Categories

"Sunshine is the best
disinfectant
"
Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
 
Law Resources

L.A. PROSECUTOR FRAUD

 

MICHAEL F. GOODWIN, CONVICTED OF ORDERING MICKEY THOMPSON MURDERED, CLAIMS MASSIVE PROSECUTOR FRAUD

 

Still claiming his innocence, Michael F.Goodwin, convicted of ordering the murder of racing legend Mickey Thompson, alleges “unprecedented” prosecutor fraud led to his wrongful conviction.

 

Michael F. Goodwin, creator of the sport of Supercross, was convicted in 2007 of the 1988 murders of off-road racing legend, Mickey Thompson and his wife. He alleges “prosecutorial misconduct, on an unprecedented scale,” lead to his wrongful conviction. Goodwin has always maintained his innocence and prosecutors in Orange County, where the charges were initially filed but later dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, and in Los Angeles, where he was convicted in a lengthy trial, were never able to tie Goodwin to the murderers or the murders.

 

Goodwin has been incarcerated since December of 2001 and is now serving two life sentences without parole at Corcoran State Prison. Although Goodwin appealed the verdict immediately following sentencing by L.A. Judge Teri Schwartz who presided at his trial, the appellate brief was not filed until late November, nearly six years later. Goodwin’s court appointed attorney, Gail Harper, was finally successful in filing an “over-sized brief” of 472 pages, nearly 100,000 words, far larger than the court would normally allow.

 

When advised that Harper had been successful at overcoming initial court objections to the massive appellate brief, Goodwin said, “I am happy to see that the appeal is finally, after six years, filed. I am encouraged because there are more than two dozen strong denials of due process pled that I just can’t imagine the 2nd District Court of Appeal denying.” Goodwin went on to say, “For any one of those, they are required to reverse the conviction. I’m confident that we will prevail as these proceedings continue.”

 

Of the extraordinary scope of the brief, Goodwin said, “The reason the appellant brief is so voluminous is the exceedingly gross amount of outrageous government misconduct in the case committed, specifically by the 2012 candidate for the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office, Alan Jackson, de-facto lead prosecutor in my trial.” While Pat Dixon, past Head Deputy, Major Crimes at Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office, was technically lead prosecutor, Jackson was the prime mover during the trial, according to Goodwin.

 

“In short,” Goodwin continued, “what has occurred here is that the government was allowed to lie and distort as much as they wanted to, yet the defense was restricted from even presenting true facts into evidence or refuting the prosecution’s lies and frauds.” Circumspect, Goodwin said, “Nevertheless, I am honored and thankful that the court allowed my attorney the extra space to refute the many lies and frauds that led to my wrongful conviction.”

 

When Goodwin learned today that the District Attorney Elect, Jackie Lacey, who soundly defeated Alan Jackson for the office of L.A.D.A. on November 6th, had reassigned Assistant District Attorney Jackson from an active prosecutorial role in the D.A.’s office he said, “My confidence is underscored by Ms. Lacey’s announcement of her decision to reassign Jackson from his prestigious, high-profile position to a job where he will no longer try cases. In my trial, Jackson was guilty of the most extreme, repeated, felony, criminal acts, all completely provable. I am glad that he will not be in a position to wrongfully convict others.”

 

Goodwin is in the process of filing other actions that he is confident will lead to his exoneration and release from prison. “I’m on cloud nine,” he said, “because I’m much closer to proving to the world that I had nothing to do with the Thompson murders.”  READ MORE

 

 Read about  Michael Goodwin’s quest to correct a travesty of justice:   FRIENDS OF MICHAEL F. GOODWIN

 

PRESUMPTION OF GUILT

THE PRESUMPTION OF GUILT

 By John J. Bradley

 

Name the country where you are presumed guilty until you can successfully show that you are innocent, Afghanistan?   No, the U.S.  But, what about the clause in the Bill of rights, “a defendant is presumed innocent until proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is guilty?”  This just doesn’t apply in our judicial system today.  When did all that change would be the question that most might ask at this juncture.

 

Inasmuch as law enforcement, prosecuting attorneys, judges and virtually everyone else on the government side of the justice system is paid and promoted based on convictions,  there is no motivation to “seek the truth” in a trial vs. aggressively pursue conviction, usually at all costs.  Acquittals for prosecutors, judges or law enforcement  means they are “soft on crime” or just aren’t doing their job.

 

When a person is arrested in this country, the police must have good cause to believe the person arrested committed a crime. Not True.  The widespread notion among the general public is that police wouldn’t arrest a person unless they  thought he was guilty. This is true; so why would anyone be “presumed innocent?”    Known collectively as the “authorities,” those in the justice system generally only need the filmiest of evidence to charge.  If a Grand Jury will not indict, (and within the justice system a popular saying  is,  “a Grand Jury will indict a ham sandwich”) a Preliminary Hearing is held,, a formality overwhelmingly favoring prosecutors.  A prosecutor need only show that A) a crime was committed and B) the person charged might  have committed the crime.

 

Wrongful convictions occur very infrequently in the U.S.    Not true:    Based on exoneration records from jurisdictions around the country and advocacy organizations, (The Innocence Project has exonerated more than 302, some off death row), conviction rates in other Western countries, opinions of legal experts, there are approximately 200,000 in jails and prisons now who have been wrongfully charged and many have been convicted.  Hardly a day passes without someone else, somewhere in the U.S., being released on new evidence, usually DNA. This is but the tip of a massive pyramid with only those at the top, with resources to assist in correcting a wrongful conviction,

 

THE IRRELEVANCE OF INNOCENCE: The “presumption of guilt,” not innocence, tracks defendants throughout the system.  Imagine law enforcement arresting those they “presumed innocent.”  In virtually all arrests, law enforcement makes a “prophecy of guilt,” early on, then ‘develops” appropriate evidence to prosecute and convict.  (See the 2002 feature film, with Al Pacino, Hillary Swank, Robin Williams, Insomniafor a realistic depiction of this law enforcement mindset with truly disastrous results.  Also read Pulitzer Prize winner Edward Humes’ “Mean Justice” to see how rampant, and dangerous, this can be in a community where it is nurtured, unchecked.)

 

The courts support prosecution for conviction, not exoneration.  Prosecutors are paid to convict, not acquit.  Most judges are former prosecutors and are not, as is the common misconception, neutral “referees” leaning in favor of protecting defendants’ rights.  Can you imagine a trial where prosecutors actually presented exculpatory evidence, which, by the way, the law prescribes?

 

 ARREST WITHOUT EVIDENCE: Officials can and do arrest on no, or flawed, even fabricated, evidence.  Affidavits are sworn, under penalty of perjury, so judges, relying upon the honesty of law enforcement and prosecutors, approve such documents without corroboration.  Judges are unable to verify evidence in a “sworn officer’s” affidavit.  There are evidential requirements for arrest, search and seizure and preliminary hearings.  However, they are based upon the premise that officers of the law and courts will rise to these standards of law, voluntarily, accurately and truthfully. Some do not.

 

Frequently, in cases where there is little or no evidence, the “instincts and experience” of law enforcement point them to a suspect early in the investigation.  To validate these de facto “declarations of guilt,” officers and/or prosecutors “fudge” evidence to arrest and prosecute so conviction becomes, in effect, a self-fulfilling prophecy of guilt.  Officials “amplify” weak evidence; falsify forensics that would be difficult for the defense to verify; manipulate witness testimony; avoid investigation of other suspects, and withhold exculpatory evidence to strengthen the case and validate that prophecy of guilt.  Once this declaration is made, officials rarely admit malfeasance or incompetence, even if evidence is developed exonerating the defendant.  Prosecutors are often reluctant to reverse their convictions even when presented with incontrovertible DNA or other evidence, exonerating a convicted defendant.

 

YEARS OF INCARCERATION WITH NO TRIAL: Routinely, defendants, many who present no danger or the very remote possibility of flight, are held without bail or unaffordable bail, for years.  “Speedy trial” is another fallacy of the American Judicial system.  The more serious the crime alleged, the longer it will take the defense to prepare for trial.  A current was in jail for thirty months without trial before the case was dismissed.  With the assistance of Justice On Trial, a motion to dismiss was filed and the case was ultimately dismissed.  The defendant served a total of 30 months without having been convicted or ever having a trial.  Unfortunately, this case is not unique.

 

MYTH OF INCREASED CONVICTION/DECREASED CRIME  RATEStatistics, like holograms, look a little different from every angle.  About 85% of “convictions” in the U.S. are not really convictions at all.  Ostensibly, to save the courts’ time and money, in collaboration with law enforcement, prosecutors “over-charge” defendants.  That is, in the majority of criminal cases, the defendant is charged with more serious crimes than there is evidence to support.  Law enforcement then persuades the defendant:

 AThat sufficient evidence does exist, when most often it does not; that he will be charged and almost certainly convicted with a long sentence.

 BIf he goes to trial it could take years (it will) and, should he lose and appeal, he could spend many years in jail (he would) and still be sentenced at the    highest end of the sentencing standard, without “time served” being counted because he was uncooperative by not accepting the plea bargain.

 

Then, for a the hapless defendant’s admission of guilt, regardless of claims of innocence, he will be offered the opportunity to plea to a lesser offense, carrying a lighter sentence, usually with “time served” counted.This is a “Plea Bargain,” not a conviction; defendants waive their right to a trial.

 

Therefore, without a trial, and to avoid extra years in jail, many of whom claim innocence accept such plea-bargains.  In fact, many of the serious crimes that are plea-bargained have not really been solved. Countless defendants, later proven innocent, had accepted negotiated convictions.  Estimates by legal professionals run to 10% or more wrongfully convicted and advocacy organizations such as Innocence Project have exonerated hundreds.  Tragically, when an innocent person accepts a plea-bargain, the criminals who actually committed the crimes are still at large.

 

All prosecutors erroneously claim these plea-bargains as convictions.  It is not done to save the courts’ time and money, as officials claim, though, without plea bargains, the American justice system would grind to a halt, but to make the job of law enforcement and criminal prosecution much easier and to make “conviction” and crime statistics look more positive and impressive.

 

By reducing charges in a plea bargain, the seriousness of the crime committed/solved is officially diminished, often from a felony to a misdemeanor.  The original, more serious, crime is “solved” and the case is listed as a prosecution/conviction on the lesser offence.  Depending on the spin needed, prosecutors cite increased convictions overall and/or fewer serious crimes prosecuted.

 

Those believing that their innocence will lead to acquittal are naïve and find, too late, of the irrelevance of innocence in today’s American system of justice.

 ESTIMATES OF INNOCENTS IN JAIL RUN TO 200,000 OR MOREIf that were true, what an outrage!  But, it is.  You may have heard that Barry Scheck, nationally known trial attorney, has headed up a similar non-profit organization, Innocence Project for several years.  This group has been responsible for 158 cases overturned, some from death row, primarily based on DNA evidence.  (Read “Actual Innocence” by Barry Scheck, for more information and some astonishing statistics on numbers of innocent inmates in U.S. jails).  The U.S. has the largest inmate population of any country in the world, over 2 million.  Because of the overwhelming numbers of wrongfully accused cases pending that involve exculpatory DNA, Barry’s organization and others like it are unable help those wrongfully charged or those crimes that do not involve forensic DNA evidence.  Justice On Trial will specialize in this area of injustice.

 

The above points are only highlights of the massive problems within a broken American judicial system.

 

  Justice On Trial has dedicated its resources:

 

Ö     To assist in avoiding conviction of those wrongly charged.

Ö     To investigate and help overturn cases of the wrongly convicted.

Ö     To offer suggestions and lobby for legislation to make positive changes in the system

 

Read about OUR QUEST TO FREE ANOTHER WRONGFULLY CONVICTED PERSON

SPEEDY TRIAL?

“SPEEDY TRIAL” = QUICK CONVICTION

 by John J. Bradley

 

IS A “SPEEDY TRIAL” CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED?  The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…”  These guarantees ”are the most basic rights preserved by our Constitution;” fundamental liberties embodied in the Bill of Rights. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes them applicable to all States.

 

WHAT IS A “SPEEDY TRIAL”?  Most jurisdictions in the U.S. have defined “speedy trial” to be within 75 days of the person’s arrest.  This Constitutional guarantee is for the protection of both the defendant and society, since persons in jail must be supported at considerable public expense and if a guilty person is mistakenly released they may commit other crimes.

 

HOW CAN “SPEEDY TRIAL” WORK AGAINST A DEFENDANT? In most cases, preparation for trial takes much more than two or three months.  Defendants are not presumed innocent.  They must prove to a jury that there is “reasonable doubt” of guilt.  Prosecutors “hold all the cards.”  Contrary to common belief, courts are not the forum to “see that justice is done,” but more a machine to convict.  Prosecutors are heavily favored in rulings; most judges are former prosecutors and their role is not of neutral referee, but more to adjudicate and interpret law in a dispute over guilt versus innocence between prosecutor and defendant.  Therefore, the defendant must be prepared to show a judge and/or jury why he should be acquitted of a crime that the government has expended months, often years, massive resources and vast amounts of money investigating and formulating a case geared to convict, not necessarily expose the truth.

 

INNOCENCE IS IRRELEVANT – RESOURCES ARE THE KEY: In fact, an innocent person has a more difficult time building a defense against what is unknown.  Moreover, in the overwhelming percentage of cases, defendants cannot afford to spend as much money and/or time on building a defense as the government does building its case against him. Two or three months is not even enough time for an attorney to become familiar with the facts, allegations and charges in serious cases, let alone build a defense. This is especially true when evidence is weak and suspicion of innocence is strong, for this is when law enforcement and prosecutors, desperate to win, “fudge” on evidence, making  defense against false, exaggerated or manufactured evidence extremely difficult. The prosecution is much more prepared to convict a few months following arrest than the defense is to acquit. Prosecutors view every case as a battle to win; conviction the goal and the only acceptable outcome of a trial.  They believe that their purpose is to convict, not to judge guilt or innocence; that, they preach, is the province of the court.   

 

JUSTICE RELIES ON THE HONESTY OF THOSE ADMINISTERING IT:  For the reasons above, a “speedy trial” heavily tilts the playing field of the trial toward the prosecutor.  Though it would seem “a day in court” is the best way to convict the guilty or exonerate the innocent, this relies, like all facets of the judicial system, on the honesty of those administering it.  Although prosecutors are sworn to “…see that Justice is done,” they are paid, promoted and their reputation/career depends on a conviction record.  Prosecutors must convict, not acquit.  Therefore, an ideology of conviction now drives the majority of prosecutors in the United States today.

 

HOW DOES THIS PROSECUTOR “MANDATE TO CONVICT” DELAY TRIALS?

Conviction is not achieved by simply presenting evidence and letting a jury decide. Prosecutors with high conviction records:

 

A.  DELAY DEFENSE DISCOVERY: In most trials, discovery is a legal, mutual, obligation.  Prosecutors must give the defense the documents and other evidence related to the charges against the defendant, and the defense attorney must give the prosecutor documents and evidence, though to a lesser degree, related to the defense of those charges. Prosecutors with high conviction records routinely delay delivery of discovery to the defense as long as possible since no defense attorney will schedule a trial until the full scope of the evidence against the defendant is fully assessed.  Defense attorneys must be exceptionally tenacious to get discovery from the prosecution and, often, a court order is required. The judges admonish prosecutors to abide by the law but rarely censure or punish them for not obeying it.

 

B.  ORCHESTRATE A DISCOVERY “PAPER DUMP” ON THE DEFENSE: When they finally do accede to ardent requests by the defense, many prosecutors perform a “paper dump,” consisting of sometimes hundreds of thousands of documents. Simply put, the prosecutor delivers much more discovery than is necessary to the defense, often comprised of meaningless “fluff.”   Spread throughout this blizzard of documents are relevant documents. Only legal professionals can adequately review and assess these materials, at great cost in defense time and money.  Private attorneys/paralegals must charge from $30 to $400+ per hour and delay any court hearings and trial until all discovery is reviewed.

 

This needless, malicious activity, generated by the prosecutor, causes the defense to more rapidly deplete its resources before trial, which is one of the prosecutors’ main objectives in doing it.

 

C.  WITHHOLD EXCULPATORY (favorable) EVIDENCE FROM DISCOVERY:  Although the law requires it, to give the defense benefit of law enforcement/prosecution’s extensive investigation could easily result in an inadvertent acquittal. The law specifically requires that prosecutors share with the defense any exculpatory (favorable to the defendant) evidence in their possession or of which they have knowledge.  However, prosecutors will withhold, as long as possible, known exculpatory evidence, especially if it would tend to exonerate the defendant, until forced by the defense to do so.  Moreover, if the defense is unaware of exculpatory evidence, very often this evidence is also withheld, or, in many cases, never shared, to avoid the possibility of the prosecutor losing the case.

 

D.  WITHHOLD INCULPATORY (unfavorable) EVIDENCE FROM DISCOVERY:  The prosecutor would prefer not giving the defense any opportunity to defend against key evidence and risk losing the case at trial.  Therefore, the evidence supporting key elements in the prosecution case is withheld, altered or only portions are turned over.  This limits defense ability to investigate and/or develop a defense.  Judges will usually only admonish the prosecuting attorneys,  not sanction or punish, if these delays and/or withholding are brought up by the defense.

 

Rules vary but the only prosecution obligation is to give up discovery 15 to 30 days before trial.  Therefore, on key evidence, the very evidence the defense needs to see earliest, the most important to defend against, is held by many prosecutors to as close to the trial date as possible in order to avert acquittal.

 

E.  TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE “MOTIONS CONUNDRUM:”   In a serious felony prosecution, to ensure the defendant receives a fair trial, the defense must “set the record” by filing a series of motions pertaining to defense allegations, so that the court rules on them prior to trial. The conundrum is that filing these motions will substantially delay the beginning of the trial, yet, not filing the motions can prohibit the defense from bringing up those allegations at trial or appealing a conviction based upon them.  This process takes, literally, years and, although it is a common and necessary procedure leading up to trial, prosecutors will always point to such delays as “defense generated,” implying the defendant is delaying going to trial, ostensibly because of his guilt.

 

F.  EXERCISE THE “LAW OF THE JUMBLE:”  In complex cases where many documents, sometimes in the hundreds of thousands, are involved, prosecutors and/or law enforcement can and do return confiscated documents to the defendants out of order, sometimes hopelessly jumbled, so that the defendant and/or his defense team, at considerable cost, have to unscramble them before they are usable.  Prosecutors deny this ever goes on since it is impossible for the defense to prove that the documents were not returned in the same order received. This effectively impedes the defense, often resulting in defense requests to delay trial.

 

G. MYSTERIOUSLY “FIND” DISCOVERY CLOSE TO TRIAL:  Often, prosecutors announce that “new” discovery has mysteriously appeared, close to trial. Usually, it is not “new” at all, but items simply withheld for this purpose, to delay the proceedings until the defense can review and assess it.  The court usually accepts the prosecutors’ explanation that the evidence was just “found” and will grant a delay to the defense to review this discovery.  Again, it is a defense requested delay, generated by the prosecution.

 

To answer questions as to why this defendant did not receive a “speedy trial,” the prosecutor points to numerous delays by the defense, omitting that it was prosecution activities that necessitated the defense to requests for the delays.

 

 

H.  PRODUCE EXCESSIVE WITNESS LIST:  The prosecution is not obligated to produce a witness list until 60 days before trial. Often, prosecutors will identify as “potential” witnesses, many more than they intend to call; for example, 150 potential witnesses, even if they only plan to use 30 of them.  To effectively defend against what these witnesses may testify to, the defense needs to try  to interview all of them, since the prosecution is not obligated to advise the defense, in advance, what subject the witness may testify to or if they will testify at all.  This serves to further deplete defense resources and, again, often necessitates a defense request for a trial delay by the defense but generated by prosecution activities. 

 

Additionally, prosecutors have other “tools” not available to  defendants and not limited to those listed above or below:

 

NO VERIFICATION OF WHAT “AUTHORITIES” RELEASE TO MEDIA Since it is assumed that law enforcement would not arrest someone who they “presume innocent,” and prosecutors would not conduct a trial without enough evidence to convict, once it is determined that a trial will be held, the defendant is viewed as guilty by the media and, consequently, the public. The prosecutor capitalizes on this by releasing only inculpatory (inferring guilt) evidence, sometimes false, to the media.  The media has no way to verify any of this evidence since it is the “authorities” who are releasing it to them.

 

MEDIA RARELY USES DEFENSE ALLEGATIONS, EVEN WHEN DOCUMENTEDAlthough the defense may attempt to refute erroneous allegations made to the media by prosecution officials, this is usually unsuccessful, since the media rarely uses, even documented, defense counters to what authorities’ statements.   In this way, the prosecutors are in control, indirectly, over what the media uses.  This is another reason why prosecutors seek to prolong the time it takes to get to trial. Over time, this adverse media tends to “poison the jury pool” and sway the public in favor of the defendant’s guilt/conviction.   The higher the profile of the case, the more publicity and the better it is for prosecutors.

 

“SPEEDY TRIAL” IS NOT BENEFICIAL TO DEFENDANTS:  The idea of a “Speedy Trial” being of benefit to anyone is erroneous.   Prolonging the time between arrest and trial is good for the defendant in order for him to prepare an appropriate defense in the face of the most formidable and overwhelming resources of prosecutors.  A “Speedy Trial” is usually almost certain conviction. The prosecutors would benefit most from a “Speedy Trial,” but prefer to bankrupt the defendant so as defense falters, a plea bargain can be offered, even if the defendant is viewed as possibly innocent. 85% of “convictions in the U.S. today are not really convictions at all, but plea bargains that prosecutors list as confessions leading to conviction.  In fact, the punishment for many crimes is less than the time it takes to get to trial.  So, if a defendant cannot raise bail, he may serve less time in jail by pleading guilty in a plea bargain arrangement than if he went to trial and was acquitted.

 

The system of justice in America is badly in need of repair. The founding fathers could never have envisioned that, by constitutionally guaranteeing a “right” to a “Speedy Trial” so that the guilty would be convicted and innocent quickly released from jail, conviction was virtually guaranteed, regardless of innocence. 

 

Read about  JUSTICE ON TRIAL’S QUEST TO CORRECT A WRONGFUL CONVICTION

JUSTICE, OUT OF ORDER

JUSTICE, OUT OF ORDER

by John J. Bradley

The American Justice System  –  A Conviction Machine With a Conviction to Convict.

 

 

Justice, Out Of Order

 

You’re out of order! You’re out of order! The whole trial is out of order” Al Pacino, as attorney Arthur Kirkland, in the 1979 film, “…And Justice For All,”   tells the judge and courtroom. That was thirty years ago; now, in any courtroom in the country, Pacino would be more correct in adding, “…the whole SYSTEM is out of order!.”

 

America must be doing some things right, though,  since we imprison more than any country, where such records are available, on the planet. Per 100,000 in population, the U.S. puts away more than 700 while most other countries have imprisonment rates under 200.  Even China has only 117 per 100,000; India only 29; Canada, 116; Mexico,169 and Russia 584.  For those who doubt the U.S. is tough on crime, the American Justice System has become the most efficient conviction machine in the known universe.

 

Yet, the public’s perception is that crime rates are up; that prosecutors let criminals off all too frequently, that the guilty go free on the whim of a judge or because of a rouge jury, a la O.J. Simpson.  What IS going on?

 

All those within the justice system, from law enforcement to those in the highest justice offices, are elected, appointed, advanced, ranked, paid, based on number of convictions.  Convictions are the currency of justice.  Too many acquittals translates to “soft on crime.”

 

At the core of the system is the trial, by judge or jury.  Conceived as a forum to to dole out justice to seekers of truth, the trial has morphed into a diabolical arena of conflict, where anything goes. If the format of the trial ever was anything else, it is now the ultimate reality game with the highest stakes, the most complex rules and referees who are often players.

 

Law enforcement, prosecutors and, yes, judges have the strong conviction to convict.  There is no “presumption of innocence.”  There is no “burden of proof” on the prosecutor.  There is no “benefit of doubt” skewed to the possibility of innocence.  The playing field tilts to prosecutors, the converse to what we believe about innocence; it is irrelevant.  It is easier to defend the guilty as it is not necessary to deal with the truth.

 

 

Read about JUSTICE ON TRIAL’S QUEST TO CORRECT A WRONGFUL CONVICTION