top of page
This site was designed with the
.com
website builder. Create your website today.Start Now

Counsel’s conduct was deficient and not based on reasonable strategy.

Constitutionally effective counsel must develop trial strategy and perform adequate investigation including, interviewing potential pivotal witnesses. Counsel also failed to cross-examine state witnesses concerning inconsistent statements that were given between the 1st and 2nd trial attributing to probable cause.  Because of his failure to provided effective assistance of counsel an innocent man has spent the last 20 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.  Furthermore the actual guilty person, the actual person that was responsible for the victim’s brutal murder (who died from 3 gunshot wounds to the head, 3 gunshot wounds to her back and two gunshot wounds to her chest) has been a member of society now for the last 10 years.

Two years later M won his appeal and was awarded a 2nd trial. The prosecution once again called upon R to testify.  However, he stated that he did not want to “because he could not remember anything.” The prosecution threatened to revoke the plea that they had made with him in exchange for his testimony in the 1st trial.​


​

  • During the 2nd trial R stated M shot the victim because she “had too much knowledge regarding the theft of a car that R claim both he and M had participated which was completely different from what he stated in the 1st trial.   Since the same counsel for the defense also represented in the 1st trial he should have recognized that R was giving conflicting statement and could have easily called upon transcripts from the 1st trial to show this which would have shown R’s credibility to be questionable.
  • More importantly, he could have called upon witnesses that would have been able to likely shed light to the fact that M could not have participated in the theft of the which would have shown that R acted alone in stealing the car.  If he had it would have also suggested that the Victim would have been M’s alibi and that the probable cause he was suggesting would have only been applicable to himself.



Further Miscarriage Of Justice



Following the conclusion of his conviction from his trial based on the Accomplice-Rule his conviction was overturned and he was granted a new trial. The Prosecution again called upon the witness/accomplice to testify on behalf of the prosecution and the jury returned another guilty verdict.  As stated according to the Accomplice-Witness Rule in order for a jury to convict based on the testimony of a witness/accomplice their testimony must be corroborated by additional witnesses or physical evidence.  Since the prosecution once again failed to present either the conviction once again should have be overturned.  ​

​

The same counsel for the defense represented him in both the 1st and 2nd trials. Therefore, even though there was a different judge and prosecutor he should have recognized that the prosecution again erred under the same guidelines as previously declared concluding the 1st trial.  However, he did nothing!  

Since he was court appointed counsel for the 2nd trial therefore he might have been required to represent in any additional proceedings going further and since he had already lost both trials it leaves room to speculate that possibly he simply just did not want to put in the additional required effort (especially since he was court appointed) and/or risk incurring another case loss on his judicial record.  


Today

He is an exemplary inmate. He has taken, completed and received certificates for just about any kind of class that has been available to him.  He is currently working towards a degree in welding and is at the top of his class!! He has the highest level of trustee that one can achieve under the nature of his offense.  I think about the kind of man he has grown up to be in spite of what he has been through and I find myself in complete awe and amazement.  What is most remarkable is that he is not broken and bitter. He recognizes that even though he isn't guilty of the crime that he has been convicted of he was still headed down the wrong path at the time it happened.  Even more remarkable is that he actually feels that in away being sent prison saved him by giving him the ability to actually grow up into the kind of man he can be proud to be.  

Most of all, he hopes to some day use what has happened to him and all that he has been through as a platform to make a difference by helping others who find themselves walking in his shoes as well as working with kids in order to prevent them from meeting the same fate.
bottom of page