Downloads

I was accused of murder, shooting another person to death. I was convicted of causing a suicide/reckless manslaughter, though this allegation came only in the form of jury instruction.
Of the trial, indictment count 1, the following claims can be verified:
* Never accused of recklessness by the state
* jury never heard a claim by the state of recklessness
* conviction contradicts indictment (death by suicide v. death by murder)
* State was allowed to maintain inconsistent legal positions regarding jury instructions versus its Case in Chief
* constructively denied counsel for offense convicted (counsel had no pre-trial opportunity to investigate or prepare defence for the ambush jury instruction request of the state)
*ambush jury instructions served to deny notice, circumvent due process and bastardize the concept and integrity of a fair legal contest
* denied the right to confront an accusor for recklessness
* denied opportunity to litigate issue of suicide/self inflicted accidental discharge
* State openly admits on record (away from jury) that they provided no testimony or evidence of recklessness (page 2307)
*State was allowed to make use of jury instructions that relieved the state of the burden of proof
*no accused or adduced illegal act to serve as proximate cause
*jury never heard claim by the State that the victim INTENTIONALLY shot herself, under any circumstances.
* jury never heard a claim by the State that the defendant was responsible for the actions of the victim.
* jury never heard a claim by the State that the defendant was intoxicated to the point of impairment.
* jury never heard a claim by the State that the victim was influenced by the words of the defendant.
* jury never heard a claim by the State that 'but for' any action of the defendant, the action of the victim was a result.
* jury never heard a claim by the State that the defendant performed any criminal activity that is contained in the conviction.
*no evidence exists to delineate a suicide from an accidental discharge
*Proofs adduced at trial contrary to material allegation of indictment
*Jury instructions for causing a suicide/ reckless manslaughter, as issued, inconsistent with any allegations made in a manner prescribed by law
*Subject matter jurisdiction of a suicide was not provided for or granted by Grand Jury indictment / manner prescribed by law
*State failed to exclude reasonable hypothesis of self inflicted accidental discharge (wasn't litigated)
*State failed to prove any material allegation of the indictment
*The legitimate legal question posed by the indictment (murder) was satisfied by a Not guilty verdict
And arguably, the state also failed to observe other obligations imposed by law, (to date, undetermined, officially) the appearance is certainly clear:
*State made use of perjured expert testimony of Jan Johnson +*State withheld impeachment evidence of Jan Johnson's perjured testimony until long after discharge of the jury
*State ignored Candor toward the tribunal obligation
*State potentially complicit with perjury or committed subornation of perjury
Furthermore:
∆ State failed to investigate/perform/provide exculpatory (not merely rebuttal) forensic testing that was imposed upon the defendant to provide at his own expense. Had the state performed this vital function , the families involved, friends , the state and otherwise interested could have known, the better part of a decade sooner, that Shay wasn't murdered and potential alternative charges been considered in a proper light
∆ District Attorney, Joseph Rushing, has displayed a reckless disregard of his oath, ethical obligations, the law , and due process protections of the accused in a very shocking, cruel, and dangerous manner that is no less than a hazard to the public of which he serves and a devastation to the integrity of the institution of which he is a part
ThisHappenedinAlabama.com

Files coming soon.

Downloads

Downloads

This website uses cookies.