To keep exculpatory evidence from the defense is to deny that defendant due process, and is against the law. This was determined in a Supreme Court case called Brady v. Maryland. Yet this is exactly what has taken place and still is taking place in my case.
It is now a proven fact, and not something that I made up or have said because I lost in court. The law as it is written has not been applied to me. Everyone knows that the prosecution cannot hide, keep away, or destroy material exculpatory evidence. That type of evidence must be turned over to the defense and the defendant at all parts of the legal process, but especially at trial, or pre-trial.
This is so because this evidence can help strengthen the defendant’s case as well as weaken the state’s case. It can show that others, not the defendant, actually committed the crime instead of the defendant.
Judge W. Fletcher points out correctly that in 2004 I was granted a stay of execution because there was a “prima facie” showing that the state violated “Brady”. The prosecution insisted that tennis shoes were only issued in prison and not to the general public. But in fact, Warden Midge Carroll had provided information to the prosecutor’s office that these shoes were not just prison-issued and were available in stores and in catalogs. This information was not given to my defense attorney. My defense attorney has stated: “"At the time of trial, I was not aware that Pro Keds Dudes tennis shoes were listed for sale in a retail catalogue. Had I known this information at that time, I would have featured that fact prominently in the defense at trial."
Now after that stay in 2004, and these district court hearings in 2004 and 2005, there are now numerous Brady violations.
The law clearly states that if the prosecution does not turn over this evidence to the defense it is a violation of the law. It is illegal and unconstitutional if they do not do it. In my case not only has it NOT been done, a district court judge and certain circuit court judges are pretending that these things haven’t happened, or are making excuses for them, or ignoring them or procedurally barring them.
The written law doesn’t apply to me now in 2009 according to Judges Marilyn L. Huff and Pamela Anne Rymer, just as Judge Roger B. Taney would not and did not apply the written law to Dred Scott in 1857. It appears that the two of us, Mr. Scott and I, have no rights that certain white people are bound to respect. This is the same whether they are white men in the 19th century or white women in the 21st century.
We are denied equal justice under the law no matter what period in time it takes place, especially when we are Poor Black Men. Not even the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act can supercede Brady.