David Blue 73 years old, a veteran 21 years in the NAVY,please sing my petition we need justice....
This petition had 661 supporters
This is important because this can happen to any one, we need to stop the injustice in U.S. courts, if the prosecutor does not have prove they can't make that, they can't build that, that is illegal, this is America, together we can do a lot. Stop the injusty in our country. We don't have a comunist country.....
David R. blue III , is illegal in Prison after all the violation that he have been for the Key West court and the judge in he's case, again this happen in Key West, Fl.
My husband had been wrongfully convicted,after six different trial (Pensacola and Key ), false police report, depositions and trial testimony that clearly showed he's innocent. The first trial was hung-jury,the jury was no allowed to hear any of the Key west allegation. The second trial was not guilty verdict,where judge Linda Noble allowed the jury to hear testimony from K.W.in Pensacola. The third trial was a mistrial. The fourth trial guilty.The District Court of Appeal vacated the sentence and issued a written opinion,Blue v. State of Florida. case#1D07-5940,because the attempted cross-examination related to the witnesses credibility .Appellant's constitutional protected right to a full cross-examination was denied. The fifth new trial was a nolle prosequi by State Attorney Tony Giraud,whose sworn duty as an officer of the court is to present a forceful case to the jury...not win at at all or any cost. This trial,along with the charges,should have been forever dismissed due to the Speedy trial violation by the court and state attorney that is evident from the face of the records. Prior to the sixth trial, the stated offered plea for time served....but upon exercising right to jury trial, which resulted in a guilty verdict.Appellant was given three(3) life sentences with nine(9)fifteen(15) years sentences running concurrent. Upon reversal he was under 2 count information ,and after rejecting time served plea for Battery,additional counts were added for malicious and vindictive purposes.He's bond went $50.000.00 in Pensacola to 1.4 million in K.W. for the same allegations, except it went from a being 2 count information to a 12 count information because he rejected the State's plea and chose to go to trial to prove he's innocence. The constitutional right to a jury trial embodies a profound judgment about the way in which the law should be enforced and justice administered. Appellant's exercise of right to jury trial should not have resulted in the malicious prosecution. The record clearly shows coached testimony that during direct examination the State posed a coaches question, promping one of the witness to respond..."I can't say that". An erroneous presemption on a disputed element of a crime render irrelevant the evidence on the issue because the jury may have relied upon presumption rather then upon that evidense.See Nadue v. People of the State of Illinois. 360 U.S. 264, 3 Ed.1217. There is a breakdown in the adversarial process where the innocence of a person is compromised for the sake of conviction; and in he's case. "He would hope that you would utilize the power of your office to uncover the injustice that was buried under fabricated rubbish" The listed case will give a view into the record: Case No.KW05087. I would like to thank you and those who have taken the time to look into this matter and not pre-prejudging him based on he's current status as a prisoner. Justice knows no end... and Except the end placed on it. Respectfully Submitted, Marisela Blue
please I need you to publish this, my husnband was really sick at Kendal Hospital in Miami, he need help. My husband is now at the RMC Lake Buttler, where they abusing prisoner every day, some are elder sick that dying everyday, they counting they for hours, they are sick people, please help, we need help.Thank you. God bless you and the world. MB
* * *
Criminal law—Sexual battery—Cross-examination—Defendant’s constitutionally protected right to full cross-examination was denied when trial court disallowed line of questioning about previous statements witness had made which would have provided a basis for defense counsel to argue to jury that witness had rnaleaio against defendant in past, and that her iiiflhiiony should therefore not be accepted—A defendant has constitutional right to pursue a full cross-examination to expose a witness’ bias or improper motive in testifying against defendant, even when questioning goes outside scope of prosecutor’s direct examination
DAVID R. BLUE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. 1st District. Case
No. 1D07-5940. Opinion filed April 14,2009. An appeal from the Circuit Court for
Escambia County. Linda Nobles, Judge. Counsel: Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender,
and David A. Davis, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Bill
McCollum, Attorney General, Tnsha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney General, and
Jennifer 3. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
(PER CURIAM.) The appellant challenges his conviction for capital sexual battery, contending that his cross-examination of the alleged victim was improperly limited by the trial court. During cross- examination, defense counsel attempted to question the witness about previous statements she had made which would have provided a basis for defense counsel to argue to the jury that the witness had made false, allegations against the appellant in the past, and that her present testimony should therefore not be accepted as true. The trial court disallowed the line of questioning, finding it to be outside the scope of the state’s direct examination.
A defendant has a constitutional right to pursue a full cross- examination to expose a witness’s bias or improper motive in
testifying against the defendant, even when the questioning goes outside the scope oftheprosecutor’s direct examination. See Olden v.
308(1974) Washington v. State, 737 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Because the attempted cross-examination related to the witness’s credibility the appellant’s constitutionally protected right to a full cross-examination was denied. Accordingly, as we caimot say that this error was harmless, the appellant’s conviction is reversed and the case is remanded. (BARFIELD, ALLEN, and LEWIS, JJ., CONCUR.)
* * * *
my husband case is back in Key West and the judge don't want to answer the motion, they cancel the rehiring they abusing my husband because they don't want him out and we don't have money to pay a good lawyer.
Today: marisela is counting on you
marisela Blue needs your help with “David Blue 70 years old, a veteran 20 years in the NAVY,”. Join marisela and 660 supporters today.