor misconduct in Texas. I'm reminded here of that Ronald Reagan quote, "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so."

The vast majority of exonerations have been based upon faulty eye witness identification or other investigative errors--not on prosecutor misconduct.

What does concern me is that Grits himself has commented before that the DNA exonerations are slowing and that prosecutorial misconduct may be the next best tactical approach to post-conviction relief. I think defense attorneys realize this as well. It makes me wonder if the current hysteria is motivated more by a desire to give criminals a new and viable post-conviction remedy than to correct mistakes or wrongful convictions. At a minimum, I think there seems to be a calculated effort underway to diminish criminal prosecution in Texas which works much too well and efficiently to suit the criminal element and those who sympathize with them.

There are multiple ways for prosecutors in Texas who don't play by the rules to be held accountable. Several have been prosecuted criminally in recent years. Others have been sanctioned by the bar. In spite of absolute immunity, some have been sued. Don't believe me, Google it yourself. Incidentally, Texas already has one of the most generous compensatory systems in the country for those wrongly convicted.

Bottom line--in spite of a couple of extremely well publicized "bad apples," there is little or no credible evidence of any systemic corruption by Texas prosecutors which warrants systemic reform. Unless, however, your goal is to weaken the efficacy of criminal prosecution in Texas--a goal which seems to be readily obvious on the part of many people who have commented on this thread.

Lee said...

My favorite part was when Anthony said "u can’t tell me that I’m wrong. You tried to kill me twice. For something I knew nothing about."

I know that If I tried to kill someone, I would be charged with attempted murder. So....why is the state not on trial for attempted murder.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

All this talk of "accountability," 2:03, but you won't sign your name to any of it. Telling. And BTW, the quote you attribute to me was from another commenter.

Otherwise, you know full well (because we've been round and round about this) I've said the data you're discussing cannot tell us about the FREQUENCY of prosecutor misconduct, it only give us examples of the various FORMS it takes. I feel no need to defend positions I've never taken. You can pile up all the red herrings, suppositions, and misrepresentations of my views that you like, and my position still won't resemble the caricature you portray.

Texas Community Advocates said...

Caldwell County District Attorney Richard Reagan Trey Hicks III will be the next to be prosecuted for his threat to a defendant.

Texas Community Advocates said...

For more information on how to get rid of incompetent judges and D.A.s go to my blog.

Anonymous said...

If you can't identify the scope or frequency of a problem, Grits, then it's you who are dealing in suppositions. You are SPECULATING that there is a problem based upon an anecdotal handful of very well publicized cases. In the past, you yourself have been critical of those who run to the Legislature in the wake of some well publicized, high profile crime (See, e.g., Jessica's Law) seeking the creation of new crimes or enhanced penalties. And yet you've essentially been guilty of the same conduct with nothing more that Morton and Graves to support your proposals. Wonder what the odds are that Sen. Ellis will invite one or both of them over to the legislature next spring?

I do find it somewhat interesting that the round table discussion in the Texas Monthly piece had to veer off toward a discussion about the death penalty. Coincidental? I've felt for some time that the current attack on prosecutors was nothing more than an effort by the abolitionists to indirectly attack the death penalty. The Texas Tribune today had a poll showing that 73% of Texans still support the death penalty--this in spite of the recent publicity about the exonerations. Evidently, since that approach didn't work, the next strategy is to vilify Texas prosecutors.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Bored now, 4:31, you've become repetitive, and you weren't that interesting to begin with. We've been over all this ground. I understand why you'd prefer to talk about the death penalty than the topic of the post. Changing the subject is easier than self-examination. Thanks for reading, anyway.

Anonymous said...

4:31 = John Bradley

Anonymous said...

Well I certainly support the death penalty for errant prosecutors.
In fact, US code,
Deprivation of rights under color of law, provides for a penalty up to and including death.

Anonymous said...

12:06, I'm sure you're aware that the roles of prosecutors and defense attorneys are different. I assume you know that, anyway. You whine that both sides aren't required to "play fair." What does that mean?

First, the prosecutors job is to do justice, not just to convict. The defense attorney's job is to represent his client's interests. Think about it. A defendant is going up against all the power and resources of the government. You seem to want to make this just a personal thing between the proseuctor and defense attorney, just a contest, where each side should have the same rules. That's the problem, too many see this a just a contest and it's all about winning. It ain't that simple. A criminal proceeding is an effort by the government to deprive an individual of his freedom (sometimes his life). The government has a tremendous amount of power and resources. Most defendants have no power and few resources.

Second, it is the government's job to prove its case. The defendant should not have any obligation to prove anything. (Although, currently the way the system works a defendant is presumed guilty and must prove his innocence). Therefore, it is the government's responsibility to investigate and prove its case. That is why the defendant is not obligated to turn over information. Some states do have reciprocal discovery and there are good arguments on both sides of that. If that's what you want, the prosecutors certainly have the influence to change the law.

You, 12:06, seem to not like the fact that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and that the prosecution has a different obligation than the defense attorney. Apparently you have a problem with the structure of the system. So, be honest about that and propose what you think is a better system. Don't simply whine that both sides aren't required to "play fair." If you ever end up in a situation where the government is coming after you, you will see what is truly unfair.

If, 12:06, you want both sides to be equal. Then, how about giving the defense equal resources. The prosecution has all kinds of resources: police officers, investigators, labs, money for experts, etc. If you want both sides to "play fair" shouldn't the resources be the same? If you really want to start talking about fairness, let's talk about the whole picture, not just one small part. How about judges that have spent their entire careers as prosecutors; is that fair to the defendant?

Law enforcement and prosecutors have the weight of the resources, many biased judges, jurors who presume guilt, all on their side. If law enforcement and prosecutors fail to discover evidence, in most cases, its because they got tunnel vision, got lazy, or were just incompetent. They shouldn't expect the defendant to do their job for them.

Anonymous said...

Furthermore, 12:06, your argument about a client suing the defense attorney being like the state suing a prosecutor for losing also doesn't hold water. (I sincerely hope that you are not a prosecutor, because your comments show a lack of basic understanding about how the system is set up). The problem with your argument is, again, you look at this as all about winning and losing. The prosecutor represents the government. The government has an obligation to uphold and protect the constitutional rights of all its citizens. Thus, the prosecutor has an obligation to insure that the rights of the defendant are not violated. Yes, its probably never crossed your mind that the prosecutor actually has a duty to the defendant. Its the duty of fairness that the government owes to each and every citizen. Again, you have to remember that the role of the prosecutor is different from the defense attorney. If the prosecutor cheats, he has violated both his duty to the state (the duty to do justice) and his duty to the defendant (to protect the constitutional rights of all citizens). Can you see the flaws in your argument now?

PAPA said...

none of these positions should be appointed or voted for,there should be a judge school,a district attorney school, as the lawyer school then the master or PHD plan,once graduated they apply for jobs on their own merits as to their works,becoming a lawyer should not allow the step ladder climbing to city/county attorney,district attorney,judge,currently if you serve in the position of DA you can not become a judge,the only thing a judge can do is go back into private practice,this would shut out a bunch of this when having to send out resumes,how many people did you wrongfully convict, how many innocent people did you send to the execution table,that would be an eye opener on a person's resume,how about changing the law where it is legal to make untruth statements like we have a man in the next room that can positively identify you if you do not confess or if you do not plead guilty we are going for the maximum life sentence on this one,etc.clean out and clean up the system,remove all immunity to all of them,hold each person accountable and responsible for his/her right/wrong actions,just these changes would empty out the America Industrial Prison for profit sytems and save taxpayers billions on billions of tax dollars each year

Anonymous said...

It just occurred to me that 2:03's logic could be applied to solve some of our most significant societal problems. Consider this, for example: A few decades ago, child sexual abuse was rarely investigated or prosecuted. If one looked at the statistics, they would have seemed to show that this was a very rare and infrequent problem, just as 2:03 attempts to argue that prosecutorial misconduct is today. It wasn't until we started to investigate and prosecute child sexual abuse that we came to realize just how often it does occur. So, extending 2:03's logic, it appears that, prior to the time we started to take this problem seriously, it wasn't a serious or frequent problem. Thus, it would appear (again extending 2:03's logic) that investigating and prosecuting child sexual abuse actually caused the frequency of this conduct to increase (again, note, this conclusion can only be reached using 2:03's logic). Therefore, if we want to decrease the frequency of child sexual abuse, we need only to stop investigating and prosecuting it. Sure, we will still hear the anectdotal evidence, just like we do with prosecutorial misconduct, but we can sleep well at night knowing it is a rare and infrequent problem, being assured of this by the lack of any statistics proving it is more frequent.

Thomas R. Griffith said...

Hey Grits, if I may?

To: Ms. Siegler or the Anon. that speaks for you, simple question(s) that may test your integrity and / or attention span. I personally don't think you helped clear Mr. Graves' name, you simply knew that everyone was watching so you were more than likely 'forced' to do the right thing.

Regarding ADAs shown to have comitted crimes while seeking justice - Would you call upon him to do the right thing or simply ignore it - if you were to learn that the very ADA that claims to have "trained 'you' is shown in Case files to have knowingly & willingly introduced a firearm (.38cal. revolver w/ 5 or 6 in barrel) as a State's Exhibit in a robbery case involving a description of a (.22 or .25 cal. revolver w/ 2 in barrel)? If you learned that he created two State's Exhibits docs. with a total of three number (3s) dated seven years apart, one being handwritten and the other typed up? If you learned that the Sheriff's Office and the Police Dept. had no records (chain of custody) regarding the mystery gun for (10) years? If you learned that he knew that the original police incident report clearly shows suspect(s) having straight black hair, black skin & no facial hair but prosecuted a person with wavy brown sun streaked hair, whitish skin & a mustache? If you learned that he stopped the jury trial at lunch recess by having defendant's attorney deceive him via that it's best to plea bargain because he's going to prison guilty or not just for being arrested due to probation being revoked?

Nothing short of a miracle allowed me to be able to purchased my entire certified case file, police incident report & color police photo showing; the judge, ADA, a hired attorney, two court reporters, four robbery detectives and their supervisors, two sheriff's deputies & one crime victim all knowingly and willingly working together to obtain justice via; false arrest on non-existent OTW, and abused the plea bargain process to secure a wrongful conviction. Despite being sold proof positive of a conspiracy of this magnitude clearly outlining who did what, the Texas Board of Pardons & Paroles denied two applications for a Full Pardon - for innocence.

Now, that you’ve been made aware of this info. you are asked to vett it for accuracy and consider alerting him of what you've learned and possibly seeing a well documented wrong righted or ignore it. I'm still waiting on him over at the Simple Justice Blawg to tell me where to mail him copies so he can refreash his fading memory. Thanks just the same.