BRING JUSTICE TO INJUSTICE

Dear readers, I am a mother of my son that is being framed for a murder he did not commit. I need your help not only for my son but help for our community. The attorney has seen and stated that my son is being framed and violated his due process rights by withholding exculpatory evidence that would have exonerate alleged crime. The detective in the case withheld a eye-witness that stated she seen crime happen and also the vehicle and seen the body on sidewalk  several officers statements is different from each other of victim body. Officer states he observed the vehicle by a learn database query solely focus on the license plate reader camera and this vehicle matches the desription of the vehicle fleeing the scene given to him by eye-witness that they withheld that was evidence to my son innocence. And use two witnesses that have a criminal records and there statements are false. 

Officers states he canvassed the area for possible shell casings, additional blood or any evidence related to the incident. I was unable to find any additional evidence. In another statement an officer states he then held a perimeter spot until the Bio-waste company arrived to dispose of the blood on the sidewalk.

If we allow the powers that be to continually wrongfully utilize their authority, they will continue to treat people in this manner.

  Convictions Based on Lies: Defining Due Process Protection

Abstract

331
The corrupting impact of false testimony on the justice system is
profound and corrosive. The Supreme Court has long-since held that the
due process clause protects against convictions based on testimony that
the prosecutor knew or should have known was false.
Despite this precedent, courts have undermined that constitutional
protection by imposing demanding requirements of prosecution
knowledge, narrowing the definition of false testimony, and holding
defendants to an inappropriate standard of materiality. As a result, the
law does not provide adequate protection from conviction based on lies.
Courts must reinvigorate this area of the law. To provide
appropriate protection, the requirements a defendant must meet to
receive relief based on the use of false testimony must be clarified in the
following ways. First, the prosecution should be deemed to have
knowledge of the falsity not only if an individual prosecutor had actual
knowledge, but also if the prosecution did not meet its duty to discover
that the testimony was false or if the prosecution had knowledge of
contrary information possessed by other government actors and
therefore imputed to the prosecution. Second, the false testimony need
not rise to the level of perjury. Third, the courts should apply the more
lenient standard of materiality defined for false testimony cases by
asking how the revelation that the witness had testified falsely would
have influenced the jury in the initial trial rather than asking what would
have occurred had the witness simply given truthful testimony.
In addition, the courts should revisit the law that applies when a
defendant discovers that the prosecution unknowingly presented false
testimony. If the falsity was material, the courts should conclude that the
conviction violates due process despite the lack of prosecution. knowledge. Even if the courts do not extend due process protection to
the unknowing use of false testimony, they should grant the defendant a
new trial more readily than with other types of newly discovered
evidence. The corrupting impact of false testimony calls for at least this
level of protection. By reading this information shows me this is a repeated cycle of injustice that need people involved held accountable for there actions of harming people lives for gain. There trying to give my son 100 years for a crime he did not commit. We all together can make a change in injustice so that people will have justice thanks for your time and your patience!!!!

Your signatures will open the door to a investigation and that all the people involved be held responsible. 

Prosecutorial Misconduct.
When a conviction is obtained by the presentation of testimony known to the prosecuting authorities to have been perjured, due process is violated. The clause “cannot be deemed to be satisfied by mere notice and hearing if a State has contrived a conviction through the pretense of a trial which in truth is but used as a means of depriving a defendant of liberty through a deliberate deception of court and jury by the presentation of testimony known to be perjured. Such a contrivance . . . is as inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of justice as is the obtaining of a like result by intimidation.”

This line of reasoning has even resulted in the disclosure to the defense of information not relied upon by the prosecution during trial.1159 In Brady v. Maryland,1160 the Court held “that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” In that case, the prosecution had suppressed an extrajudicial confession of defendant’s accomplice that he had actually committed the murder.1161 “The heart of the holding in Brady is the prosecution’s suppression of evidence, in the face of a defense production request, where the evidence is favorable to the accused and is material either to guilt or to punishment. Important, then, are (a) suppression by the prosecution after a request by the defense, (b) the evidence’s favorable character for the defense, and (c) the materiality of the evidence.”1162

In United States v. Agurs,1163 the Court summarized and somewhat expanded the prosecutor’s obligation to disclose to the defense exculpatory evidence in his possession, even in the absence of a request, or upon a general request, by defendant. First, as noted, if the prosecutor knew or should have known that testimony given to the trial was perjured, the conviction must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.1164 Second, as established in Brady, if the defense specifically requested certain evidence and the prosecutor withheld it,1165 the conviction must be set aside if the suppressed evidence might have affected the outcome of the trial.1166 Third (the new law created in Agurs), if the defense did not make a request at all, or simply asked for “all Brady material” or for “anything exculpatory,” a duty resides in the prosecution to reveal to the defense obviously exculpatory evidence. Under this third prong, if the prosecutor did not reveal the relevant information, reversal of a conviction may be required, but only if the undisclosed evidence creates a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt.1167